IMO the decision makes sense, the headlines about it are just purposefully inflammatory, since otherwise the case is kinda boring. Basically, the point is that a "boneless chicken wing" is a...
Exemplary
IMO the decision makes sense, the headlines about it are just purposefully inflammatory, since otherwise the case is kinda boring.
Basically, the point is that a "boneless chicken wing" is a specific thing - it's chicken breasts, cut into wing-like shapes, deep fried with batter, and sauced or flavored like chicken wings. It's not a literal guarantee that there are no bones.
So then the case is about whether or not the restaurant is liable for chicken breasts having bone shards in it. And in general, the answer is NO, under the "reasonable expectation test"
In applying this test, courts generally have ruled that as a matter of law a harmful substance which
is natural to the food at any stage in its preparation will not afford recovery under either a warranty or a negligence theory.
To me this is pretty much the same thing as the shell bits existing in oyster/clam strips, it should be expected by a reasonable person. I think it was a court case involving TGIFridays, which is...
To me this is pretty much the same thing as the shell bits existing in oyster/clam strips, it should be expected by a reasonable person. I think it was a court case involving TGIFridays, which is apparently a very popular place to sue.
Guess I'm unreasonable. I usually order boneless because I expect no bones. If I bit into one and got a bone, I would think they messed up. I'd also be annoyed. I don't care if they're wings or...
Guess I'm unreasonable. I usually order boneless because I expect no bones. If I bit into one and got a bone, I would think they messed up. I'd also be annoyed. I don't care if they're wings or not. Important part is that there's no bones.
That being said, I've never run into that situation. So I don't think it will be that big of a deal.
I don't think you're being unreasonable. This is for the sake of whether the restaurant (and apparently everyone in the supply chain) is financially liable for someone swallowing a bone, though. I...
I don't think you're being unreasonable. This is for the sake of whether the restaurant (and apparently everyone in the supply chain) is financially liable for someone swallowing a bone, though.
I think there are levels of expectation. I would be annoyed to find a bone in something I expected to be boneless, but that's as far as it would go, I wouldn't sue over it.
I'm still amazed that this person managed to swallow a shard of bone big enough to cause the damage it did. The bone being there in the first place and it being swallowed without getting noticed seem like a very unlikely combination.
Isn’t that pretty much what the ruling here is saying? Not that they can advertise bone-in pieces as boneless, but that restaurants do indeed sometimes mess up and doing so in a way like this...
If I bit into one and got a bone, I would think they messed up.
Isn’t that pretty much what the ruling here is saying? Not that they can advertise bone-in pieces as boneless, but that restaurants do indeed sometimes mess up and doing so in a way like this doesn’t rise to the level of legal liability.
But...all animals have bones in them. At least the ones we love to eat in the US do. Does this mean I should expect a bit of bone in my hamburger? Steak? Hotdog? Sushi? If you order the part of...
But...all animals have bones in them. At least the ones we love to eat in the US do. Does this mean I should expect a bit of bone in my hamburger? Steak? Hotdog? Sushi?
If you order the part of the animal that doesn't have bones in it, shouldn't you be able to shovel it into your face without fear that a little bone is going to lodge itself into your throat?
Yes. It's a reality of the stochastic nature of food preparation. Although "expect" is a strong word - you should understand that it's always a possibility. The vast majority of people will go...
Yes. It's a reality of the stochastic nature of food preparation. Although "expect" is a strong word - you should understand that it's always a possibility. The vast majority of people will go through their lives without finding a bone in their chicken nuggets.
Well then, if "boneless wings" is merely a cooking style, what the hell do we call chicken with no bones in it? De-boned chicken wings? Why and how is there a cooking style named that anyway? What...
Well then, if "boneless wings" is merely a cooking style, what the hell do we call chicken with no bones in it? De-boned chicken wings?
Why and how is there a cooking style named that anyway? What is the style of boneless wings that makes it unique enough to warrant a distinction, especially one that goes against common knowledge of the word "boneless?" Can't the cooking style just be given a less troublesome/confusing name?
Boneless wings are basically cuts of chicken breasts which are trimmed to be roughly wing-shaped, battered, and then sauced to mimic chicken wings. Which is what the Judge is getting at imo; when...
