A Vegan Sued Burger King over Its ‘Impossible Whopper’

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-24/why-vegan-s-impossible-whopper-lawsuit-vs-burger-king-matters

39 116 7 years ago

This seems like something Burger King can be fixed just by mandating a separate broiler in the franchise agreement, showing off the change, and then neglecting enforcement until someone complains, at which point Burger King can blame the franchisee

sudosysgen2• 7 years ago

This does raise the question, what is the motivation for these vegans? Is it eliminating animal suffering, reducing global warming as farming is a major polluter, or are they actually just disgusted by animal products in general? As the article hints at, this claim only really makes sense if a sizeable section of the US is completely opposed to animal by-products independent of any ethical, moral or scientific component, just by innate disgust of eating anything that came from an animal. And I do believe the last category to be very fringe and small, and this would also mean being opposed to a large number of medical treatments. Personally, I don't think their claim holds any weight, unintentional cross contamination with beef isn't something the average vegan would find justifiably outrageous in a restaurant that also serves beef, and as far as allergies go anyone that has allergies should be asking around for cross contamination in a restaurant that specializes in what they are allergic from.

kaikai2• 7 years ago

There are also people who refrain from eating beef for religious reasons.

TrentLarr• 7 years ago

Is it eliminating animal suffering, reducing global warming as farming is a major polluter, or are they actually just disgusted by animal products in general?

For me, it's both. For others, it's religious. For far fewer, it's health (allergies, intolerances, etc). In all of those cases, if a restaurant advertises their product as meat free, it should be or else it's false advertising.

Further complicating the issue is that burger king has for years sold a veggie patty that is heated in the microwave - using separate tools and is "contamination free".

So anyways, if they want to advertise meat-free, then it should be a meat-free product that is served to you.

jka2• 7 years ago

The case was raised by an individual plaintiff, but in general vegans have a variety of different reasons not to want to encourage farming of animals.

Some of those include discomfort with eating animals and their byproducts, as you mention -- for others, it's based on a desire to encourage more sustainable environmentally-friendly food options.

For some subset of the spectrum mentioned, cross-contamination is an important issue - and for the rest, it may be acceptable under some circumstances, but there's no downside to removal of contamination, so they'd likely support it given the choice.

Angostura2• 7 years ago

Vegans have a variety of motivations and yes - some are disgusted by animal products. I have a number of vege friends and for some of them, I make sure, when barbecuing to use a separate grill and tongs. Others don't really care.

bduerst• 7 years ago

Why single out and question veganism specifically?

Wouldn't vegetarians, religious folks, and alpha-gal syndrome sufferers also want a zero animal-product burger? The market is pretty diverse for this demand.

7952• 7 years ago

Food is an area where most people have strong personal preferences. It may not be entirely consistent or logical. It is based on taste, both physical and emotional. Why should we expect vegans to be any different?

kevin_thibedeau2• 7 years ago

These machines are sizeable and you can't just retrofit every existing store by fiat. Then, why shouldn't other special interest groups with dietary restrictions be able to impose their will too? We can have a flame broiler with separate meatatarian, vegan, halal, kosher, and hindu conveyors, all with their own exhaust management to ensure harmful vapors don't migrate where they would contaminate the other product lines.

cookie_monsta5• 7 years ago

Sure, and if BK decides to market specifically to people with meatatarian, vegan, halal, kosher, and hindu dietary requirements you would expect them to actually deliver, not just pay lip service - the same as any other offer in the marketplace.

This "impossible burger" isn't the result of vegans picketing BK HQ - it's a marketing ploy by BK... how are vegans being painted as the bad guys here?

bsder• 7 years ago

Then, why shouldn't other special interest groups with dietary restrictions be able to impose their will too? We can have a flame broiler with separate meatatarian, vegan, halal, kosher, and hindu conveyors, all with their own exhaust management to ensure harmful vapors don't migrate where they would contaminate the other product lines.

BK chose this product and marketing specifically to cater to a special interest group with dietary restrictions. No one is demanding that BK must serve vegan food other than by usual consumer pressure.

