Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones – Ohio Supreme Court | Hacker News Reader

Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones – Ohio Supreme Court

apnews.com

73 pointspm222283 comments

The decision, since the AP can't be bothered. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2023/2023-...

Thanks for posting this. Decision with the dissent is here: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2024/2024-O...

I don't ever recall reading such an angry dissent, even in more politically charged cases. (I do think the dissent is correct on the merits, but sheesh.)

> The record reflects that the boneless chicken wing consumed by Berkheimer was prepared from a boneless, skinless, chicken breast

What a strange thing to write. The record reflects that it was clearly not prepared from a boneless, skinless, chicken breast

At the time of me writing this, none of the comments address the real issue here. The guy who swallowed a 5cm chicken bone was asking for 12 of his fellow citizens to take a look at the facts and decide whether it was reasonable to expect these specific boneless chicken wings to not contain a 5cm bone.

The Ohio Supreme Court said no, you can’t even ask that question, because you are ridiculous for thinking that “boneless” chicken wings means there are no bones.

My wife grew up in Ohio, and she is constantly telling me about some great thing about Ohio from when she was a kid. And every single F’ing time I type it into Google and discover that this thing no longer exists. Every time.

My sister currently lives in Ohio and tells me about all the backsliding going on. Her kids are just about ready to leave for college (out of state), and she’ll tell anyone that listens that, if you have the choice, you are insane to raise young children in Ohio. And she’s a Republican.

Way to go Ohio https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=thu8DWsirJo

> My sister currently lives in Ohio and tells me about all the backsliding going on. Her kids are just about ready to leave for college (out of state), and she’ll tell anyone that listens that, if you have the choice, you are insane to raise young children in Ohio. And she’s a Republican.

Does she express any sense of personal responsibility or remorse? Republicans have had a gerrymandered supermajority in the state senate, not to mention the governorship, for well over a decade.

I think this is extremely weird. If someone is allergic to nuts, and they’re being served ‘nut free’ food that has some traces of nuts in, and that sends them to the emergency room people would lose their minds.

If I were served boneless wings, and I found a 5cm bone in there it’d be far outside the bounds of expectation.

This is a lot more akin to finding a piece of a cherry/olive pit in a jar of pitted fruit. A reasonable attempt was made with natural products in play.

I agree. This type of article is internet forum argument fuel because the area is such grey, arguments on both size. Reminds me of the lady who got burned by McDonalds coffee like, bro, you spill hot coffee on you then you might get a burnt. She won that one. McDonalds keeps it hot for sterilization/safety. I'm guessing also there is diminishing returns to bone removal so removing 99.9% is much easier to do than removing 99.999999 percent. So it's like, do you do something that harms 1 in a million but makes it way cheaper or way safer for the rest, or avoid that harm but now people pay the price. My main thing here, equivalent to "bro why'd you spill coffee on yourself" is "bro, do you chew your food, because someone who chews their food would know there's a bone in it"

> Reminds me of the lady who got burned by McDonalds coffee like, bro, you spill hot coffee on you then you might get a burnt. She won that one. McDonalds keeps it hot for sterilization/safety.

That's a pretty misleading description; they lost that case because they knowingly kept their coffee far above a safe temperature to serve, there had been a string of previous cases proving that it was obviously unsafe, and their negligence landed a woman in the ER (followed by being in the hospital for over a week, followed by permanent disfigurement and being partially disabled for two years).

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... )

I think it is amazing you can get third degree burns from a bunch of 80-90 degree coffee dropped in your lap though. I would not have expected that.

80-90 Fahrenheit is barely warm. It was 80-90C, which is just a hair under boiling and will absolutely do serious damage.

That's not serving temperature - that's brewing temperature. You have to work to keep coffee that hot, it's not something that happens passively.

IIRC it was more like 120-130 degrees. McDonalds chose a higher temperature under the assumption it would cool a bit on the trip home, and be a normal temperature by the time you drank it.

Edit - it's in the Wikipedia link:

> Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment.

In case it's not at the top of anyone's mind, water boils at 212 F / 100 C.

> Reminds me of the lady who got burned by McDonalds coffee

It's really amazing to me how long that bit of corporate propaganda has managed to survive. Especially in the internet age. I know the narrative demonizing that poor woman was pushed very aggressively, but 30 years is a long time. Not many campaigns can hope to be so successful while being so wrong. I get the feeling that even 30 years from now people will still be repeating the same lies.

