Beef??? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Beef

Although it may come as no surprise to serious LTHers, Taco Bell has been outed for not actually using enough beef in its products to be able to use the word "beef" in their descriptions.

Time wrote:The fast food chain, Taco Bell, has been accused of false advertising when it refers to "seasoned beef" in its meaty Mexican fare.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/25/tac ... z1C54m4ts6

So are these mostly-soy tacos any worse for your health? My guess is that, sadly, the soy goo they have formed into beefish lumps is probably somewhat healthier than the meat they were using before (really, it can't have been very high quality, can it?). And it may even be that their recipe was shaped not only by rising beef prices, but by the need to reveal the fat and calories in their products.

Actually if it does contain a lot of soy the soy is most likely grown from GMO. Eat at your own risk. For a variety of reasons.

Taco Bell fires back. Apparently, corn, soy or oat isolates are seasonings.

First, let me state that I'm not a fan of Taco Bell. I realize it's a food many people like, and I'm sure even on this message board there's plenty of people who enjoy their food from time to time. Hell, I like McDonald's and White Castle, so I'm not one to be snobby about fast food. But for me, Taco Bell and Domino's are the bottom of the fast food barrel.

However, I think this lawsuit is a load of horse crap.

First, at least according to the ingredient list, it does not contain "a lot of soy." The ingredients, in order, are beef, water, seasoning, salt, sodium phosphates. It's in the seasoning where things get a little funny, with it being broken down: Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar, Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast, Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor.

So, the only place for a stretcher there really is the "isolated oat product." Judging by the carb info (2 grams per 43 gram serving) and extrapolating that "isolated oat product" is "oat fiber" (here's where I make that inference, although it may not be 100% correct.), that's two, maybe three grams of oat fiber, if we're being generous. But, who knows, maybe "isolated oat product" could also be some sort of protein isolate, I suppose.

Furthermore, there's this:

Just 35 percent of the taco filling was a solid, and just 15 percent overall was protein, said attorney W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III of the Montgomery, Ala., law firm Beasley Allen, which filed the suit.

B'wuh? Just what does that mean exactly, 35% was a solid? If I burnt a piece of meat to a crisp, I'd expect to lose almost half its weight in fat and water.

Also,they say:

"Taco Bell's definition of 'seasoned beef' does not conform to consumers' reasonable expectation or ordinary meaning of seasoned beef, which is beef and seasonings," the suit says. Beef is the "flesh of cattle," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"You can't call it beef by definition," Miles said. "It's junk. I wouldn't eat it."

In what universe? I should bloody well hope my "ground beef taco" isn't just a slab of fried ground beef and seasonings. I want some onions in there, maybe some tomatoes, maybe some stock. Look at this typical Cooks Illustrated recipe for "ground beef tacos." That wouldn't pass this lawsuit's muster either.

This is just an idiotic lawsuit. As far as I know, the FDA regulations for what constitutes "beef" only refers to raw products. If I order a "beef chili," I don't expect it to be 70% or 40% or whatever threshold is decided to be beef. Why should I expect a "ground beef taco" to be the same? Furthermore, if I order a macaroni and cheese at a local diner, and they actually use Velveeta, technically a product required to be labeled as "pasteurized process cheese spread," should I complain that they didn't label it as such on the menu?

In my opinion, by any reasonable standard, when asked to identify the filling of a Taco Bell seasoned ground beef taco, I believe the average person would call it "ground beef" just like the average person would call the yellow glop in macaroni and Velveeta "cheese."

Binko wrote:In what universe? I should bloody well hope my "ground beef taco" isn't just a slab of fried ground beef and seasonings. I want some onions in there, maybe some tomatoes, maybe some stock. Look at this typical Cooks Illustrated recipe for "ground beef tacos." That wouldn't pass this lawsuit's muster either.

You are making way too much sense for this issue.

+1 for White Castle affection

If I recall correctly from the radio interview, the point of legal contention arose from the fact that the stuff in the tacos was called "taco filling" internally, but was marketed to the public as "all-beef filling." The lawyers contention was that their analysis showed that the filling was not the 60% necessary for the use of "all beef."

When I heard the report I figured that the soy, wheat and oats referred to must be used, somehow, as "seasonings." See this:

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articl ... .aspx?pg=2

The curious "isolated oat product" is referred to as a "flavor potentiator," whatever that means. ?Another glutamate form? Also, it attracts water, and so would retain moisture otherwise lost from long cooking. Also is referred to as extending shelf life, a phrase that seems appropriate for a store in a bomb shelter.

Hmm, there's a notion for a new food joint. "Buddy's Bunker." "Jump on in and we'll have a vintage burger on your plate before you can count down from ten!"

