SHARON’S COMMENT: Regardless if it’s animal chicken or not, the supreme court shouldn’t be hearing cases on what should or shouldn’t be acceptable in any food that advertises that some ingredient is NOT contained in it.
For instance, for years powdered coffee creamer advertised as dairy-free when in fact by law it was allowed to contain a certain percentage of dairy.
Dairy-free should mean dairy-free, not 5% dairy.
- Just a week ago, I checked the label on a powdered creamer advertised as non-dairy. Sure enough it listed whey as an ingredient.
In this boneless case, it was decided that because chicken does indeed contain bones by nature, that advertising chicken as boneless should basically be irrelevant and if someone chokes on a chicken bone in a boneless piece of chicken then it’s the consumers fault for not being more cautious.
The world hasn’t changed much. You can be a Supreme Court Justice and still be ignorant and influenced by superstition and faulty logic.
Since when does “boneless” refer to a cooking style.
In actuality, it’s a selling style, to prevent people from choking on bones from any animal. How many burgers have bones in them? None. Why? Because people would choke on them. How many ham sandwiches have pig bones in them? None. Why? Because people would choke on them.
Because there are so many people who choke on chicken bones, the manufacturers are moving toward boneless chicken all the time, for liability reasons.
This Supreme Court case was decided on liability grounds – it’s the consumer’s fault, not the provider’s fault. It had nothing to do with cooking style.
I wonder if a bone had been found in a burger, and choked the victim, if the court would have decided the same way. It shouldn’t have mattered what kind of animal it was, chicken or cow, but it did, which means the court was biased in their decision and the reason for the decision.
If you advertise chicken as boneless it had damn well be bone-free, otherwise pay the consequences of medical bills and pain and suffering, or even death.
Chicken wings advertised as ‘boneless’ can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides
BY MICHAEL RUBINKAM
Updated 3:06 PM EDT, July 25, 2024
Consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday, rejecting claims by a restaurant patron who suffered serious medical complications from getting a bone stuck in his throat.
Michael Berkheimer was dining with his wife and friends at a wing joint in Hamilton, Ohio, and had ordered the usual — boneless wings with parmesan garlic sauce — when he felt a bite-size piece of meat go down the wrong way. Three days later, feverish and unable to keep food down, Berkeimer went to the emergency room, where a doctor discovered a long, thin bone that had torn his esophagus and caused an infection.
Berkheimer sued the restaurant, Wings on Brookwood, saying the restaurant failed to warn him that so-called “boneless wings” — which are, of course, nuggets of boneless, skinless breast meat — could contain bones. The suit also named the supplier and the farm that produced the chicken, claiming all were negligent.
In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Thursday that “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style, and that Berkheimer should’ve been on guard against bones since it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones. The high court sided with lower courts that had dismissed Berkheimer’s suit.
THE ANIMAL-FREE CHEF™© 