My concern is not with food that has bones in, it is with labelling such food as boneless.

If you cannot guarantee your food doesn’t have 2 inch bones in, you should be unable to label it boneless.

Only if this jar of pitted fruit was called an ‘oliveless jar of cherries’. Most people would be highly surprised to find olives in something that goes out of it’s way to indicate it doesn’t contain any.

I could have been more clear but you misread. Olives are fruit, too.

An unpitted olive in a jar of pitted olives.

An unpitted cherry in a jar of pitted cherries.

I'd never heard of boneless wings before this, but having had my share of wings I don't think I'd expect them to be 100% bone-free—I'd expect them to be devoid of the large bones that make up half of regular wings and make them difficult to eat. An occasional smaller bone is a different story and not something I'd ever be confident of avoiding in any piece of meat or fish.

I guess I see it similarly to seedless watermelon. The large annoying seeds are (mostly) gone, but there are plenty of small white ones.

I _have_ eaten boneless wings many times and I would be extremely surprised if a "boneless" wing had any bones in it, at all.

The difference between that and a seedless watermelon is that watermelon seeds don't send a man to the emergency room.

A 2" bone won't either, if you chew your food properly like an adult?

Could cut the your tongue or the inside of your mouth, though. Chicken bones are very prone to be broken into sharp pieces.

Boneless wings are typically battered deboned chicken breast; in this incident, they were.

Yep, I found that in the ruling. And a 1.5 inch bone in a deboned chicken breast is rare, but not unheard of.

The weirdest thing about this incident isn't that the bone was in the boneless chicken breast, it's that the bone managed to make it through the kitchen's cubing process and the diner's cutting the chunk of chicken into 3 bites.

So, boneless chicken wings are neither wings nor boneless?

Why are manufacturers givn so much latitude?

Boneless wings are a euphemism for a heavily battered, more expensive chicken nugget, which won't typically have any bones because of the way they are processed.

From the ruling:

> The record reflects that the boneless chicken wing consumed by Berkheimer was prepared from a boneless, skinless, chicken breast, which was manufactured by Wayne Farms and subsequently sold to REKM by GFS. It is undisputed that REKM prepared the chicken dish by cutting one of the chicken breasts into approximately one-inch sized cubes that were later fried. The chicken meat was not ground or further manipulated prior to serving; rather, the final product was "essentially[,] a breaded and fried piece of chicken breast."

Sounds like these aren't that kind of boneless wing.

Chicken nuggets are typically ground or minced chicken formed into a nugget shape before being battered and fried. “Boneless” wings and the like are usually whole pieces of breast meat, in my experience.

They’re more expensive, and rightfully so, than a chicken nugget because they’re whole pieces, not reclaimed scraps from processing chickens.

Boneless wings are processed differently than chicken nuggets.

It's way easier to eliminate nuts being in or near the production line of a food product than it is to remove every single bone from something that inherently has bones, but even then:

> The Nut Free labeling means the product does not contain nuts. However, it doesn't guarantee the snack was made inside a dedicated nut free facility. Whether or not the nut free product was created on the same production line as a non nut free snack, is unknown.

https://www.nutfree.org/different-kinds-of-nut-free-labeling...

the label doesn't mean the process it was made was completely immune from contamination.

In the UK we've labelled things made in factories that also handle nuts since forever. I assume it's an EU thing that we never got rid of.

Food products in the US have the same labelling.

So don't label them as "boneless" then? :)

It is only "far outside the bounds of expectation" if you have no world model of how your food is actually produced.

It's outside bounds of expectation if you know how language works. People expect products labelled "boneless" to have no bones. Words mean things.

Well, I'd also expects "boneless wings" to be wings, but apparently that is not true, either.

Product naming has become an area where "meaning" is no longer a thing. It's the sad reality where advertisement has replaced communication.

I have no clue what ‘boneless wings’ are, having never seen or heard of them before. But I’m entirely confident about what ‘boneless’ means.

Boneless (adjective): without a bone

Apparently a lot of people feel that if I were to go into a store in the US and order a boneless chicken, I should expect it to have bones in. That doesn’t compute for me.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/e4/e417a00a1d7c6f84ec4b88cad9d2...

Two totally different scenarios.

Who's allergic to bones? Not just chokes on them, but truly has an allergy?