This is the NPR story. I see nothing there saying Taco Bell advertises their filling as "all-beef." One of the lead attorneys says this:

I say that I have the facts. We actually tested the beef before we filed a lawsuit. This wasn't filed on an allegation. And their statement does not address the issue. If it is not beef product, and if it not 70 percent beef and 30 percent fat, you cannot call it beef. And if you do, you're in violation of the federal government rules and standards.

Here's the FDA regulation I could find:

Subpart B—Raw Meat Products

§ 319.15

Miscellaneous beef products.

(a) Chopped beef, ground beef.

‘‘Chopped Beef’’ or ‘‘Ground Beef’’ shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders.

Note the header. Raw Meat Products.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but It makes absolutely no sense to me that someone advertising a taco as a "ground beef taco" would have to have the beef filling consist of 70% lean beef in order to label it as such any more than somebody selling "beef stew" would need lean beef to comprise 70% of the final product. Nowhere, so far as I could see, is a claim made that 100% of the filling in a ground beef taco is "beef." Is it really necessary to play semantic games and call it a "beefy" taco or maybe a "picadillo" taco if you're being all fancy-like? By any reasonable standard--ok, by MY reasonable standard--the "seasoned ground beef taco" from Taco Bell is accurately named and not misleading, and there is no intent to deceive. How is this that much different than making a ground beef taco with, say, Lawry's seasoning mix, where you fry up some meat, maybe some onions, add some water, and the mix? Your final product is not going to be 70% lean beef after that, either, with all the water in there. "Hey kids! Who's hungry for some ground beef-flavored taco filling tacos?"

Please.

It's a matter of proportion. Nobody expects "seasonings" to be more than 40% of, well, anything...

On their website, Taco Bell describes their tacos as "A crunchy, corn taco shell filled with seasoned ground beef, crisp shredded lettuce, and real cheddar cheese." Somewhere, there's a line between "seasoned" and "extended" that I think you cross when you start to approach the halfway point; I hope the lawsuit at least will make the FDA think about where that line should be.

I personally have a problem with the FDA's rule that poultry can be plumped with an injection of saltwater for up to 15% of it's weight with no label.

Mhays wrote:It's a matter of proportion. Nobody expects "seasonings" to be more than 40% of, well, anything.

Seasonings CAN'T be more that 40%. The math doesn't work, if their ingredient list is properly labeled, which I actually believe it is.

Beef>Water>Seasonings>Salt>Sodium Phosphate.

If "seasonings" is 40%, then water and beef have to be at least 40% each, which equals 120%.

Whoops. That doesn't work, does it?

And even if seasonings did somehow comprise 40%, I don't think there's anything misleading about it. It does say "seasoned" ground beef, doesn't it? How do you want them to label it? A "seasoned, extended ground beef taco?" Come on. The average person would label the slop Taco Bell serves as a ground beef taco, donchathink?

Mhays wrote:I personally have a problem with the FDA's rule that poultry can be plumped with an injection of saltwater for up to 15% of it's weight with no label.

To me, it's quite different when you're talking raw products. Also, isn't it required that the labeling state the chicken was "enhanced"? I know I've seen chicken breasts with labeling language on them that state something to the effect of "enhanced with up to 12% chicken broth" or something of that nature, and I can't imagine that being voluntarily offered up.

ETA: The law, so far as I could find it, is that a seller can advertise his chicken as 100% natural, even with up to a 15% water solution, and still be legally called 100% Natural. So far as I could tell--from anti-plumping sites such as this, "plumped-chicken labels will have (in small print) a phrase such as 'contains up to 15% saltwater.' " which to me is quite different than what you claim. It seems that some sort of labeling is required, unless you can show me otherwise.

Now, do I agree that raw chicken should be better labeled if it's enhanced up to 15% with a saline solution? Yes. I hate "enhanced" meat products, and am careful to read the labels to avoid buying them. Should something like that be called "100% natural"? Probably not, but I find such an expression an empty phrase. What does "100% natural" mean? Arsenic is 100% "natural" and I wouldn't want to stuff that down my gob.

Binko wrote:First, let me state that I'm not a fan of Taco Bell. I realize it's a food

I stopped reading here. Good day to you, sir!

cilantro wrote:

Binko wrote:First, let me state that I'm not a fan of Taco Bell. I realize it's a food

I stopped reading here. Good day to you, sir!

Ah, thanks for injecting *cough cough* a bit of levity.

Link to the actual lawsuit filed.

Thanks! I was looking for that.

Binko, I'm seeing online reports like this one, that state they've found only 35% beef in the beef filling, but I'm not seeing that in the lawsuit. If you read it and find it, would you post?

