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.

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.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    can’t wait for this to apply to gluten free, sugar free, nut free products. people can die from this shit.

    • ____@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Seems to me that a defense attorney would have a rather more difficult time claiming that “gluten free” is a cooking style, and that x food contains gluten by definition.

      On the other hand, this via Ohio, so… Such a holding wouldn’t particularly shock me either.

  • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If I order boneless wings, and I get bones, I’m getting my fucking money back and not eating at that establishment ever again.

  • mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Did the restaurant just screw up the order, or was this some process deficiency with the deboner?

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t know what the boneless tender machine looks like, but no process is 100% effective, so it’s entirely possible for a bit of bone to make it through. Usually, that’s acceptable, because you find it while chewing and remove it. In this case, it was a dangerously-shaped piece of bone, and it ended up in his respiratory system and caused significant illness.

      Honestly, I’m not sure that he has a case, since it really is acceptable for some bone to be present. That it ended up poorly for him isn’t really the company’s fault.

      In an ideal system, his medical costs would be covered by universal healthcare, and he wouldn’t have to worry about paying bills or losing his job while out sick through no fault of his own. He shouldn’t need to sue for those costs. (And if he’s just looking for a payday lawsuit, then fuck that guy and his lawyer.)

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The bone was nearly 1.5 inches long. It wasn’t just a bit of bone. It was basically the size of some bone-in wings.

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Boneless chicken isn’t just deboned, it’s shredded and mashed. Since it’s basically manufacturing chicken, there is a guaranteed nonzero margin of error. It’s the correct ruling, there’s no way any company could guarantee the complete absence of bones that were mixed in with the ingredients. I’m more surprised this doesn’t happen more often.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        there’s no way any company could guarantee the complete absence of bones that were mixed in with the ingredients.

        And this is acceptable to you? Perhaps corporations shouldn’t be permitted to sell a product if they cannot guarantee that it won’t kill an otherwise healthy, allergy-free person.

        Radical thought, I know…

        This is a perfectly avoidable problem. But profits are more important than human lives, so nope. They’ll continue throwing every little scrap onto a blender to make sure they’re squeezing every cent out of their miserable factory farmed chicken

        • Artyom@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not exaggerating when I saw literally every product has an acceptable percentage of defecting products that can make it to shelves before it’s not okay. There isn’t a product in the world that has a 0% risk. It’s just something you need to accept and negotiate on how many defective products are acceptable.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            You’re so capital-brained that you can’t even grasp the concept of regulations to mitigate risk until it’s essentially zero. This isn’t some impossible task, you just think corporations’ profit margins are more important than human lives. That’s truly what it comes down to.

            There isn’t a product in the world that has a 0% risk.

            That’s fucking absurd.

            • Artyom@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              We were talking about bones in boneless chicken wings. When’s the last time you heard of that happening in any context? Do you anticipate hearing another story about it ever again in your life?

              That’s fucking absurd

              I noticed that you didn’t happen to name any…

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                It’s literally the same thing as the McDonald’s hot coffee thing.

                “Everyone knows coffee is hot so it’s her fault” right?

                Well no, turns out the case was a lot more nuanced than that, and she 100% deserved to win.

                You think you made a point because no matter what product I name, you can come up with some creatively stupid way that a human could theoretically hurt themselves with it. All that says is that you’re a creative person. Congrats.

    • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      A child probably got killed or maimed cleaning the deboning machines in the slaughterhouse, and we can’t have that affecting profits!

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Boneless is a “cooking style?” No. It’s which bag of chicken I pull out of the freezer before I even turn the oven on. I’m not going to sous vide the fucking bones out of my wings.

    If the restaurant is deboning wings to order, fine. I’ll accept that. But then that shit had better be on the menu so I know to be careful.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Boneless wings are usually breaded chunks of rib meat, not actually wings at all. Sometimes a cooking style starts with cutting raw meat off of bones and into don’t-call-them-nuggets.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        So they’re not boneless, and they’re not wings… Yet it’s the customer’s fault for not knowing exactly what they’re eating?

