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.
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.
So they’re allowed to call them wings when it is chicken breast?
Oh boy. Wait until you learn that drumsticks are passed off as “wings” too!
Interesting thanks!
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.
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.
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.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/meat-products-sell-them-legally-in-england
Muscles, connective tissue, collagen, fat… All that is meat. It also includes internal organs such as feet, intestines, lungs…
Please now show me your legal definition, the only one that matters in this case.
“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”