- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
“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.
Not sure what’s funnier, that you brought a meaningless distinction, that you defined the arbitrary levels wrong or… That you ended up concluding it’s ask “meat” hence just agreeing with my very point.
Until you come with a source of what “meat” means legally in your selected country, all you said does, in fact, mean “Jack Shit”