From the actual decision:

> According to Berkheimer, he estimated the chicken bone was between one and one-half inches and two inches, but he had no reason to dispute the doctor's note describing the chicken bone as five centimeters long.

I just found this funny because it makes it sound as if Berkheimer believes 5 cm is much bigger than 1.5 to 2 inches when 5 centimeter is just about 2 inches.

How do you properly chew your food and not notice a 2" bone? Honestly, that's the most interesting part of the article.

This was my first thought. I don't want to victim blame here, but more curious how in the world this person eats? Is he just swallowing them whole? I have so many questions.

I am curious about the mechanics. But also, in order for victim blaming to take place, one has to actually be a victim. I'm not sure they were in this case, given the circumstances. It seems the courts have also come to that conclusion.

Would this be an issue if we called a spade a spade? These aren’t boneless wings, they’re chickie nuggies :)

Is it legal for my McNuggets to contain bones?

Searching for a conclusion to Alexei Stolfat, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/9:2020cv816... https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/36253498/Stolfat_v_... - it was eventually withdrawn. "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Dismissing Action without prejudice; Closing Case"

It appears "yes, it is legal" however "if you are injured from it, this becomes a personal injury issue."

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/QAD%20645...

If I read this correctly, for "size reduced meat" the tolerance for bone or bone like material is 0.40 inches in length is a "sample retained" and other situations its listed as a defect. There is an amount of tolerable defects based on the sample size.

So yes, it is legal for McNuggets to contain bones.

It's probably legal for your McNuggets to not even contain chicken. God alone knows what a bone would be from if you found one.

Hope this doesn't affect my boneless tofu

Lol. That reminds me of my first ever misadventure at KFC in .de around 2002, when I've only been used to Chicken Mc Nuggets by McD, and never been to a KFC before. (There weren't many of them in Germany at the time, anyways)

Gone there because a few friends wanted to, couldn't even believe I didn't know KFC. Got some, took a first bite... CRUNCH OUCH! WTF?!

I really expected them to be boneless.

I guess it's like being upset seedless watermelon still occasionally have seeds. It basically means "to best of our ability" on an industrial scale, not 100% free.

But boneless wings are basically just chicken nuggets - cuts of chicken off the bone or scraps of chicken melded together and breaded. It's not like they figured out how to raise a chicken with no bones.

The opportunity for quality control on "boneless wings" is much greater than that of seedless watermelon, and the consequences of getting it wrong are potentially much worse.

Unexpected watermelon seeds are not likely to put you in the hospital with injury and illness, as was the fate of the affected patron.

I suppose they could, if you're allergic. People are allergic to other kinds of seeds.

Why would someone allergic to watermelon be eating watermelon?

well someone asked this Q on Quora

https://www.quora.com/Why-am-I-allergic-to-watermelon-seeds-...

I don't think it is. Nobody is supposed to be removing the seeds from "seedless" watermelons, but there is somebody whose job it is to remove the bones from "boneless" chicken. Ar bare minimum somebody screwed up.

I'd say it's more like saying "sometimes you're going to get served which is undercooked". Which is true. But if it makes you sick, I think you have a legitimate claim for damages.

Would you like some of our Asbestos free Ice Cream? During manufacturing we remove Asbestos "to best of our ability" on an industrial scale!

I think you meant...

Would you like some of our Asbestos free Baby Powder? During manufacturing we remove Asbestos "to best of our ability" on an industrial scale!

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

That's actually how it works, in the real world, with contaminants. Cocoa beans can contain up to 10mg of rodent poop per pound without any consequences.

https://www.fda.gov/food/current-good-manufacturing-practice...

https://www.livescience.com/55459-fda-acceptable-food-defect...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in...

(And this case isn't even a contaminant; it's part of the ingredient that was not removed.)

10 mg per pound is such a weird ratio.

This is like this object which is 5 feet and 12 mm long.

Sure, or when you buy a "red car" and it turns up bright blue.

Oh wait... perhaps descriptive words should actually be descriptive? ;)

Well this is going to be an upcoming episode of Food Theory

Insane ruling. Words have meaning. It’s at worst, negligent and dangerous, at best fraud and false advertising.

I think calling breaded chicken breast a "wing" is the more clear issue. If I sold "bone-ful chicken breast" which was actually just a chicken wing, I'd expect to get in some kind of trouble. I don't understand why it's accepted in the other direction.