What is the style of boneless wings that makes it unique enough to warrant a distinction
Boneless wings are basically cuts of chicken breasts which are trimmed to be roughly wing-shaped, battered, and then sauced to mimic chicken wings. Which is what the Judge is getting at imo; when you get boneless wings, what you expect is exactly that: chicken breasts, cut into chunks, flavored as if they were chicken wings. Not a literal guarantee that there are no bones.
Are there sometimes bones in chicken breast pieces? It may be a stupid question, but I genuinely don't know or seemingly am confused by the terminology. I did a quick search and some of the...
Are there sometimes bones in chicken breast pieces? It may be a stupid question, but I genuinely don't know or seemingly am confused by the terminology. I did a quick search and some of the results say there are "boneless chicken breasts", but if you remove the bone doesn't that require separating the meat to the point where it's more like a nugget? Is it still a chicken breast then? Presumably if the piece is still all from the breast and not mixed together with various parts of the chicken that may come from anywhere other than the breast then it would be I guess.
So if there are "boneless chicken breasts", when you get boneless wings, isn't that exactly what you expect, boneless chicken breasts? The boneless in boneless chicken breasts isn't guaranteed? I would think it wouldn't be any different than how people would not expect foreign objects in most foods. It's not in the name, but if I get chicken nuggets, it's sort of a given that they're screwless. I wouldn't expect a screw in them. Of course bits and pieces fall off machinery that process food on occasion, and at the scale we operate at it's bound to happen even if it's rare. It doesn't rate to me that a judge would say that food can have screws in them. So I don't see how anyone would expect differently for something that literally says 'boneless' in the name/description of the product.
Yes I know that the foreign objects thing is different since those are not native to the chicken and bones are part of the chicken, but at a certain point when you've processed the food by breaking it apart to remove elements from the food, and then call it 'boneless', what is the difference between that and failing to prevent or remove foreign objects from it?
I think you're a bit confused, chicken breasts by colloquial definition are naturally "boneless" since they are cut off of the ribs. But there may always be stray bones, just due to the randomness...
I think you're a bit confused, chicken breasts by colloquial definition are naturally "boneless" since they are cut off of the ribs. But there may always be stray bones, just due to the randomness of food preparation. A "boneless chicken breast" is just marketing for people that don't know how chickens are cut.
The boneless in boneless chicken breasts isn't guaranteed?
Yep, exactly. Specifically, for legal arguments in the US, the legal test that is used is the "reasonable expectation test"
In applying this test, courts generally have ruled that as a matter of law a harmful substance which
is natural to the food at any stage in its preparation will not afford recovery under either a warranty or a negligence theory.
So bones in chicken cuts? Nope, chickens have bones.
Screws in chicken cuts? Yes, because chickens do not have screws naturally in them.
Basically, the point about the "food style" is that as a consumer, it's no different than chicken breasts. And restaurants are NOT liable for chicken breasts having bones in them.
I get the logic, and the part you quoted that says how courts treats it make sense. And yes I was confused in part because I thought chicken breasts are naturally "boneless" but when I read your...
I get the logic, and the part you quoted that says how courts treats it make sense. And yes I was confused in part because I thought chicken breasts are naturally "boneless" but when I read your comment it sounded like you were saying they may have bones in them, but I was misinterpreting what you meant by that exactly, because after I searched there were a bunch of results saying there are "bone-in chicken breasts". In any case I get what you mean now.
I added this part in an ninja-edit but I think it was after you started your reply.
Yes I know that the foreign objects thing is different since those are not native to the chicken and bones are part of the chicken, but at a certain point when you've processed the food by breaking it apart to remove elements from the food, and then call it 'boneless', what is the difference between that and failing to prevent or remove foreign objects from it?
To me that is where the reasonableness of it seems less straightforward, because of the amount of processing in food, it seems like the reasonable expectation for some people may shift the other way. It may be my ignorance to the details of food preparation and processing, but if it says 'boneless' for a food that I know originates from an animal with bones, then it would seem reasonable to me to assume there's some level of processing on that food that ensures the food is as boneless as it is screwless.
Well, that’s where it gets into cooking style vs guarantee. When I get a boneless chicken wing, my expectation is that it’s just pieces of breast meat. The bone it doesn’t have is the two pieces...
Well, that’s where it gets into cooking style vs guarantee. When I get a boneless chicken wing, my expectation is that it’s just pieces of breast meat. The bone it doesn’t have is the two pieces of bone that comprise most of a chicken wings mass.