The problem is that BK really doesn't give one iota of damn about the strict vegans. They're not coming to BK no matter what as only an idiot would believe that there exists any surface in a BK that isn't contaminated with meat. What BK cares about are the "sorta-vegan" folks who happen to be tagging along when the whole group hits BK. However, "Vegan enough that you can be a poseur and rationalize it" doesn't have the same ad copy quality.

However, bringing this back to specifics, someone who is halal should not be able to complain about going into a BBQ joint. However, if said BBQ joint claims to be halal, then it better comply. And if a someone halal decides to sue for your restaurant not being compliant, they deserve to win.

(And, what you forget, is that a lot of the "anti-pork" proscriptions came about as a way to avoid trichinosis. So, if it weren't for modern meat handling, this would be a health issue as well as a religious one.)

TazeTSchnitzel2• 7 years ago

Do Burger King not have disclaimers for this? I've seen small print before in the UK about “Apple sticks” (no prizes for guessing what McDonald's product they compete with) being fried in the same oil as fish.

alistairSH• 7 years ago

The website does today: For guests looking for a meat-free option, a non-broiler method of preparation is available upon request.

No idea if it was there a few days ago. No idea if it exists on the menu in stores.

TazeTSchnitzel2• 7 years ago

I think I read that on their website in the past, but I'm not sure.

Mountain_Skies• 7 years ago

It's been three decades since I worked at Burger King but I remember the broiler being a really big piece of machinery upon which the rest of the kitchen workflow revolved. It might be possible to design something that segregates different types of patties but there certainly will be retrofit costs and likely some kitchens where many other fixtures must be relocated or replaced to accommodate the larger broiler. Which isn't to say they should be able to advertise a vegan burger if they're going to let it get contaminated with animal products. It's just not a simple fix, which might lead to Burger King deciding it's not worth the effort.

jobigoud• 7 years ago

When we buy products at the grocery store we can look at the package and after the ingredients list it says "this product may contain traces of this or traces of that", or "this product was made in a factory that also process this or that".

This is very common for traces of nuts and fish. I imagine all vegetarians have this routine for products they haven't bought before. Some vegans/vegetarians care about it a lot, some don't. Both are acceptable stances in my opinion. It's all about transparency.

We also all know insects were likely crushed while harvesting plants and cereals we eat, and probably ended up in our food. But you do develop a certain disgust at the idea that a dead mammal/bird/fish was processed along with your food, so it makes the food less enjoyable. In this case, you would likely simply not go to Burger King, just like you wouldn't buy the pre-processed food that has traces amount of whatever you don't want to sponsor.

rajekas• 7 years ago

I am vegan and in general very aware how mainstream society marginalizes vegan choices, but this strikes me as both frivolous and damaging to the vegan cause more broadly.

It's a Burger King for god's sake - what do you expect? If you want the mainstream to embrace your values you don't want to damage the chances of increasing acceptance just because the ad copy wasn't a 100% accurate.

CamelCaseName• 7 years ago

What!?

Would you say "Oh, it's fine!" to someone religious who doesn't eat beef or pork but consumes trace amounts despite a sign saying Halal/Kosher Patties? (As mentioned in the article)

Consider if instead they were allergic -- would they accept something with trace amounts of their allergen?

Restaurants, fast food or otherwise, have an obligation to handle food in a safe manner.

Misleading customers with false advertising is wrong, and potentially dangerous. (I'm told some vegans develop an intolerance for meat over time)

Zanni• 7 years ago

Yes, for certain definitions of "trace amounts." If you order a vegan burger from a Burger King, you're going to get trace amounts of beef in your burger--from atmospheric contamination, if nothing else.

Personally, I'm with you that using the same grill is too much contamination, but it's a fine line. The only way to be sure is to have separate restaurants, which is what they do in Israel to keep kosher. They serve meat or cheese, not both, in any given restaurant.

srl2• 7 years ago

Huh. I'm your inverse.

I'm not vegan, or vegetarian, and am probably pretty guilty of "marginalizing vegan choices" in general. I eat a lot of meat and don't intend to stop, and enjoy making fun of "rabbit food" and those who voluntarily subsist on it.

