Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides
Chicken wings advertised as 'boneless' can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Would this logic extend to products labeled "alcohol-free"?
"Everyone knows beer has alcohol in it."
I'd be more worried about a product claiming it has no peanuts in it now.
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.)
Everyone knows Kinder Surprise eggs have a surprise inside. And show me anyone who can swallow that accidentally btw.
Sounds like the same logic ought to be extended to the Ohio Supreme Court. Might come in handy at the federal level, too.
"Everyone knows the court has corruption in it"
Anything less than 0.5%abv, I think. (Unless, non-alcoholic is classed different)
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.
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.
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%.
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/