And there really isn’t much processing with “boneless chicken wings”. Literally the only difference from a fried chicken breast is that it’s cut into smaller shapes to look like chicken wings. That’s not exactly a lot of gastronomical science that goes into cutting meat into smaller pieces.
Any and all chicken meat may have fragments of bones in them. Or indeed any part of their biology. That’s just how it goes. Chew on your food.
We get instructions on our toilet paper, but for this there's some kind of "well of course boneless wings might have bones" kind of argument. I'm not aiming this annoyance at you btw, just in...
We get instructions on our toilet paper, but for this there's some kind of "well of course boneless wings might have bones" kind of argument. I'm not aiming this annoyance at you btw, just in general. Society doesn't make sense sometimes.
I always assumed boneless meant no bones, no matter the cut of chicken.
Then why aren’t they called “chicken breast chunks” instead of “boneless wings”? Does that mean that “bonesless wings” can now only be reasonably considered chicken wings that have had the bones...
Then why aren’t they called “chicken breast chunks” instead of “boneless wings”? Does that mean that “bonesless wings” can now only be reasonably considered chicken wings that have had the bones removed (something that can’t really happen)?
This to me seems more like the “Real cheese” controversy where the company can call it “real cheese” despite not having any cheese because the company’s name is “Real Cheese” and they have a trademark. It feels deceptive and no amount of “diners shouldn’t assume it’s real cheese just because it’s called that” can make it feel not deceptive.
No, the judge (the Ohio Supreme Court actually)is just saying that chicken sometimes accidentally contains chicken bones, even when it's supposed to have the bones removed. And it's reasonable to...
No, the judge (the Ohio Supreme Court actually)is just saying that chicken sometimes accidentally contains chicken bones, even when it's supposed to have the bones removed. And it's reasonable to have something natural to the food product present. "Boneless" isn't a guarantee, "boneless wings" are a way of preparing chicken breast chunks in a particular manner. Any form of chicken could have bones in it, just like any oyster could have a bit of shell in there due to variations in the animal or accidents of preparation.
It's much more about the standard applied - Ohio differentiates between natural hazards like bones and shells in animals that have them and something like a screw or piece of plastic.
Also I've seen Real Butter ™ but never Real Cheese ™
Yeah I think part of what is confusing about this is that "Chicken Wings" are both a cut of chicken and a way of preparing chicken. Like, if you say "I'm going out for wings" most people that I...
Yeah I think part of what is confusing about this is that "Chicken Wings" are both a cut of chicken and a way of preparing chicken. Like, if you say "I'm going out for wings" most people that I know would assume a particular style of chicken - deep fried and coated in a sauce or seasoning mix. "Boneless Wings" aren't meant to imitate the wing cut so much as the classic buffalo wing preparation, but using a cut that generally doesn't have bones so that it's neater.
Tbh I really want some boneless wings after this post. I normally am a regular buffalo wing person, but I don't want to deal with bones.... Guess I know what's going on the grocery list.
Tbh I really want some boneless wings after this post. I normally am a regular buffalo wing person, but I don't want to deal with bones.... Guess I know what's going on the grocery list.
To clarify for folks, this is not "can you sell a boneless wing that actually is a regular wing 🍗" Instead, you ordered boneless wings, and found a piece of bone embedded in one of the chunks of...
To clarify for folks, this is not "can you sell a boneless wing that actually is a regular wing 🍗"
Instead, you ordered boneless wings, and found a piece of bone embedded in one of the chunks of chicken breast you were served. This is upsetting and the restaurant should possibly refund you the meal and make nice, and you can leave a review.
But the restaurant is not legally responsible for your medical expenses because they didn't warn you that processed chicken meat, which shouldn't have bones, might sometimes have a piece of bone in it due to processing. Also not responsible are the processor and the farm.
This is about accidental and incident bone encounters not deliberately unwanted bones.
Okay, farm I understand but why not the processor? Someone in the supply chain sold something as 'boneless' when it was not, in fact, boneless. The wing place, I get, are not going to bust open...
Also not responsible are the processor and the farm.
Okay, farm I understand but why not the processor? Someone in the supply chain sold something as 'boneless' when it was not, in fact, boneless. The wing place, I get, are not going to bust open the probably frozen wings to ensure no bones because that's unreasonable but the supplier sold them as 'no bones' and now the guy has medical bills because of bones.
