Reply With Quote
People in Humboldt County disagree. Even amongst the limited fast food choices, Taco Bell was the only thing in Humboldt open after midnight and from about 1-4am the Eureka Taco Bell has a packed drive-thru line. Daily.
I remember back in the day when munchies meant anything that was satisfied the hunger and to with what was in it. Ho-Ho's, cheetos, fritos, doritos, pop corn, soda,etc...now it is rice cakes and arugula salads.
People in Humboldt County disagree. Even amongst the limited fast food choices, Taco Bell was the only thing in Humboldt open after midnight and from about 1-4am the Eureka Taco Bell has a packed drive-thru line. Daily.
I wonder what the other 64% of the filling is?
Yeah, I went there. HA!
(If you don't get it, just google the movie reference.)
Haha, RG I had that very thought on the first day of this thread
That's because anybody that lives in greyforest has their own personal chef, or if they want something in a hurry they order takeout from Ruth Chris.
I've killed the munchies with TB more times than I can remember.
They were willing to say this:
I think it's safe to say they wouldn't say this if it wasn't true. The lawsuit would be unreal then.The print ad copy reads: "Thank you for suing us. Here's the truth about seasoned beef. The claims made against Taco Bell and our seasoned beef are absolutely false. The only reason we add anything to our beef is to give the meat flavor and quality. So here are the REAL percentages. 88% Beef and 12% Secret Recipe." The ad goes on to elaborate on that 12%, saying that the rest consists of water (about 3%), es (about 4%), and "oats, caramelized sugar, yeast, citric acid, and other ingredients that contribute to the flavor, moisture, consistency, and quality of our seasoned beef (5%)."
Taco Bell counters 'meat filling' charges
http://galvestondailynews.com/ap/602ff2/Taco Bell ads take parting shot at law firm
By Bruce Schreiner
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Taco Bell took a parting shot Wednesday at the law firm that questioned the beef content of the filling in the chain's tacos and burritos.
In full-page newspaper ads, the company asks in big, bold type: "Would it kill you to say you're sorry?"
The chain ran the ads in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and USA Today as well as in publications in Chicago, Los Angeles and in Alabama, home of the law firm that sued Taco Bell early this year.
The ads amount to a victory lap by Taco Bell after the law firm dropped its lawsuit this week but also risk keeping the issue alive.
The law firm Beasley Allen said it dropped the lawsuit after Taco Bell made changes to its marketing and product disclosure.
Not so, the chain insisted. In its ads, Taco Bell says that it made no changes to its products, ingredients or advertising, no money was exchanged and there was no settlement agreement as a result of the suit being dropped.
The law firm had no immediate comment on the new ads.
Laura Ries, president of Ries & Ries, a marketing strategy firm based in Atlanta, said Taco Bell's latest response was a mistake. She said the ads revive memories of a lawsuit that most people had forgotten after the initial burst of publicity.
One positive approach was the mention that Taco Bell lists its ingredients on its company Web site, Ries said of the new ads.
Still, "when you run these ads defending, defending, defending, sometimes people think, 'Well, wait a minute, why are they trying so hard to defend themselves?'" she said.
Taco Bell says it spent $3 million to $4 million in advertising to counter accusations in the lawsuit. Previously, the chain ran full-page ads in at least nine major newspapers, aired television spots and launched a YouTube campaign to defend the quality of its taco filling.
"We launched this campaign to make sure that consumers know that we didn't change our marketing or products because we've always been completely transparent," Taco Bell CEO Greg Creed said in a statement Wednesday.
Taco Bell has said the allegations were "absolutely wrong" and the federal lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn by the firm.
The false-advertising suit, filed in California in January, alleged the chain's filling doesn't have enough beef to be called that.
It alleged the meat mixture has binders and extenders and does not meet federal requirements to be labeled beef. The suit sought to make the company stop calling it "beef," and pay the suing law firm's bill.
Taco Bell says its taco filling contains 88 percent USDA-inspected beef and the rest is water, es and a mixture of oats, starch and other ingredients that contribute to what it calls the "quality of its product." It says it uses no extenders to add volume to the filling.
Taco Bell has almost 5,600 U.S. restaurants. The chain is owned by Louisville-based Yum Brands Inc., which is also the parent of Pizza Hut and KFC. Taco Bell accounts for about 60 percent of Yum's profits in the U.S.
In the ads, Taco Bell gets in a final dig at the lawyers who brought the ill-fated suit — "You got it wrong, and you're probably feeling pretty bad right about now. But you know what always helps? Saying to everyone, 'I'm sorry.' C'mon, you can do it!"
Is it safer than eating bananas?
They should have a separate forum for those who don't get it.
(If you don't get it, just google the movie reference.)
My kids heard a random Soylent Green reference once and asked what it meant, so I gave them a simple explanation and showed them the old movie clip. Now whenever I make something they don't want to eat for dinner I have to hear Soylent Green jokes for half an hour. Parents, keep your kids ignorant!
Funny thing with the contaminated food we eat everyday Soylent Green doesn't sound that bad after all. remember they didn't have cheese wiz in that movie.
wtf do you guys think when ur eating a salami or a kebab?
especially in the countries thats not known to make them...lol asia
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