        Hmmm, I wonder why they didn’t know… Could it be the blatant lies on the packaging?

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s just how the industry markets chicken nuggets to adults “these aren’t children’s chicken nuggets, they’re BONELESS WINGS for manly men who enjoy suicide hot sauce”

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I am aware that it’s how they do it. What I’m saying is, I dunno, maybe they shouldn’t? Or more specifically, maybe we shouldn’t let them.

            I think I’d be just fine if I went the rest of my life eating only non-blended chicken.

  • SSTF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “Decaf coffee”

    It actually has 300000mg of caffeine

    “It’s well known that coffee has caffeine in it. Skill issue.”

    • BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Decaf does actually still have caffeine, just normally like 97% less.

      Which, I guess is like the boneless wings having 97% less bones, now in convinient needle shaped shards

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        On a bit of a tangent, I’m Finnish and recently (as in the past year or two) there’s been Coke and Pepsi which literally say “caffeine-free” on the side. Not “decaffeinated”, but “caffeine-free”.

        I think there’s been some sort of innovation in decaffenation or someone’s come up with a flavour/essence which replaces the ingredient with caffeine in it.

        Decaf definitely has caffeine, as I’ve completely without caffeine at several points for several months (even avoiding chocolate mostly) and a “decaffeinated” beverage still made me clearly stimulated. A clear caffeine high.

        NileRed has a nice video on him trying to decaf redbull and while he does succeed in extracting caffeine from it, he thinks it’s not even half he gets out. Ofc industrial systems are more effective, but it shows how difficult the process is to perfect. https://youtu.be/oY8tz1paj6o

        • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          We’ve had caffeine-free Coke for years in the US. The difference is that the caffeine in Coke is added during manufacturing, so it’s easy to just leave out. Whereas the caffeine in coffee is naturally occurring, so needs to be removed to make it decaf, and just like in the NileRed video, it’s impossible to remove all of the caffeine.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            We’ve had caffeine-free Coke for years in the US.

            You’re not kidding. I googled it and it’s been a thing since the mid 80’s, lol. No idea why they only decided to sell some here in honestly the past year or two.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well, based on the principles of homeopathy, you made the coffee more powerful by diluting the amount of caffeine.

          Lol

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yeah, I feel like this is why it’s called decaffeinated rather than caffeine-free… Caffeine has been removed but not completely.

        But while the word “less” means a smaller amount, the suffix of “less” means without, i.e. childless

        https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-less

        Boneless doesn’t mean “less” bones. The dictionary and commonly understood meaning is “without bones”, and certainly without amounts of bone sufficient to cause significant injury when eating . It’s certainly not a “cooking style” as uncooked chicken cuts with bones removed are sold as boneless.

        Apparently these judges are “brainless”

  • expatriado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    under new supreme court ruling, if you sell boneless chicken with bones, you aren’t wrong, just an asshole

    • Skates@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If you choose boney chicken wings over sucking dick three times of day for delicious human protein, you too should be stabbed in the throat.

      I wonder how in the fuck some people just wake up one day and decide to themselves “today I’m gonna be retarded”.

      • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        today I’m gonna be retarded

        Bunch of NEETs can’t recognize a joke when they see one, but yes I’m the one who is 'tarded.

        Additionally, I’m totally ok with sucking dick for protein.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve always assumed boneless chicken wings are some sort of a scam. Then ordered once and discovered they’re not wings at all but pieces of chicken breast. Or a scam, since a breast taste differently than a wing. Do they actually remove the bones from wings somewhere?

      • Jerkface@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know, but if I were to venture a guess I would say they are made from dark meat that’s harder to sell than the wing. Just glue it together and frame it as an upgrade. $12 plate is now $20.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You know I’ve never gotten a discount for ordering dark meat? At this point I’m convinced it’s a myth.

          • bamboo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Usually places just do an up charge if you only want white meat, with mixed and all dark usually being the base price.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        No it’s literally just various pieces of meat cut up onto roughly wing-sized pieces. Bigger than popcorn chicken, smaller than tenders.