To me, it seems pretty terrible for BK to advertise something which we all know of as "vegan food", and then not have it be vegan. This may sound melodramatic, but to my mind, tricking someone with some dietary restriction (kosher/halal, say) into violating it (by sneaking pork into a dish) is a sort of physical assault. That's pretty much what BK, presumably unwittingly, did here. They should suffer financially for that.

serf• 7 years ago

To me, it seems pretty terrible for BK to advertise something which we all know of as "vegan food", and then not have it be vegan.

as someone who has had to be confined to celiac and vegan diets for health reasons, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would assume that any single ingredient in a meal that can be vegan, produces a vegan meal.

If we were to use the criteria of 'food that's known as X but isn't' as a way to judge whether or not we should sue restaurants, celiacs would be having a field day. Celiac-neutral ingredients are used throughout the food industry in ways that will harm celiac patients that are too ignorant to inquire about preparation and contamination.

I guess having been a part of that struggle made me realize that a) food preparation, as an industry, is exceedingly vague both about what you're receiving and how it was prepared, and b) that my food consumption is no one elses business, and that to make informed decisions about it requires personal legwork and investigation -- folks who want the industry to do it for them are going to have a real hard time of things.

taneq3• 7 years ago

I think it matters a huge amount what the BK in question was doing. If they were just flipping beef patties and plant-based patties on the same cooktop with no separation or cleaning in between, then I think the plaintiff has a valid point. If you cook vegan food on a surface covered in beef fat, it's no longer vegan. If they're just using the same piece of stainless steel and it'd been cleaned beforehand then it's ridiculous.

brycesbeard• 7 years ago

Disagree that it’s ridiculous, as the goal of a vegan is to not consume animal products. And by consuming, increase the production by pressing the “demand side” button.

For health reasons, like gluten, a perfect separation makes sense. But as long as people know this is what’s up, I think it’s okay. (And, specifically, they are not ridiculous for reusing it he same steel)

idonotknowwhy3• 7 years ago

mainstream society marginalizes vegan choices

Do you encounter this sort of thing outside of the internet? I've certainly seen online trolls mock vegans, etc but I haven't witnessed it IRL.

At work for example, we always make sure we go to places which accomodate those on Vegan diets.

If you want the mainstream to embrace your values you don't want to damage the chances of increasing acceptance

Is this what Vegans want though? For the Vegans I know, they don't try to get us to embrace vegan values, they simply stick to their diets quietly.

kaikai2• 7 years ago

You pointed out a way that vegan people are marginalized in your own comment, when you mentioned needing to seek out places that can accommodate vegan diets. The fact that many restaurants don’t have menu items suitable for vegan means that vegan are indeed marginalized, even if you’re kind to you coworkers and try to compensate for it.

etu• 7 years ago

Do you encounter this sort of thing outside of the internet? I've certainly seen online trolls mock vegans, etc but I haven't witnessed it IRL.

I'm a vegan. I've been invited to eat at steak houses in work related setting. And people know about these limits. And I'm not alone in that camp here.

mensetmanusman2• 7 years ago

This would be an interesting way for the meat lobby to try to kill the Impossible Whopper.

If you have to also purchase separate capital equipment to cook the food, then it will kill the product. (Microwaves have residue just like stove tops).

mantap2• 7 years ago

Even the hot dog stand near me (UK) has separate equipment to cook vegetarian hot dogs. I don't think it's a big deal, that's just one of the obligations of selling food to the public, to honestly label things.

mensetmanusman2• 7 years ago

Surface area real estate cost $, additional air handling HVAC for fumes, etc. This isn’t just an extra hot dog.

aaron695• 7 years ago

The meat lobby group has one objective, keep eating meat the preferred choice as long as they can. A difference of 5 years is trillions of $ in the US.

You can do this by making Vegans look bad.

Making sure this case is publicised as much as possible will help that. Burger King can adapt. Making the burger look lame is the objective.

KoenDG• 7 years ago

I'm going to assume that it's true.

