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.

  • bamboo@lemm.ee
    11·
    4 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
        34·
        4 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
          5·
          4 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
            14·
            4 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
                13·
                4 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.

                • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
                  11·
                  4 months ago

                  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”