  • doctortofu@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So just like all those “unlimited” phone plans with limits, “free” trials that require a credit card number and “lifetime” warranties that expire after a few years? Cool. Cool cool cool…

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Would this logic extend to products labeled “alcohol-free”?

    “Everyone knows beer has alcohol in it.”

    • naughtyguy17@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sounds like the same logic ought to be extended to the Ohio Supreme Court. Might come in handy at the federal level, too.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I wouldn’t know about US regulations. Just annoyed by laws which allow corporations to more or less straight up lie, be they in my country or not.

        I’m pretty sure alc-free here in Finland is at most like 0.1%, low-alc (as in not counted as a regulated alcoholic beverage in regards to laws) is anything 2.9% and under.

        • TBi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think part of it is that you honestly can’t say anything is “x” free. As long as the company has done due diligence and there is as little as possible then I’m ok with it.

          If it’s used as a get out of jail card for bad practice then I’m against it.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Especially with alcohol. Anything with sugar will have at least a tiny amount of it ferment into alcohol. This is also why 0% BAC driving laws are nonsense.

            That said, 0.1% might be perfectly reasonable over 0.5%.

        • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          True. The suffix -free has had so much liberal (not the party) use that when manufacturers use it, it now just means there isn’t enough for most people to detect/respond to it.

          Now if someone none the wiser with an allergy or particularly strong sensitivity to something were to try that something, they get a trip to the ER.

          About the limits in the US. Meandering through a store during a heat wave, I saw that the upper limit appears to be half a percent. Meaning you still could get buzzed ,just would be peeing more; a lot more.

          https://oneclubsober.com/beer-articles/can-you-buy-non-alcoholic-beer-under-21/

    • Suzune@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Everyone knows Kinder Surprise eggs have a surprise inside. And show me anyone who can swallow that accidentally btw.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Just wait until you hear about “synthetic” motor oil.

      (It’s been made from regular petroleum sources for a long time. It was argued in court that “synthetic” refers to a certain level of quality, not that it’s actually built synthetically from something other than oil out of the ground.)

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What is the difference between chicken nuggets and boneless wings? The article mentions that boneless wings are ‘of course’ breast meat.

    I wonder if they’d have agreed that nuggets can have bones too?

    • sudo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      One of the justices literally writes about that. In this article.

      “The question must be asked: Does anyone really believe that the parents in this country who feed their young children boneless wings or chicken tenders or chicken nuggets or chicken fingers expect bones to be in the chicken? Of course they don’t,” Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote in dissent.

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Usually a boneless wing is a chunk of meat, with identifiable meat fibers and such. Just a breaded and fried chunk of breast. Whereas chicken nuggets are usually made from ground chicken, often molded into a few different shapes.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          And just to mention further, nuggets ground chicken meat often contain bones, tendons, nerves, fat, and other chicken junk.

          Now I will mention that McDonald’s and Wendy’s and other fast food places claim their nuggets are only made of chicken meat. Your mileage may vary. Nuggets are like hotdogs.

          • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            To be clear, “meat” is 99% of what’s not bones. Tendons, skin, fat, nerves… All that is meat. If they don’t mention which cut, assume it’s “all”.

            I don’t really think that’s bad. If you’re going to breed animals, you might as well use it to it’s full extend for human consumption.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Your definition of meat is in a very gray area of definition. In fact, by most definitions I could say yours is incorrect. Either by stating that since bone is edible, it is also meat. Or that meat is considered only what is inside the skin. Or by saying that is isn’t meat since it’s not muscle. Or by saying that animals aren’t the only things that have meat.

                • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  “Legal” definition changes by every country. The US, for instance has two different levels for what constitutes “meat” depending on how its obtained. Normal cuts of meat, which does not include organs or a lot of other things, and the “mechanically separated meat” which does include those things. This varies even more on a state level in some cases.

                  Long story short, your legal definition is only good for your country you provide it from (UK, in your case) and it doesn’t mean jack shit anywhere else.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Some fat ass doesn’t chew his food and suddenly corporations win? You can never have perfection with organic products. What exactly do you want done to guarantee meat from a boned animal isn’t left in the meat? And how much will it cost to do it, and are you willing to pay for it?

