The Ohio Supreme Court says consumers can't expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones.

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.

  • SSTF@lemmy.world
    184·
    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.worldEnglish
      109·
      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

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        48·
        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”

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        7·
        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_faerieEnglish
          24·
          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
            4·
            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
          4·
          2 months ago

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

          Lol

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    127·
    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
      20·
      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
        9·
        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
          4·
          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
            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.

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    91·
    2 months ago

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

    “Everyone knows beer has alcohol in it.”

    • frezik@midwest.social
      11·
      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.)

    • Suzune@ani.social
      10·
      2 months ago

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

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        12·
        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
          5·
          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
            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
          4·
          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/

  • doctortofu@reddthat.com
    70·
    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…

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    61·
    2 months ago

    So amazingly stupid. The conservative justic’s “logic” here is a case-study in failing upwards. He tries to say that “nobody would think that chicken fingers are actual fingers.” Like, chicken fingers is a colloquial name, and is not the same as a fuckin descriptor adjective. He might as well say that dairy-free ice cream can have dairy in it, because “no reasonable person would think ice cream wouldn’t have dairy in it.”

    what a joke. This brought to you by the same supreme court that has ruled against the will of Ohio voters who voted for an anti-gerrymandering bill, just to have a republican led commission drag it’s feet, presenting identical maps, and instead of allowing the usage of an actual fair map, they just threw the baby out with bathwater, leaving in place the terrible gerrymandered maps that heavily favor republicans till 2030.

    Just another reason I’ll never move back to my home state. conservatives ruined it.

  • expatriado@lemmy.world
    59·
    2 months ago

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

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    54·
    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
      4·
      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.

  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    34·
    2 months ago

    I don’t know why but it reminds me of an American friend I had who couldn’t beleive we didn’t have limits on the amount maggots/maggots eggs allowed in fruit juice.

    They refused to drink any fruit juice here until it had to be explained to them that the reason that there’s no acceptable limit on maggots/maggots eggs in our fruit juice is because ANY amount of maggot is over the acceptable amount.

    Not their fault of course. We only know what we’re used to.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      17·
      2 months ago

      That doesn’t sound right. How can you guarantee zero fly/fruit fly eggs in something like orange juice with pulp. Fly eggs are tiny and can be found on fresh fruit skins even on the trees. Certain juices preclude the kind of filtration that could be used to achieve 100% fruit fly egg removal. I don’t know anything about European food regulations, but from a practical perspective it seems impossible to guarantee ZERO fruit fly egg contamination. Especially considering Europe tends to be more flexible with insects in food than the US such as Casu martzu.

      I suspect if there really is no max insect parts limit, there is a procedural requirement that ensures contamination is kept low.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        5·
        2 months ago

        Thats probably because I never said its provably 100% free. So, no wonder it didn’t sound right.

        I said no detectable level is acceptable. If you detect any in there, its bad.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    33·
    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.

    • prole
      13·
      2 months ago

      Pretty much. The correct outcome of every case is the one that benefits capital the most. Our current national Supreme Court has demonstrated that precedence can be ignored when convenient. They basically signaled to every other judge in the country that this kind of shit is fine.

      Start with the decision and work backwards. Just make some shit up, nobody will do anything about it anyway.

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    16·
    2 months ago

    So what then is the difference between the boneless chicken wing cooking style and normal chicken wing cooking style? If it starts with “take a piece of chicken meat without any bones”, then what stops this line of argument from saying that it doesn’t matter how well they follow the recipe and thus restaurants can serve whatever they want to meet any order and then just say “we were following the (name of food) cooking style, not promising that, and are just bad at following that style or made up our own version”?

    On a related note, how are judges determined to be qualified to make any decision? Are they supposed to be fair and intelligent, or just do their best to judge things in a fair and intelligent style?

    That said, there was a bit of a fluke involved to have the bone go down the wrong way and also him not even notice for a few days. IMO in a proper decision, the restaurant shouldn’t have been fully liable for this incident, though they should have had some liability for that bone. And then some of that liability might be passed on to whoever provided them with the “boneless” chicken meat.

    • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
      3·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think you can easily judge a judge. Once you get the job, which very few do as you have to go for an additional degree for two years after law school, you’d have to really fuck up to lose your job.

      Only the government/state can impeach a judge by popular vote of the officials. But there is no clear legal ground for this, it can only happen when they feel like it, or when there is evidence for criminal activity, bribery, which any serious individual can get away with pretty easily, or for a grossly immoral decision and a public outrage for that. That’s why it’s so rare.