96 replies to this topic

[Steve Klc]

If you go back to the original link I provided, the author included in a little throwaway line: "It should be noted that the BK Veggie is not a vegetarian burger in the Vegan sense--mayonnaise does contain eggs and the patty shares the grill with other meats."

I initially read past the true significance of this line.

Then re-read the press release and yes, Tommy, it is so purposely parsed that vegetarian is not ever mentioned, just "veggie." Neither is the (presumed) fact that these veggie burgers will be cooked alongside beef.

But it is mentioned in mostly positive press commentary.

I'm reminded again of the Weekly Standard's conclusion: "In a way, it's a little miracle that meat-eaters and vegetarians can come together and eat peacefully--at the Home of the Whopper no less."

Well, as it turns out, they can't.  Burger King wants its publicly approving, high-moral-ground cake and to eat it, too--they so obviously (to me) want to appear to offer something to vegetarians.  It seems purposely vague at best, disingenuous at worst, to offer it up with beef grease. No wonder the BK Veggie has that signature flame-broiled taste.

[jhlurie]

Let's think of this from a purely economic standpoint for a moment.   Could BK afford to maintain seperate cooking areas for Veggie Burgers?  Probably not.

Nevertheless, they could probably do a bit more to seperate out the grease being used.  Without a seperate cooking area it would never be 100% though...

Let's be honest... if enough fuss is made of this it's far more likely that they would drop the BK Veggie entirely, as opposed to taking more extreme (and costly) measures to keep it pure.

I can respect veganism as a choice... but it's a bit much to expect other people to look out for you.  The whole idea of a McDonalds french fry or a Burger King burger or ANY fast food more complex than a side salad being truly animal by-product free is so inherently ludicrous that I'm not sure why anyone would ever make ANY assumptions about it.  If Burger King actively advertised it as "vegetarian" "animal by-product free" or "vegan" than slap them hard.  If not, and people simply ASSUMED, well...

[tommy]

The whole idea of a McDonalds french fry or a Burger King burger or ANY fast food more complex than a side salad being truly animal by-product free is so inherently ludicrous that I'm not sure why anyone would ever make ANY assumptions about it.  If Burger King actively advertised it as "vegetarian" "animal by-product free" or "vegan" than slap them hard.  If not, and people simply ASSUMED, well...

bravo.

[Wilfrid]

I think BK are being naughty.  I am in no doubt that they know a lot of people will assume it's a vegetarian choice.  But they know it's not and are careful not to say so.  This sort of thing gets companies in trouble.

[jhlurie]

This sort of thing gets companies in trouble.

Legally?  I sincerely hope not.  Morally?  Well... perhaps.  P.R.-wise (which has no actual relation to the law or morality)?   Yes.  It can be trouble.

[tommy]

NO NO NO NO!!!  no self-respecting, aware, reasonable, rational person, much less a vegetarian, would make an assumption like that!!  if they do, eff 'em!  i didn't make the freakin assumption.  i'm sure most of the people i know wouldn't make that assumption.  why in the world would we think that those who are actually passionate about animal products *would* make that leap of faith!?!?!  i just makes no sense.

[jhlurie]

Although I mostly agree with tommy, the real test will be to see what they say about the BK Veggie when the nutrional information part of their website goes up -- apparently eventually at this URL (click here--but you won't see much yet...).  

As much as I believe in "buyer beware", a nutritional information blurb should have full disclosure.

Anyone who is near a BK restaurant... perhaps walk inside and see if nutritional info is posted on the wall or available in handouts for the "Veggie".

[tommy]

of course i'm all for full disclosure, coming from BK itself (not the kid at the register).  i mean, we need to see this in writing in case we one day find our vegetarian selves in line at BK and realize we've left every ounce of our common sense at home.   :p

hell, if vegetarianism leads to the profound level of cluelessness that some of these posts have suggested, get me a steak ASAP!!!