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        boneless wings cost more, because the bone and gristle is removed. You’re paying extra for that removal. if it’s not done, then the FDA says you’re not allowed to call it boneless.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They’re from an entirely different part of the bird is why they don’t cost the same. They also don’t always cost more.

      • Freefall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s a pretty ignorant take. "thing"less means without “thing”. Boneless means without bones. Without means there isn’t ANY in something.

        THEIR process, which is not the customer’s problem to solve, should guarantee there are no bones left in any product labeled “boneless”, because that is how words and companies work…

        You cost statement is irrelevant. It’s capitalism, baby! You make boneless stuff as advertised and set the price at what the market will accept. If your company can’t make “BONELESS” wings, then you don’t get to sell them until you figure out a cost effective way of doing it. Use a different word that isn’t a complete lie.

        Judges can be bought and make stupid calls that only morons support…see also SCOTUS.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can argue about if the guy should have noticed or not, that would be a factor in what he was awarded. But the lack of quality control needs to be addressed. This wasn’t a small bone, it was over an inch long. I am sure they have better ways, but sonic waves like a sonogram should be able to automatically detect that bone. And it’s very cheap. If your process doesn’t have a way to check for bones you just can’t call it boneless. Simple as that. If you have a way, and it misses a tiny tiny bone, that is one thing, but that is not what happened here. Also, the court system is messed up. If he hadn’t been injured, then he wouldn’t have been able to bring the case. You have to show your standing, as in your lose, to bring the case. And if it is below a certain amount you can only go to small claims court. So there could be bones in everyone of those boneless chicken wings. But until some one suffers enough financial loss, they can’t sue. That is why the specific individual doesn’t really matter here.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        why do you even worry about it, this doesn’t interfere with your boot diet.

      • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You should expect what you are paying for. They did pay for boneless, so they were willing to do so. Everything else ranges from false advertisement to negligence

          • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Then break a tooth when you bite too hard on a “boneless chicken”

            Or what, you gonna say you chew slowly too?

            It’s actually kinda fucking insane of you to take the side of “business should be allowed to flat out lie to you, even after it almost kills someone”. Maybe talk with a psychiatrist about your lack of empathy. There’s probably a diagnosis for your level of sociopathy

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        And how much will it cost to do it, and are you willing to pay for it?

        We are paying for it already. Now they can reduce their costs while keeping the price the same.

      • theherk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        What kind of hail corporate nonsense is this? Either call it “fewer bones” or have it be without bones. I don’t expect it to be a certain price but I expect boneless chicken to be just as boneless as it is chicken.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s fucking ridiculous though I think it’s perfectly fair for s restaurant not to be ultimately liable. This case feels like a gimmie to Perdue/Tyson to dodge any accountability for their bargin bin meat farming operations.

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    On one hand, I accept that a boneless chicken wing has a tiny chance of containing some amount of bone, and can see where suing a restaurant over it, even if you injure yourself eating it, is a bit frivolous. Boneless chicken wings did come from a chicken with bones in it, and it’s weird to complain that the chicken wasn’t made into completely homogeneous pink slime before being turned into a nugget…

    I don’t understand, however, how this made it to the state Supreme Court, resulting in this decision, which seemingly allows restaurants to outright lie about what they are serving.

    • geissi@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Boneless chicken wings did come from a chicken with bones in it,

      Sure but then someone prepared the chicken and decided that the outcome can be described as boneless. Personally, I would also expect the bones to have been removed.
      You can debone chicken without turning it into pink slime.
      I’d rather expect it to be made from another part of the chicken in the style of wings.

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It would be trivial and inexpensive to use an x-ray to check for bones and fragments.

          • blusterydayve26@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Sure, verifying chicken is deboned before it leaves the factory makes more sense than installing x-ray machines at every pizzeria.

            • piecat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I never proposed doing it at every pizzeria. Production facilities where they make boneless wings in bulk. A human might not even be involved.

              But yeah, if the human leaves a bone in the chicken, they’re doing their job wrong…