snopes.com   
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Archived Forums » Food Archive » Jack-in-the-Box kangaroo meat

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Jack-in-the-Box kangaroo meat
Ledeburite
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 206 posted            Edit/Delete post 
The topic of kangaroo meat being served by Jack-in-the-Box came up in one of my classes. The student wrote an entire paper on it from a news account in the early 90's. I decided to call Jack-in-the-Box directly and they told me that the meat (not beef) was discovered during routine quality assuarnce tests in the receiving department. The meat was returned, the supplier removed from their purchasing list and was NEVER distributed to restaurants.
There you have it.

[ 15. May 2005, 11:13 PM:   snopes ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
kmcm
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for kmcm   Author's Homepage   E-mail kmcm   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
Case closed then?

--------------------
Of course this land is dangerous! All of the animals are capably murderous. Especially the penguins.

i'm a figment of my own imagination, sometimes i don't exist

Posts: 1099 | From: Kitsap County, WA | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
SanguinePenguin
Ika and Tina Tuna


Icon 202 posted      Profile for SanguinePenguin   E-mail SanguinePenguin   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
What's wrong with Kangaroo meat? It is quite tasty! I might actually eat there if they started serving kangaroo burgers.
Posts: 119 | From: Nashville | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jay Tea
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jay Tea   E-mail Jay Tea   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
I daresay it's better for you than beef, it's certainly leaner, and costs a great deal more per pound than beef. I've had Roo jerky - very nice it was too...

--------------------
This is where I come up with something right? Something really clever...

Posts: 6552 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ledeburite
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post 
I imagine it falls into the same category as not notifying vegetarians that mcdonald's fries may be mixed with meat product. Kangaroo meat is very good, but the customer should still have a general idea of what they're consuming.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rehcsif
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rehcsif   E-mail Rehcsif   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
Does 'burger' have to imply beef?

What if they served turkey burgers -- would they need a disclaimer on the menu board? Or would simply indicating this in the nutritional guidlines they distribute be good enough?

-Tim

Posts: 1039 | From: Minneapolis | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ToadMagnet
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ToadMagnet   E-mail ToadMagnet   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rehcsif Mit:
Does 'burger' have to imply beef?

What if they served turkey burgers -- would they need a disclaimer on the menu board? Or would simply indicating this in the nutritional guidlines they distribute be good enough?

-Tim

I think they would indeed have to mention if they used turkey instead of beef, for purposes of warning people who are allergic to poultry products. People already have to deal with the possibility of fillers (soy, sawdust, whatever) in the beef burger and if they're allergic, look for a place that lists 100% beef.

Toad"My widdle niece has a hot dog at Thanksgiving"Magnet

--------------------
Listen ... it's Mellow!

Posts: 927 | From: Virginia | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rehcsif
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rehcsif   E-mail Rehcsif   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ToadTangent:
I think they would indeed have to mention if they used turkey instead of beef, for purposes of warning people who are allergic to poultry products. People already have to deal with the possibility of fillers (soy, sawdust, whatever) in the beef burger and if they're allergic, look for a place that lists 100% beef.

But would they have to make a BIG mention of this (e.g. on the menu board behind the counter) or just in the nutritional guidelines?

-Tim

Posts: 1039 | From: Minneapolis | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Gale
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gale     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
Yes, it would have to be reflected in the name. "Burger" is beef unless it specifically states otherwise, and allergies to poultry can be rather severe. Not to mention that the taste and texture are complete different. Contrary to popular scare lore, eateries generally want customers to be satisfied and come back.
Posts: 4811 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rehcsif
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rehcsif   E-mail Rehcsif   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gayle:
"Burger" is beef unless it specifically states otherwise, and allergies to poultry can be rather severe.

Do you have a cite for that? Dictionary.com has:


quote:

1. A sandwich consisting of a bun, a cooked beef patty, and often other ingredients such as cheese, onion slices, lettuce, or condiments. Often used in combination: a cheeseburger.

2.A similar sandwich with a nonbeef filling. Often used in combination: a crab burger; a tofu burger.