Americans are litigious because of situations like this. All the companies are somehow able to say "Well, can't blame me" but he can't say that to the hospital and away with no debt despite it not being his fault that there were bones in his 'boneless' wings. If he can't just dismiss his medical bills from accidentally swallowing a bone in his boneless chicken, why should any of the companies involved be able to claim an accident annuls their involvement?
Because in a practical sense, no one could truly guarantee that whole pieces of chicken meat are completely free of bone fragments. You'd have to completely shred it to be sure. These are animals...
Because in a practical sense, no one could truly guarantee that whole pieces of chicken meat are completely free of bone fragments. You'd have to completely shred it to be sure. These are animals with individual variations that are cut apart by hand. They're not manufactured in a lab with uniform dimensions. Because of this, the USDA allows some number of small bone fragments (<0.4 inches in size) in samples of boneless chicken breasts. So, the courts have basically determined that while eating meat from animals that have bones, one is accepting some risk due to all these inherent factors.
The article does not state the size of the fragment though my assumption is the human throat is wider than half an inch. I can understand not wanting to write a book for some comment on an article...
The article does not state the size of the fragment though my assumption is the human throat is wider than half an inch. I can understand not wanting to write a book for some comment on an article but you roundly rejected their possible responsibility in your comment instead of stating that the USDA regulations could leave them open to a problem based on the size of the bone.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2024/2024-ohio-2787.pdf Here's the court documents. The bone wasn't stuck in the width of the throat but embedded in the side of it, and was about...
Here's the court documents. The bone wasn't stuck in the width of the throat but embedded in the side of it, and was about 5 cm, or just under 2 in. in length. In my comment, I was trying to clarify the confusion that seemed rampant about overall intent/meaning of the ruling, not provide detailed specifics about the case.
This was far from unanimous, though I'd have to read the full decision and dissent to have a stronger opinion, but they didn't overturn lower court decisions, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld them.
I'm personally stunned that he cuts his boneless wing in 3 pieces and still manages to swallow a 5cm bone, without catching it while chewing. (Tbh that doesn't feel super reasonable to me, but I'm not litigating it)
*The court records describe it as 1 3/8 in long or 3.5cm. The medical records said 5cm. 乁( •_• )ㄏ
Well, reading that doc just made it worse. GFS handled it and the store prepared, not from frozen, so not only did the plaintiff cut the chicken wing into thirds (the monster) but the restaurant...
Well, reading that doc just made it worse. GFS handled it and the store prepared, not from frozen, so not only did the plaintiff cut the chicken wing into thirds (the monster) but the restaurant and the processor all cut it too - now I'm even more entrenched in my opinion, thanks!
But, regardless, maybe this can go down as the anti-corporate version of the McDonald's Coffee story where every layman points out how stupid corps are and such.
Regardless, homie will hopefully chew his food fully before swallowing in the future.
It seems that Ohio uses the Natural vs Artificial standard in combination with the "reasonable care" standard and thus this loses due to being a natural expectation. This doesn't seem to be as...
It seems that Ohio uses the Natural vs Artificial standard in combination with the "reasonable care" standard and thus this loses due to being a natural expectation. This doesn't seem to be as common elsewhere.
The Ohio Supreme Court in its majority thinks this combined standard is fine and shouldn't be changed, but it was a 4-3 decision and you sound like you'd agree with the dissent. (Which if nothing else said that a jury should hear it )
Big corporations suck, but I also don't think the restaurant or the cook should be responsible.
Either way, I wasn't trying to convince you of the rightness of the decision, just explain it.
I get what you're explaining and appreciate the throughness. There were certainly a few key points I missed and weren't in the article. I wouldn't hold the cook liable for bone, at least not...
I get what you're explaining and appreciate the throughness. There were certainly a few key points I missed and weren't in the article.
I wouldn't hold the cook liable for bone, at least not financially, that's what the business has insurance for.
Judiciaries, huh? What do we even keep them around for...
What befuddles me about this is that that argument works in spite of the naming. Chicken breast with a bone shard? Sure, no one promised "boneless" even if the cut is understood to be boneless. If...
What befuddles me about this is that that argument works in spite of the naming. Chicken breast with a bone shard? Sure, no one promised "boneless" even if the cut is understood to be boneless. If someone sold "boneless chicken breast", then I'd understand that to mean that they made double triple extra sure there's no bones in there, and accept responsibility for that.