No question in my mind - something labeled beef should have more than 35% beef. Question is, what are you counting? Does the natural water content count? Very confusing.

Mhays wrote:No question in my mind - something labeled beef should have more than 35% beef. Question is, what are you counting? Does the natural water content count? Very confusing.

Yes the water content counts. That's part of the suit. It's incorrectly (so far as I can see) applying standards for raw food to a finished product. Note the paragraph that alleges "Taco Bell's 'seasoned beef' actually contains, among other ingredients, water..."

And it's not even merely labeled "beef." It's a "seasoned beef taco." Assuming the ingredient list is correct, and let's take this supposed 35% beef number at face value (which other sources have reported vaguely as "35% solids"), that means beef IS the main component of the product, and beef + water is more than 50% of the product. By what I consider a reasonable definition, that IS a ground beef taco. If you disagree, what would you call the Cooks Illustrated taco linked to above? Is that not a ground beef taco? It's less than 70% lean beef, by my back-of-the-envelope calculation (and that calculation is made assuming the beef being used is 100% lean beef.)

Look, I could see the problem if someone was selling me raw beef and pumping it to hell and back with saline solution and oat fillers. But this is not the case. Taco Bell isn't trying to hoodwink anyone here, in my opinion. When I make American-style ground beef tacos, I, too, will fail this lawsuit's definition of "ground beef." It's not reasonable.

Mhays wrote:Binko, I'm seeing online reports like this one, that state they've found only 35% beef in the beef filling, but I'm not seeing that in the lawsuit. If you read it and find it, would you post?

No question in my mind - something labeled beef should have more than 35% beef. Question is, what are you counting? Does the natural water content count? Very confusing.

The lawsuit does not identify the percent of beef they found in the filling. The only percentage quoted is from page 7:

Mouthpiece wrote:"Ground Beef" "shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders or extenders." 9 C.F.R. §319.15.
...
The USDA ... Policy Book requires food labeled as "Taco filling" to contain "at least 40 percent fresh meat."

(C.F.R. stands for Code of Federal Regulations)

It appears to me that the media didn't read the suit very well (we need an emoticon for complete lack of surprise). The complaint appears to me (IANAL) that what Taco Bell is calling "seasoned ground beef" should be called "taco meat filling" and things would probably be OK. In fact, that's what pgh 11 (pg 3) says.

I'm not gonna read the lawsuit, but what, exactly, are the alleged damages? I can't for the life of me think of how anyone could be damaged if something advertised by Taco Bell as seasoned beef had less than some arbitrary percentage of actual beef. If it's a regulatory violation, fine them. But doesn't a lawsuit have to include plaintiffs complaining of damage?

Kennyz wrote:I'm not gonna read the lawsuit, but what, exactly, are the alleged damages? I can't for the life of me think of how anyone could be damaged if something advertised by Taco Bell as seasoned beef had less than some arbitrary percentage of actual beef. If it's a regulatory violation, fine them. But doesn't a lawsuit have to include plaintiffs complaining of damage?

The W says:

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court Central District of California Southern Division (8:11-cv-00101-DOC-FFM) by Beasley Allen attorneys W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, and William E. Hopkins, Jr., along with the San Diego law firm of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, lawyers Timothy G. Blood, Leslie E. Hurst and Thomas J. O'Reardon, II. Plaintiffs in the case are Amanda Obney, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public

I'm more surprised (but probably shouldn't be) that the lawsuit has "Taco Bell Corporation" all over it. They're still a subsidiary of Yum!, right? In layered corporate hierarchies, do lawsuits just go after the relevant level?

Kennyz wrote:I'm not gonna read the lawsuit, but what, exactly, are the alleged damages? I can't for the life of me think of how anyone could be damaged if something advertised by Taco Bell as seasoned beef had less than some arbitrary percentage of actual beef. If it's a regulatory violation, fine them. But doesn't a lawsuit have to include plaintiffs complaining of damage?

Looks like 38-44 is the section you want to read. Unfortunately, it's a PDF and I can't just cut and paste it here. Perhaps this will help:

42. Taco Bell's conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury to plaintiff and the other Class members. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of Taco Bell's unfair conduct.

Binko wrote: Perhaps this will help:

42. Taco Bell's conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury to plaintiff and the other Class members. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of Taco Bell's unfair conduct.

Not really, but thanks.

Why does this bother you (us)? The suit will be sorted out in due course, whether in a court of law or privately between the parties. Frankly I give a fuck about taco bell, their godamn alien meat, and who sues them.

Kennyz wrote:Not really, but thanks.

