[rajekas]

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.

[srl]

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]

>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.

[srl]

(I think you have a reasonable point, but I still disagree, so I'm gonna take one last whack at explaining why.)

I'm a idiot who should have read TFA before commenting --- because then I'd have been able to make a slightly stronger case. The burger was advertised as "0% beef". Now that, coupled with the "everybody knows the impossible burger is vegan", screams to me that it's a vegetarian meal.

The task of eating shouldn't be a hellish chore for people with reasonably common dietary restrictions. I don't know much about celiac disease, but my understanding is that a large part of it is "gluten = bad". If I see something advertised as "0% gluten", it should be safe to assume that it's celiac-safe!

Even disregarding the "0%" part, though... the news has been trumpeting the "impossible burger" for months now. Suppose there had been some "impossible bread" in the news, because it was specially invented to avoid needing gluten. Then, ordering an "impossible burger on impossible bread" from BK, I'd expect it to be gluten-free! Not because it happens to be made with a single gluten-free ingredient, but because the form of the advertising, in the context of the last year of news, would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that yes, this burger was made with the intention to be gluten-free and vegetarian.

You're absolutely right that, if you have celiac disease, or strong moral dietary restrictions, and you take the attitude of "BK better get it right", then you're gonna have a bad time. But, to me, that's clearly wrong, and we should seek to change it.

[pas]

Vegan is not a food safety label, it's an ethical label. And "vegan" or "0% beef" with drops of animal molecules on the stove become the classical how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle problem.

Gluten-sensitive folks (Celiacs especially) don't trust anything that isn't shrinkwrapped in a sturdy package. It doesn't matter what the menu says, because life gets veeery messy compared to picking stuff up from supermarket shelves.

Plus, 0% is not 0.0000000%, it's one significant digit. Sure, on the other hand it should have been "0 + epsilon % beef", but ... there's probably some beef in the air too in burger fast food joints / restaurants.

[ianai]

Vegan is not a solely moral label. It’s a label like Kosher or any of the others. It signifies compliance with getting a product without any animal products. BK could and I’d argue should just make a note that even removing the cheese doesn’t make it a vegan sandwich. If they specify which ingredients or cooking processes invalidate it then they’ll still get the otherwise vegans who are willing to eat off shared equipment.

[pas]

Okay, so is there a Vegan Authority? Because for Kosher it's up to some rabbis. And there are rules for labels such as "Made in X" (usually something like value add must be at least 50% in X).

And so it might be that "vegan" means "no animals harmed during the making of this nor does the sale of this contribute to that", so you can eat animal meat after the animal naturally died and it's not in a factory, ugly farm setting.

Or it might mean that no meat or animal products added/used, except reasonable contamination. After all in lactose-free milk there's still some 0.09% lactose, etc.

Or whatever.

For example frying oil has a big impact on taste, so that might be important, because if it's contamination easily detected by humans then it means it should be contamination easily prevented.

Grills/stovetops? I have no idea, probably not much.

[avisser]

Forget the patty. It's still a whopper. The default preparation comes with mayo.

I think people want it to be vegan. That doesn't make it so.

[joveian]

I can only guess that they did actually check everything else or the lawsuit would be thrown out immediately.

You say "do the legwork", but this isn't possible if companies are allowed to outright lie to you. Sure we keep a list of "known lies" like the mushroom D3 advertised as vegan that is just non-vegan D3 fed to mushrooms. But such deception should not be allowed or it will get much worse as the number of vegans increases. IMO, anyone who wants to ever be able to select products based on anything but a few common criteria should support a hard line on complete ingredient lists and accuracy in advertising.

[CamelCaseName]

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]

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.

[idonotknowwhy]

> 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.

[etu]

> 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.

[ianai]

I get “the talk” multiple times per week from coworkers. I don’t tell people what I think about their dietary choices if I were to eat them. That’s an endless fight that I don’t want nor seek to win.

Though I will get opinionated if they microwave fish or shellfish in the microwave that’s less than 10 feet from my head! That’s a shared space thing though and they have multiple microwave options. They’re just lazy.

[idonotknowwhy]

I'm not a vegan, but I'd have a huge problem with that as well!

[kaikai]

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.

[wooger]

They aren't marginalised as people, they're marginalised because the world does not have to adjust to people's arbitrary diet restrictions.

If I decided that I only wanted to eat blue M&Ms and took offense at getting a packet with them mixed with the other colours (sorry, cross contaminated), it would be unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to make blue only packs to suit me, or to expect shops to start stocking them.

[idonotknowwhy]

> 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.

I disagree with this. A steakhouse is expected to serve steak, a Korean BBQ, korean bbq, and a those juice bars are expected to serve fruit smoothies etc.

I follow the keto diet, and we need to make sure any places we go have options for me too (a lot don't). That doesn't mean I'm marginalized though.

The thing I do have a problem with (on behalf of vegans, even though I'm not one) is when a restaurant says they have "Vegan options" or are "Vegan Friendly", and then it's just a disgusting garden salad.

[taneq]

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]

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)

[taneq]

> (And, specifically, they are not ridiculous for reusing it he same steel)

I think we're actually saying the same thing.