Boneless chicken wings? Sorry, but to my mind they made exactly that promise, even if all they meant to say was "chicken wings, but made from fillet meat"
I have very often seen breast explicitly labeled “boneless” in grocery stores as a way to distinguish it from bone-in/split breast still on the rib cage. There’s never been an implication that it...
I have very often seen breast explicitly labeled “boneless” in grocery stores as a way to distinguish it from bone-in/split breast still on the rib cage. There’s never been an implication that it is 100% absolutely guaranteed to be free from any shards; it’s a near impossible guarantee for processing a natural, irregular product. Same as boneless/deboned fish fillets, where it’s expected that occasionally a bone or fragment gets missed.
I feel I must be profoundly ignorant of American cooking, because I would expect them to be made from deboned chicken wings. Are American chicken wings not even made from wings?
Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph T Deters said: "A diner reading ‘boneless wings’ on a menu would no more believe that the restaurant was warranting the absence of bones in the items than believe that the items were made from chicken wings, just as a person eating ‘chicken fingers’ would know that he had not been served fingers."
I feel I must be profoundly ignorant of American cooking, because I would expect them to be made from deboned chicken wings. Are American chicken wings not even made from wings?
Boneless chicken wings are generally made with chicken breast, because that bit is cheap and (generally) naturally boneless. You can't really de-bone an actual chicken wing for this purpose, as...
Boneless chicken wings are generally made with chicken breast, because that bit is cheap and (generally) naturally boneless. You can't really de-bone an actual chicken wing for this purpose, as the meat would fall apart without the bone and thus be nigh-impossible to have as finger food. Normal, non-boneless chicken wings are typically actual wings.
Edit: I have been corrected. Boneless chicken wings are not actually quite the same as chicken nuggets.
It seems ludicrous on its face, but I think of it like this: If I buy a fish dish, I expect that a reasonable effort has been made to debone it. But there's no guarantee that they found every little pin bone along its length. Similarly, when they're grinding the chicken slurry to form into the breaded and fried lumps of chicken aggregate they call "boneless wings" sometimes there are bits of bone in there. Much like a fishbone it's an unpleasant discovery, but it's an inherent fact of the dish you chose to order.
Edit: I have been corrected. Boneless chicken wings are not actually quite the same as chicken nuggets.
IMO the decision makes sense, the headlines about it are just purposefully inflammatory, since otherwise the case is kinda boring.
Basically, the point is that a "boneless chicken wing" is a specific thing - it's chicken breasts, cut into wing-like shapes, deep fried with batter, and sauced or flavored like chicken wings. It's not a literal guarantee that there are no bones.
So then the case is about whether or not the restaurant is liable for chicken breasts having bone shards in it. And in general, the answer is NO, under the "reasonable expectation test"
https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3008&context=umlr
Chickens do have bones in them, in the end.
To me this is pretty much the same thing as the shell bits existing in oyster/clam strips, it should be expected by a reasonable person. I think it was a court case involving TGIFridays, which is apparently a very popular place to sue.
Guess I'm unreasonable. I usually order boneless because I expect no bones. If I bit into one and got a bone, I would think they messed up. I'd also be annoyed. I don't care if they're wings or not. Important part is that there's no bones.
That being said, I've never run into that situation. So I don't think it will be that big of a deal.
I don't think you're being unreasonable. This is for the sake of whether the restaurant (and apparently everyone in the supply chain) is financially liable for someone swallowing a bone, though.
I think there are levels of expectation. I would be annoyed to find a bone in something I expected to be boneless, but that's as far as it would go, I wouldn't sue over it.
I'm still amazed that this person managed to swallow a shard of bone big enough to cause the damage it did. The bone being there in the first place and it being swallowed without getting noticed seem like a very unlikely combination.
Isn’t that pretty much what the ruling here is saying? Not that they can advertise bone-in pieces as boneless, but that restaurants do indeed sometimes mess up and doing so in a way like this doesn’t rise to the level of legal liability.
But...all animals have bones in them. At least the ones we love to eat in the US do. Does this mean I should expect a bit of bone in my hamburger? Steak? Hotdog? Sushi?