And I'm also going to say: If Burger King is forced to get a separate stove(or whatever it's called in the industrial-sized context they're in) just for that 1 burger, they will cancel that burger.

That's my prediction. Because it's too much of an up-front cost.

I'm very glad that this burger has entered the chain and is getting both the vegan/vegetarian community, as well as regular meat-eating people, like myself, in on it.

If people who eat meat start choosing this over a regular burger, it's a win. If this drives previously non-existing traffic to burger king, all of which uses this one product, it's a win.

This is about changing the industry at large. About creating big orders and showing the industry that this is worth investing in. And eventually: normalizing it.

We can solve the problem of the not-yet-vaporized grease particles later.

I'm not saying we should ignore it. I'm saying it's not a current priority. But it will be later.

I've tried the burger, and I liked it, I'll definitely pick it again.

monkin• 7 years ago

And I'm also going to say: If Burger King is forced to get a separate stove(or whatever it's called in the industrial-sized context they're in) just for that 1 burger, they will cancel that burger.

They will not kill it, it's too popular to make that decision, and has gigantic growth potential. From business perspective they will do everything to keep those few milion vegans getting into BK.

For me biggest problem is meat smell inside of their restaurants. Most vegans don't like that. ;)

Turing_Machine3• 7 years ago

it's too popular to make that decision

It's popular enough to double the square footage devoted to grills (at, generally, a hefty monthly lease cost per square foot), double the energy consumption, and double the employee time for grill cleaning and maintenance?

I'm skeptical.

caf• 7 years ago

If Burger King is forced to get a separate stove...

It seems more likely that they'd just have to tweak the way it's advertised, with some fine print making it clear that it's cooked on the same grill as meat products (as with "processed on equipment that also processes nuts" type disclaimers).

mc32• 7 years ago

I agree with this.

A problem is ultra-orthodoxy along with less than truthful advertising. As someone commented in line, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

I know in other cultures I've worked in abroad this would not be a problem. People presume best effort with these kinds of things and don't take it literally --some people might but they'd be a tiny tiny minority. It was usually the foreigner who got upset that something wasn't 100% vegan even if in spirit things were and locals were okay with it.

lonelappde2• 7 years ago

"Meat-friendly" burgers, like "gluten-friendly" food that has a little gluten in it.

erikig• 7 years ago

"Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good"

shkkmo• 7 years ago

There is no requirement of a separate grill, BK can use a microwave and/or advertise that while the impossible Burger contains 0% beef, it is cooked on equipment that also cooks beef (just like we do with peanut allergy warnings.)

anonytrary• 7 years ago

If Burger King is forced to get a separate stove(or whatever it's called in the industrial-sized context they're in) just for that 1 burger, they will cancel that burger.

I'm not a fan of regulation obstructing experimentation, but in this case, I think requiring proper cooking process for something that is purportedly vegetarian is absolutely necessary.

I don't see the problem with fine-print like "may have touched real meat". The impossible whopper should be marketed towards omnivores who:

  1. Understand the personal/environmental problems with eating meat.
  2. Are interested in alternatives.

This market seems to be increasing. If this is profitable, then it makes sense to support a fully vegetarian pipeline for producing fake meat.

noitsnot• 7 years ago

My experience is they don't have enough room for two grills without melting some ceiling tiles because the kitchen ventilation is made for one. They used to (may still) cook the chicken sandwich on the same grill and claim it was gluten free.

cageface3• 7 years ago

I agree. I'm as vegan as I can be and still be a digital nomad but this seems like the lesser of two evils to me. I'd rather see this product stay on the market and introduce more people to the idea of eating less or even no meat.

I understand why some vegans are put off by the idea of eating something cooked on the same grill as actual meat but I think we need pragmatism more than anything right now.

thunderbong• 7 years ago

In my experience most of the vegan evangelists are not pragmatists

bscphil• 7 years ago

I understand why some vegans are put off by the idea of eating something cooked on the same grill as actual meat

I genuinely have never met a vegan who would be bothered by this, and I know quite a few. If there were still bits of meat on the grill it could still be kind of gross if they came off on the burger I guess, but most would have no problem with it. This strikes me as an extremely rare case, and I don't see any obvious grounds for a lawsuit.

neuralRiot• 7 years ago

I think we need pragmatism more than anything right now.