Unfortunately, that's the only section I could find that directly addresses your question. It seems to me that the damages alleged are that people spent money buying something other than they thought they were buying, and hence incurred some fiscal damage due to deception. That's about as well as I can parse out what's alleged in that subsection. I don't see any other sections of the lawsuit that specifically address damages to the plaintiff, so your guess is as good as mine.

Taco Bell fires back, saying their product is 88% beef before cooking (and no less than 85% after cooking):

"Our seasoned beef recipe contains 88 percent quality USDA-inspected beef and 12 percent seasonings, spices, water and other ingredients that provide taste, texture and moisture," Creed said. "The lawyers got their facts wrong. We take this attack on our quality very seriously and plan to take legal action against them for making false statements about our products."

Well, that's a hell of a lot more beef than I was even expecting.

There you go. 88% I'm OK with in a taco filling.

JoelF wrote:

Mhays wrote:Binko, I'm seeing online reports like this one, that state they've found only 35% beef in the beef filling, but I'm not seeing that in the lawsuit. If you read it and find it, would you post?

No question in my mind - something labeled beef should have more than 35% beef. Question is, what are you counting? Does the natural water content count? Very confusing.

The lawsuit does not identify the percent of beef they found in the filling. The only percentage quoted is from page 7:

Mouthpiece wrote:"Ground Beef" "shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders or extenders." 9 C.F.R. §319.15.
...
The USDA ... Policy Book requires food labeled as "Taco filling" to contain "at least 40 percent fresh meat."

(C.F.R. stands for Code of Federal Regulations)

It appears to me that the media didn't read the suit very well (we need an emoticon for complete lack of surprise). The complaint appears to me (IANAL) that what Taco Bell is calling "seasoned ground beef" should be called "taco meat filling" and things would probably be OK. In fact, that's what pgh 11 (pg 3) says.

Taco Bell is not a grocery store or a butcher that sells raw ground beef or raw taco meat filling and thus not required to follow those regulations in the name of their cooked menu items. Their tacos are made using ground beef, so they are ground beef tacos. What would you call them otherwise, "taco meat filling tacos?", or "taco meat filling made with ground beef tacos?"

Considering what passes for ground beef in school lunches (and they expressly do not use the words "ground beef") I can see where customers may have precedent for concerns. That was my first thought when I saw this lawsuit.

I think part of the point of these lawsuits is to bring to the forefront that fast-food chains have found a loophole. While Taco Bell may well be able to claim that they're serving seasoned beef, McDonald's sure shouldn't be claiming that their oatmeal is fruit and maple without at least using quotation marks (that is, outside of Vermont.) Same goes for "real yogurt" smoothies made with milk powder.

Mhays wrote:I think part of the point of these lawsuits is to bring to the forefront that fast-food chains have found a loophole.

While I don't think the behemoths of the food industry are particularly, shall we say, honorable, I feel like these lawsuits are more anti-corporate fear-mongering than productive ways to have a reasoned discussion about what really goes in the food we eat, and what a fair way to describe these foods is. First of all, I disagree that this was an example of some kind of "loophole" and, second, judging by the initial reactions in this thread and others about this topic on the internet, if the issue needs to be put any more to the forefront, it might be in the corporations' PR favor, not the other way around, based on how almost everybody automatically jumped on the anti-fast-food side without a reasoned examination of the issues or facts. And--let me make this clear--I'm not saying Taco Bell is being 100% honest with their numbers necessarily, either (I have reason to doubt them a bit), but rather than jump to an immediate conclusion based on our knee-jerk cynicism of fast food or the big food industry (which, I admit, is not unwarranted), why not just start with seeing if the lawsuit even passes the sniff test?

(Also, I personally have no problem with Quaker Oats using "maple" to describe their "maple and brown sugar" flavor, anymore than I have a problem with "orange soda" being advertised as such, even though it probably doesn't have real oranges in it. Now, if I'm buying oranges or actual maple syrup, I have a different set of expectations of what those products are versus what those words mean when used to describe the flavor of a finished product. But we seem to differ on this point.)

Upon further review, you think I could have stuck even more parentheticals and asides in there?

I don't think all these cases are the same: I think that describing your oatmeal as "Fruit and Maple" offers more expectation of maple syrup than "Maple and Brown Sugar," especially when the syrup you get with your pancakes expressly says "Hotcake Syrup." Considering that nutritional information isn't so easy to get even in a chain restaurant (and the FDA recently backed off of even offering guidelines.)

It's doubly confusing when there is a standard in packaged goods...and, yes, there's a flip-side problem: if you're actually using the real thing, consumers don't know that, either - I can't blame consumers for reacting as they do when there's such loose standards.