I could accept 'boneless' to mean 'not necessarily free of ground up bone mixed amid the chicken that is too small to cause issues', but 'not necessarily free of solid pieces of bone' is absurd.

Words stopped to have meaning when they redefined literally as figuratively.

Words don't mean things is an interesting legal precedent.

If this is mislabeled, it is mislabeled as a wing.

Boneless wings are not defined by the USDA.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/PoultrySt...

    §70.231 Boneless poultry breasts, drumsticks, thighs, and legs -- A Quality.
    The standards of quality contained in this section are applicable to raw poultry products labeled as ready-to-cook "boneless (kind) breasts," "boneless (kind) drumsticks," "boneless (kind) thighs," "boneless (kind) legs," or with words of similar import. The product shall consist of poultry meat of the kind specified (such as chicken or turkey).

    (a) The breasts, drumsticks, thighs, or legs shall be cut as specified in AMS §70.210(f) (1), (2), (4), (5), or (6), respectively.

    (b) The bone or bones shall be removed in a neat manner without undue mutilation of adjacent muscle.

You'll note the lack of definition of "boneless wings" and that boneless means removing of the bones rather than creating some amount of meat that lacks bones.

Boneless wings are actually breast meat rather than wing meat ( https://apnews.com/article/super-bowl-boneless-wings-culinar... ).

Words mean things... but there are no words that mean things with the definition of "boneless wing" according to the USDA.

This isn't new, nor is it interesting. Same thing with fish filets for years.

And it’s also more common in budget cut of chicken. Chicken from Aldi? Lots of bone fragments. Foster farms? Can’t recall having any.

Yep, not uncommon in some cuts of beef and pork too.

Are you serious? I’ve never in my life found a bone fragment in chicken breast.

I've found bone fragments in pork, beef, and chicken. They are usually cheaper brands and usually specific cuts. In chicken breasts you will most often find the bone fragment attached where it would meet the wishbone or breast bone.

You must not shop at Aldi / other discount grocery stores buying house brand discount chicken...

Fish bones are different from chicken bones.

"may have bones" would be a more accurate headline, in line with the tone of the ruling. "may" warns of the possibility while being less definitive than "can".

I'm surprised the ruling was 4-3 and not a bigger majority. I don't expect the supplier to have extremely tight quality controls around the presence of bones. Boneless is a convenience, not an absolute guarantee.

Allowing "defects" in food is normal. For example chocolate is allowed to contain about 50 insect parts per 100g. But what makes this less clear cut is the labeling: if you sold "insect-free chocolate" I don't think you would get a free pass on any insect parts found in it. You specifically advertised that this would not happen.

Similarly a bone in say a chicken nugget could be treated as a tolerable defect if it's infrequent enough. But to tolerate it in something literally advertised as "boneless" is weird, and probably why the ruling was this split.

If boneless chicken doesn't have to be literally boneless, does it have to be literally chicken? Or would a manufacturing process that allows it to accidentally contain horse meat be acceptable by the same logic?

Being 4-3 suggests it’s not a clear cut case.

The courts ruling that chickens contains bones and therefore consumers should expect them is arbitrary. Chickens also contain salmonella etc, consumer expectations around boneless wings essentially rests on industry practices not inherent limitations. McNuggets and cheeseburgers aren’t going to contain 2 inch bone fragments but boneless wings may so buyer beware.

Good luck trying to sue a restaurant if you get food poisoning, though. That's typically just considered part of the normal risk; I think this is thought of as the same way. You'd have to show specifically that the restaurant failed to use the normal amount of care for the industry.

In cases of food poisoning it’s hard to prove, but there’s plenty of cases where people have won.

Here restaurant negligence or lack thereof was considered irrelevant. Absolutely zero effort is still acceptable, that’s what makes it newsworthy.

> Boneless is a convenience, not an absolute guarantee.

It's a guarantee in any jurisdiction with adequate consumer protection law.

As long as businesses are allowed to sell bone-lite chicken I suppose. Guaranteeing a chicken is boneless sounds both expensive and a waste of time. People should be chewing their food.

It’s cheap to push meat through an extruder that’s going to remove large bone fragments. Chicken nuggets, sausage, tenders etc don’t have an issue with bones, it’s really a consequence of how wings are prepared that’s risky which in most contexts would create a liability concern.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com