Why? What’s the emergency? BK raising their profits? They laughed at us not so long ago now they just realize there’s an opportunity here, i’d rather support local vegan eateries. It was as simple as putting a disclaimer in the ad “vegan burgers are cooked on shared equipment and can contain traces of meat”.

odyssey7• 7 years ago

I remember reading about vegetarians mitigating this very concern years ago when Burger King put out its first veggie burger.

In 2002, the company already had a response for this situation. "'The Burger King VeggieBurger is not positioned to be a vegetarian or vegan burger. It was designed to be a meatless alternative.' These were the words VIP heard when we called Burger King headquarters in Miami, Florida."

2005: "The VIP tasters sampled the original BK Veggie Burger that was warmed slightly in the microwave to avoid contamination by the animal products cooked on the grill."

2002: "Vegetarians who order the BK VEGGIE should specify that they want it cooked away from the Whoppers. To make certain, they should request it be microwaved."

Source: https://www.vegparadise.com/news15.html

try_again• 7 years ago

I also recalled hearing exactly this. In fact, in my recollection Burger King had a vegetarian burger option for some time before dropping it due to complaints of it being prepared on the same grill as the meat patties. Meanwhile McDonald's also offers vegetarian options which apparently aren't prepared separately to avoid cross-contamination. Only their options seem to vary quite a bit by region, so maybe they've just cleverly avoided the scrutiny that comes with a global marketing offensive like this.

shirro• 7 years ago

In Australia I noticed it was in the promotional material that the patty is cooked with meat and that there is some other vegetable patty for people who find this a problem. I guess there are different audiences for the product. The meat is murder fanatics and the people who are looking for more sustainable meat alternatives.

taneq3• 7 years ago

I was going to ask about this. They already have a veggie burger here which (to my knowledge) isn't cooked with the meat patties. Why would you cook an otherwise-meat-free burger with the meat patties?

gregoryl2• 7 years ago

IIRC, the veggie paddies are fried.

imgabe• 7 years ago

What are the damages? Are they out money because of this? Did they get sick?

landa• 7 years ago

I'm a vegetarian, and there are only two foods that I miss eating: burgers and sushi. I tried the Impossible Whopper and it was better than I remember the regular Whopper tasting. Offering it could be a really powerful force in pushing the food industry away from meat. I think Burger King is helping the cause enormously by offering it, and I'd be sad if its efforts were blocked by a frivolous lawsuit.

Traster• 7 years ago

I'm married to a Vegetarian, if we have a BBQ I'll just stick some tinfoil does the centre and use one side for Veg one side for meat. The little tinfoil barrier prevents any meat juices spitting onto the vegetables. It doesn't seem to me like it'd be that difficult to have a small divider and ensure a 1-burger-width space for the impossible burger is retained if necessary. Can anyone explain why that wouldn't solve the problem cheaply?

NullPrefix• 7 years ago

Do you flip the meat with a separate spatula or use the same one? Just asking.

nkrisc• 7 years ago

Expecting vegan orthodoxy in a Burger King is strange. If they're cooked even in the same room your vegan Impossible Burger almost certainly covered in tiny grease droplets from the real meat burgers. No vent hood is perfect.

poulsbohemian2• 7 years ago

I'd been thinking about this for several years, but now I'm even more convinced: somebody will develop an all-vegetarian quick serve restaurant at national scale soon.

archagon• 7 years ago

Veggie Grill is all-vegan, tastes fantastic, and already has locations in 5 states!

poulsbohemian2• 7 years ago

I couldn’t help but notice this on the Burger King website in the page for the impossible whopper:

“ *For guests looking for a meat-free option, a non-broiler method of preparation is available upon request.. ”

So looks like that’s their answer.

nobodyandproud• 7 years ago

The standard impossible whopper has mayo, so it’s not vegan by default.

I hope this fella loses.

A Vegan Sued Burger King over Its ‘Impossible Whopper’

Related Stories