Short for Hamburger

Which allows for non-beef burgers.

And for hamburger:

quote:

1a. Ground meat, usually beef.
1b. A patty of such meat.
2. A sandwich made with a patty of ground meat usually in a roll or bun.

Which demotes the beef to a "usually" status...

-Tim

Posts: 1039 | From: Minneapolis | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Homsar999
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Homsar999     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
Hmm. I would still think they would have to make a mention of it. At a local restaurant in Illinois near where I live, the turkey burgers they make and sell are called "Turkey Burgers", not burgers without the word turkey. For liability reasons stemming from allergic reactions.
Posts: 95 | From: Gurnee, Illinois | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Drag, the Magic Puffin
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 23 posted            Edit/Delete post 
I think the question here concerns not the dictionary definition of "hamburger", but the FDA's guidelines on what can be advertised as "hamburger". I personally have never seen any meat other than beef advertised anywhere as "hamburger", whether in cooked or uncooked form. This suggests to me that there's some FDA guideline that mandates only ground beef can be considered as "hamburger". Anyone with the time care to search the www.fda.gov site?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Kathy B
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Kathy B     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
California law:
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
111200. As used in this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Hamburger" means chopped fresh or frozen beef, or a combination of both fresh or frozen beef, with or without the addition of beef fat as such, and with or without the addition of seasoning. Hamburger shall not contain more than 30-percent fat, and shall not contain added water, binders, or extenders. Beef cheek meat (trimmed beef cheeks) may be used in the preparation of hamburger to the extent of 25 percent, and if in excess of natural proportions, its presence shall be declared on the label in the ingredient statement, if any, and otherwise contiguous to the name of the product.
(b) "Imitation hamburger" means chopped fresh or frozen beef, or a combination of both fresh or frozen beef, with or without the addition of beef fat as such, and with or without the addition of seasoning. Imitation hamburger may contain binders and extenders, with or without the addition of partially defatted beef tissue, without added water or with added water only in amounts that the products' characteristics are essentially that of a meat pattie.
[snip]
(b) No restaurant shall use the terms "hamburger," "burger," or any other cognate thereof in any advertisement, or menu to refer to any imitation hamburger. A restaurant selling or serving imitation hamburger may refer to the product as imitation hamburger or by any other term that accurately informs the customer of the nature of the food product that he or she is sold or served.

--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Posts: 4255 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rehcsif
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rehcsif   E-mail Rehcsif   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kathy B:
California law:
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.

-Tim

Posts: 1039 | From: Minneapolis | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Dr. Van Thorp
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Dr. Van Thorp   E-mail Dr. Van Thorp   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
Would it even be profitable to ship kangaroo meat all the way to North America just to pass it off as cheap beef?

To suvive the trip unspoiled, you would either need a ship with a freezer compartment, or air frieght shipping, neither of which would be cheap.

The way I see it, if a crime or scam can not be made profitable, then if didn't happen.

Posts: 374 | From: Brighton, Michigan | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rex Fenestrarum
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post 
Ah, it's just like the old "McDonalds and worms in the burgers" urban legend of the 70s. (Certain) people in my home town, believed that McDonalds was "cutting" the ground beef with worms... even though worms cost around $2 a pound more than ground beef. No matter how much some people might *want* to believe it, no company is going to use a "filler" that's more expensive that the target product.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jay Tea
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jay Tea   E-mail Jay Tea   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post 
Yup - I made that point 9 days ago guys....

...and costs a great deal more per pound than beef.

...as you've so kindly reiterated, the mere fact that to 'cut' beef with roo would leave you out of pocket immediately reveals our story to be bullpies.

--------------------
This is where I come up with something right? Something really clever...

Posts: 6552 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ferret
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete post 
OR, if you are to believe that they really did serve Roo meat, you could contemplate that they would simply charge more for these special burgers, and since Roo meat is usually rather good (unless there is something wrong with it), people would be flocking to eat the burgers, like moths to a light bulb you might say.

Grant "Moo to Roo" Oliveira

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
   

   Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2