5 ms·

Sure, and if BK decides to market specifically to people with meatatarian, vegan, halal, kosher, and hindu dietary requirements you would expect them to actuall

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?

LegitShady 7y ago
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
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  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.
  - learc83 7y ago
    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.
    - cookie_monsta 7y ago
      I think incidental insect parts are different to a production process that guarantees the product will be coated in animal fat.
      - learc83 7y ago
        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?
        gregoryl 7y ago
        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".
        learc83 7y ago
        >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.
- riwsky 7y ago
  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”.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    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".
lovehashbrowns 7y ago
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."
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  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.
  - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
    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.
    - cookie_monsta 7y ago
      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.

LegitShady 7y ago

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

cookie_monsta 7y ago
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.
- learc83 7y ago
  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.
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    I think incidental insect parts are different to a production process that guarantees the product will be coated in animal fat.
    - learc83 7y ago
      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?
      - gregoryl 7y ago
        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".
        learc83 7y ago
        >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.
riwsky 7y ago
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”.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  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".

lovehashbrowns 7y ago

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."

cookie_monsta 7y ago
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.
- lovehashbrowns 7y ago
  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.
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    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.