If you order the part of the animal that doesn't have bones in it, shouldn't you be able to shovel it into your face without fear that a little bone is going to lodge itself into your throat?
Yes. It's a reality of the stochastic nature of food preparation. Although "expect" is a strong word - you should understand that it's always a possibility. The vast majority of people will go through their lives without finding a bone in their chicken nuggets.
Chewing is important!
Well then, if "boneless wings" is merely a cooking style, what the hell do we call chicken with no bones in it? De-boned chicken wings?
Why and how is there a cooking style named that anyway? What is the style of boneless wings that makes it unique enough to warrant a distinction, especially one that goes against common knowledge of the word "boneless?" Can't the cooking style just be given a less troublesome/confusing name?
Boneless wings are basically cuts of chicken breasts which are trimmed to be roughly wing-shaped, battered, and then sauced to mimic chicken wings. Which is what the Judge is getting at imo; when you get boneless wings, what you expect is exactly that: chicken breasts, cut into chunks, flavored as if they were chicken wings. Not a literal guarantee that there are no bones.
Are there sometimes bones in chicken breast pieces? It may be a stupid question, but I genuinely don't know or seemingly am confused by the terminology. I did a quick search and some of the results say there are "boneless chicken breasts", but if you remove the bone doesn't that require separating the meat to the point where it's more like a nugget? Is it still a chicken breast then? Presumably if the piece is still all from the breast and not mixed together with various parts of the chicken that may come from anywhere other than the breast then it would be I guess.
So if there are "boneless chicken breasts", when you get boneless wings, isn't that exactly what you expect, boneless chicken breasts? The boneless in boneless chicken breasts isn't guaranteed? I would think it wouldn't be any different than how people would not expect foreign objects in most foods. It's not in the name, but if I get chicken nuggets, it's sort of a given that they're screwless. I wouldn't expect a screw in them. Of course bits and pieces fall off machinery that process food on occasion, and at the scale we operate at it's bound to happen even if it's rare. It doesn't rate to me that a judge would say that food can have screws in them. So I don't see how anyone would expect differently for something that literally says 'boneless' in the name/description of the product.
Yes I know that the foreign objects thing is different since those are not native to the chicken and bones are part of the chicken, but at a certain point when you've processed the food by breaking it apart to remove elements from the food, and then call it 'boneless', what is the difference between that and failing to prevent or remove foreign objects from it?
I think you're a bit confused, chicken breasts by colloquial definition are naturally "boneless" since they are cut off of the ribs. But there may always be stray bones, just due to the randomness of food preparation. A "boneless chicken breast" is just marketing for people that don't know how chickens are cut.
Yep, exactly. Specifically, for legal arguments in the US, the legal test that is used is the "reasonable expectation test"
So bones in chicken cuts? Nope, chickens have bones.
Screws in chicken cuts? Yes, because chickens do not have screws naturally in them.
Basically, the point about the "food style" is that as a consumer, it's no different than chicken breasts. And restaurants are NOT liable for chicken breasts having bones in them.
I get the logic, and the part you quoted that says how courts treats it make sense. And yes I was confused in part because I thought chicken breasts are naturally "boneless" but when I read your comment it sounded like you were saying they may have bones in them, but I was misinterpreting what you meant by that exactly, because after I searched there were a bunch of results saying there are "bone-in chicken breasts". In any case I get what you mean now.
I added this part in an ninja-edit but I think it was after you started your reply.
To me that is where the reasonableness of it seems less straightforward, because of the amount of processing in food, it seems like the reasonable expectation for some people may shift the other way. It may be my ignorance to the details of food preparation and processing, but if it says 'boneless' for a food that I know originates from an animal with bones, then it would seem reasonable to me to assume there's some level of processing on that food that ensures the food is as boneless as it is screwless.
Well, that’s where it gets into cooking style vs guarantee. When I get a boneless chicken wing, my expectation is that it’s just pieces of breast meat. The bone it doesn’t have is the two pieces of bone that comprise most of a chicken wings mass.
And there really isn’t much processing with “boneless chicken wings”. Literally the only difference from a fried chicken breast is that it’s cut into smaller shapes to look like chicken wings. That’s not exactly a lot of gastronomical science that goes into cutting meat into smaller pieces.
Any and all chicken meat may have fragments of bones in them. Or indeed any part of their biology. That’s just how it goes. Chew on your food.
