Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomatotomato37 | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

>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.

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.

> Vegans have a variety of motivations and yes - some are disgusted by animal products.

I find it hard to believe that such a person would willingly go inside a Burger King in the first place.

I mean, every surface in one of those places is eventually coated with a layer of grease, right?

> I find it hard to believe that such a person would willingly go inside a Burger King in the first place.

You may well fid it hard to be believe, but vegans actually have meat eating friends and may be accepting of other people's dietary choices, and may want to socialise with them - without putting meat products in their mouths.

Thats kinda the point I think.

They cant claim Vegan if there is animal product in and on it.

But what percent? I mean if a fly lands in it? Human sweat? What about insect parts in grain.

>> They cant claim Vegan if there is animal product in and on it.

Then there's really no such thing as "vegan". All fruits, vegetables, grains, flours...have a certain number of insects in or on them (especially if they're organic).

It would be possible to have some definition like the one for Kosher rules (fundamentally, less than 1 part in 60 doesn't count, though there are many nuances on top of that), but 100% absence of animal products is simply not possible.

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.

I visited a strictly vegan Indian restaurant once, there was a huge kerfuffle that night because some diners had brought a baby in and was spoon feeding the child baby food from a jar that was not vegan. This wasn't the issue... the issue was that the spoon was the restaurants spoon. Their religious convictions deemed that spoon now "violated". They threw the family out and made them pay for the cutlery as well.

If they'd used their own cutlery there would not have anywhere near as much animosity.

I see this sort of behavior as irrational. But I dont live these peoples lives and dont believe what they believe.

I just liked their food :-P

Why in the world did the family pay for the spoon? I mean I might have offered if someone had politely informed me about what I'd done. But I'm certainly not going to of it's a demand.

their religious convictions stated that they could no longer use the cutlery. they had to dispose of it.

ie, could never be cleaned enough to be "vegan" again...

bloody bonkers really.

Edit, yes it was metal...

I wonder if they were Jain vegetarians. The strictest Jains don't even eat root vegetables like onions or potatoes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism

Or maybe "level 5 vegans", they won't eat anything that casts a shadow.

Aren't those called "breatarians"? People living on air and sunlight.

> but there's no downside to removal of contamination, so they'd likely support it given the choice.

There may be a downside, if the cost of compliance is too high and the business decides to stop offering the product.

I think I understand what you're saying, but could you elaborate on it to make clear who suffers the downside and why?

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

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?

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.

For religious people, there is really no sense to be made out of it. I say this as a Muslim.

I did address alpha-gal by saying that those who have allergies should be mindful of cross contamination in restaurants that serve the stuff they are allergic to.

Because the article was specifically about a vegan?

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.

> 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.)

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?

Because suddenly to make them happy each store requires thousands of dollars in new equipment.

It's not just offering the product it's requiring a separate process for it that costs money to each franchisee

The impossible burger is a product. The demands are the result of these people not impossible burger

Well, let's extend that argument out to the marketplace: Any company can make any claim they want about their products and then if it becomes too expensive to actually deliver that product they can swap in something inferior and in fact contrary to the original offer.

This is a problem between BK management and the franchises. You can't blame the consumer for expecting to receive the product as advertised. If it's too complicated to produce, don't offer it.

If it rounds down to 0, most marketing is allowed some margin of error.

You can put 0 grams fat per serving on a product that actually has 0.01 grams of fat.

If a vegan restaurant advertises 0% animal products I guarantee that is also incorrect. There is some small percentage of insect parts in almost everything.

Obviously there is some margin.

I think incidental insect parts are different to a production process that guarantees the product will be coated in animal fat.

It's cooked on a grill that is used for meat. How much animal fat it picks up is to be determined, but my guess is that by weight it still rounds down to 0. From my experience with grills I doubt it's very much at all.

Clearly there is some threshold. What is it? 1 part per thousand? 1 part per billion?

Can you not see the difference between the two?

In one case, the result is occasional accidental contamination, in the other, the product is intentionally placed on a contaminated surface.

I don't think anyone is expecting perfection, but there is no reasonable effort being made to avoid this problem for a product that BK advertises as "0% beef".

>but there is no reasonable effort being made to avoid this problem for a product that BK advertises as "0% beef

Adding an extra grill to the restaurant isn't reasonable. Apparently they will microwave it if you ask.

However, the entire kitchen is covered in grease, it's a burger king. There's going to be some amount of cross contamination no matter what they do. They may be able to reduce it from 0.01% beef to 0.001% beef, but who cares? Who is ok with 1 part in 100,000, but not 1 part in 10,000?

There's no functional difference unless you have an allergy and that happens to be the threshold.

If you aren't OK with eating something to that touched meat and may contain trace amounts of beef, don't eat at a Burger restaurant.

I agree—a demand to retrofit everything isn’t feasible. But the demand isn’t “buy the new equipment”; the demand is “Buy the new equipment OR change your marketing to accurately reflect your equipment situation”.

The word "vegan" is not regulated in the US. If hypocrisy is to be avoided then vegan friendly non-milk beverages need to refrain from calling themselves "milk".

This is already a problem in the US with things like "chocolate" and "cheese products." This lawsuit isn't going to be addressing any of that. My concern would be if this lawsuit is going to have a detrimental effect on decreasing meat consumption in the US. Or maybe it'll just add another example to the list of foods that aren't what they say they are, so next time it'll be "chocolate," "cheese products," and "vegan."

I don't know the situation in the US but in Australia I have noticed that we now have "dairy drink" instead of cheap milk, "sandwich slices" instead of cheap cheese. Nowhere on these products does it say milk or cheese because obviously it isn't. It looks like it and is packaged like it and there's no explicit warning that it isn't the real deal, but that's a marketing sleight of hand that I'm ok with I guess. Buyer beware. But false advertising? No. That's an enormous slippery slope and the consumer protections benefit us all, not just vegans.

But it's the same situation, and I'm sure BK will solve it with the exact same solution, disclaimers. So we still have "cheese products" right next to actual cheese, packaged in the same way as actual cheese, and this vegan burger is going to be advertised as vegan, but with a disclaimer. Just as some products specify that they're manufactured alongside other peanut products and may contain some peanut.

The downside here is that maybe it stops vegan products from getting more popular and becoming more readily available. That's my only concern. I'm otherwise not opposed to suing companies for false advertising, and I wish that happened more often because if it did, this problem wouldn't have come up in the first place.

Agreed. There should be a disclaimer and end of story.

Although I can see the ridiculous side to this. If I were a hardcore vegan I wouldn't be trusting BK to do the right thing. On my occasional shameful forays to BK I'm looking for a very specific combo - salt, animal protein, empty carbs and a sugar hit. If I'm looking for a healthy choice BK doesn't even cross my mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com