We get instructions on our toilet paper, but for this there's some kind of "well of course boneless wings might have bones" kind of argument. I'm not aiming this annoyance at you btw, just in general. Society doesn't make sense sometimes.
I always assumed boneless meant no bones, no matter the cut of chicken.
Then why aren’t they called “chicken breast chunks” instead of “boneless wings”? Does that mean that “bonesless wings” can now only be reasonably considered chicken wings that have had the bones removed (something that can’t really happen)?
This to me seems more like the “Real cheese” controversy where the company can call it “real cheese” despite not having any cheese because the company’s name is “Real Cheese” and they have a trademark. It feels deceptive and no amount of “diners shouldn’t assume it’s real cheese just because it’s called that” can make it feel not deceptive.
No, the judge (the Ohio Supreme Court actually)is just saying that chicken sometimes accidentally contains chicken bones, even when it's supposed to have the bones removed. And it's reasonable to have something natural to the food product present. "Boneless" isn't a guarantee, "boneless wings" are a way of preparing chicken breast chunks in a particular manner. Any form of chicken could have bones in it, just like any oyster could have a bit of shell in there due to variations in the animal or accidents of preparation.
It's much more about the standard applied - Ohio differentiates between natural hazards like bones and shells in animals that have them and something like a screw or piece of plastic.
Also I've seen Real Butter ™ but never Real Cheese ™
Yeah I think part of what is confusing about this is that "Chicken Wings" are both a cut of chicken and a way of preparing chicken. Like, if you say "I'm going out for wings" most people that I know would assume a particular style of chicken - deep fried and coated in a sauce or seasoning mix. "Boneless Wings" aren't meant to imitate the wing cut so much as the classic buffalo wing preparation, but using a cut that generally doesn't have bones so that it's neater.
Tbh I really want some boneless wings after this post. I normally am a regular buffalo wing person, but I don't want to deal with bones.... Guess I know what's going on the grocery list.
To clarify for folks, this is not "can you sell a boneless wing that actually is a regular wing 🍗"
Instead, you ordered boneless wings, and found a piece of bone embedded in one of the chunks of chicken breast you were served. This is upsetting and the restaurant should possibly refund you the meal and make nice, and you can leave a review.
But the restaurant is not legally responsible for your medical expenses because they didn't warn you that processed chicken meat, which shouldn't have bones, might sometimes have a piece of bone in it due to processing. Also not responsible are the processor and the farm.
This is about accidental and incident bone encounters not deliberately unwanted bones.
Heh.
Okay, farm I understand but why not the processor? Someone in the supply chain sold something as 'boneless' when it was not, in fact, boneless. The wing place, I get, are not going to bust open the probably frozen wings to ensure no bones because that's unreasonable but the supplier sold them as 'no bones' and now the guy has medical bills because of bones.
Americans are litigious because of situations like this. All the companies are somehow able to say "Well, can't blame me" but he can't say that to the hospital and away with no debt despite it not being his fault that there were bones in his 'boneless' wings. If he can't just dismiss his medical bills from accidentally swallowing a bone in his boneless chicken, why should any of the companies involved be able to claim an accident annuls their involvement?
Because in a practical sense, no one could truly guarantee that whole pieces of chicken meat are completely free of bone fragments. You'd have to completely shred it to be sure. These are animals with individual variations that are cut apart by hand. They're not manufactured in a lab with uniform dimensions. Because of this, the USDA allows some number of small bone fragments (<0.4 inches in size) in samples of boneless chicken breasts. So, the courts have basically determined that while eating meat from animals that have bones, one is accepting some risk due to all these inherent factors.
The article does not state the size of the fragment though my assumption is the human throat is wider than half an inch. I can understand not wanting to write a book for some comment on an article but you roundly rejected their possible responsibility in your comment instead of stating that the USDA regulations could leave them open to a problem based on the size of the bone.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2024/2024-ohio-2787.pdf
Here's the court documents. The bone wasn't stuck in the width of the throat but embedded in the side of it, and was about 5 cm, or just under 2 in. in length. In my comment, I was trying to clarify the confusion that seemed rampant about overall intent/meaning of the ruling, not provide detailed specifics about the case.
This was far from unanimous, though I'd have to read the full decision and dissent to have a stronger opinion, but they didn't overturn lower court decisions, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld them.
I'm personally stunned that he cuts his boneless wing in 3 pieces and still manages to swallow a 5cm bone, without catching it while chewing. (Tbh that doesn't feel super reasonable to me, but I'm not litigating it)
*The court records describe it as 1 3/8 in long or 3.5cm. The medical records said 5cm. 乁( •_• )ㄏ
Well, reading that doc just made it worse. GFS handled it and the store prepared, not from frozen, so not only did the plaintiff cut the chicken wing into thirds (the monster) but the restaurant and the processor all cut it too - now I'm even more entrenched in my opinion, thanks!
But, regardless, maybe this can go down as the anti-corporate version of the McDonald's Coffee story where every layman points out how stupid corps are and such.
Regardless, homie will hopefully chew his food fully before swallowing in the future.
It seems that Ohio uses the Natural vs Artificial standard in combination with the "reasonable care" standard and thus this loses due to being a natural expectation. This doesn't seem to be as common elsewhere.
The Ohio Supreme Court in its majority thinks this combined standard is fine and shouldn't be changed, but it was a 4-3 decision and you sound like you'd agree with the dissent. (Which if nothing else said that a jury should hear it )
Big corporations suck, but I also don't think the restaurant or the cook should be responsible.
Either way, I wasn't trying to convince you of the rightness of the decision, just explain it.
I get what you're explaining and appreciate the throughness. There were certainly a few key points I missed and weren't in the article.
I wouldn't hold the cook liable for bone, at least not financially, that's what the business has insurance for.
Judiciaries, huh? What do we even keep them around for...
What befuddles me about this is that that argument works in spite of the naming. Chicken breast with a bone shard? Sure, no one promised "boneless" even if the cut is understood to be boneless. If someone sold "boneless chicken breast", then I'd understand that to mean that they made double triple extra sure there's no bones in there, and accept responsibility for that.
Boneless chicken wings? Sorry, but to my mind they made exactly that promise, even if all they meant to say was "chicken wings, but made from fillet meat"
I have very often seen breast explicitly labeled “boneless” in grocery stores as a way to distinguish it from bone-in/split breast still on the rib cage. There’s never been an implication that it is 100% absolutely guaranteed to be free from any shards; it’s a near impossible guarantee for processing a natural, irregular product. Same as boneless/deboned fish fillets, where it’s expected that occasionally a bone or fragment gets missed.
What @cdb said, but also, ultimately because the court said so in this case.
And yeah it does demonstrate the inequities of the system.
A patently stupid thing to do.
It breaks down the trust that products are what they are advertised as being.
That can only lead to decreased sales.
But boneless wings were never actually wings. Misleading advertising from the very start.
"Chicken Tenders with sauce" never had quite the same ring to it.
Besides, the bone-less wings have less bones than standard wings, so is it really a lie?
boneless* wings**
/* May contain bones.
** May not contain wing meat.
That should be fixed too.
I feel I must be profoundly ignorant of American cooking, because I would expect them to be made from deboned chicken wings. Are American chicken wings not even made from wings?
The keyword is "warranting". Basically, the deliberation was whether or not "bonelesss" was a guarantee of a lack of bones.
Boneless wings aren't, they're often just tenders
They're chicken nuggets predipped in sauce. Arguably they shouldn't be able to call them wings at all.
Boneless chicken wings are generally made with chicken breast, because that bit is cheap and (generally) naturally boneless. You can't really de-bone an actual chicken wing for this purpose, as the meat would fall apart without the bone and thus be nigh-impossible to have as finger food. Normal, non-boneless chicken wings are typically actual wings.
It seems ludicrous on its face, but I think of it like this: If I buy a fish dish, I expect that a reasonable effort has been made to debone it. But there's no guarantee that they found every little pin bone along its length. Similarly, when they're grinding the chicken slurry to form into the breaded and fried lumps of chicken aggregate they call "boneless wings" sometimes there are bits of bone in there. Much like a fishbone it's an unpleasant discovery, but it's an inherent fact of the dish you chose to order.Edit: I have been corrected. Boneless chicken wings are not actually quite the same as chicken nuggets.
I believe "wings", in this context, are usually whole chicken pieces, not recon'd parts slurry.
Ok, now I'm back to baffled. If they're chunks of chicken breast, how are there bones anywhere near the process?
I assume it's just a freak accident where the butcher cut a bit too far and grabbed some of the ribs.