[Ron Johnson]

Tommy & Jhlurie:  why is it that you guys think the onus should be on the customer and not the restaurant?  Why is it the customer's responsibility to find out and not the restaurant's to correctly advise.  They are soliciting for my money, why should the burden be on me to find out if they are not fully disclosing the product?  I don't understand the desire to always exonerate the corporation and blame the person.  
Are the people at BK so stupid that it never dawned on them that people might assume that a burger called the "BK veggie" might be vegetarian?  I have a feeling that it not only dawned on them, but that they were banking on it.

As for the question, "Could BK afford to maintain separate cooking areas for Veggie Burgers?"  The answer is: yes, it is called a microwave.  They are used for everything else in fast food restaurants.

[tommy]

Why is it the customer's responsibility to find out and not the restaurant's to correctly advise.  They are soliciting for my money, why should the burden be on me to find out if they are not fully disclosing the product?  

because it is the customer's responsibility, that's why.  when you order a meal at Jean Georges, no one tells you all of the ingredients.  if you ask, you'll most likely find out.  i think this analogy is close enough.  no one is responsible for you except you.  simple as that.

as for BK misleading the public, that's probably a separate issue altogether.  however, i don't imagine that a high profile company like that would want to completely piss off a huge amount of people just to get $2.89 out of them once (or until those who were fooled realize that they've been, um, scammed).  it's just not good businss.

[Wilfrid]

I am not an attorney.

However, I think Ron Johnson is spot on, and I can readily see the makings of a claim against BK - but it would only be worth bringing if the offended vegetarian could show damages of some kind (although in these days a suit for a million bucks for offending sensibilities is not inconceivable).  I have no doubt that a Veggie Burger is aimed, among others, at vegetarian customers.

tommy has summarized what BK''s defense would probably be (although they might not eff so much in court).

[tommy]

stupid is as stupid effing does (i was never sure what that meant, but it seems to fit).

i hope these vegetarians sue the company.  and i hope their names are in the paper so i can see exactly who these ignorant sorry effers are.  once i do, i shall taunt them.

[Ron Johnson]

Tommy, just out of curiosity, do you believe in any consumer protection laws?  I am not being sarcastic, I truly want to know.  If you have the view that it is always the customer's responsibility to find out before buying, the merchantibility of the product, then I will acknowledge that we just have a very different view of the roles of retailers and consumers.
I mean do you take a mechanic with you to look at a car before you buy it from the dealership?  I don't, I rely that a new car will be either be in good running condition for a reasonable number of miles or years, or the company will fix it for me for free.  I assume that my tires will last for  a certain number of miles, that my lightbulbs will burn for a certain number of hours.  I assume that if I spill my coffee it will hurt like hell but not require 7 surgeries.
All of these assumptions are enabled by the right of the consumer seek remuneration from the retailer.  This fosters consumer confidence.  This makes people buy things.  This makes America work.
Also, it is worth pointing out that I NEVER advocated suing BK over this.  I merely gave the experience of a friend who ate one, and then watched in amazement as others blamed him for the incident.  My only point is that BK should recognize that "veggie" carries the connotation of vegetarian.
So there.

[Steve Klc]

Ron, as you can tell from my posts I'm so completely with you on this that I guess I am profoundly clueless.  And on the same day that John Whiting thought I was thinking and writing profoundly on another thread.  This place sure keeps you on your toes.

Malawry--where are you?  weigh in on this please.

[jhlurie]

At least legally I think that BK's responsibility doesn't go any further than "don't commit fraud" and "don't violate health codes, regulations and/or laws violating your industry".  A lawyer like Steve Shaw should be able to put this into more formal terminology, but is it really necessary?  This all comes down to whether or not you want the law to control shades of meaning on terms like "veggie", and how much double-think is expected of a business.

Morally?  Well as corporate entities it's a bit... unrealistic to expect morality from them.  We could speak about the weighing of morality against the amount of "damage" by by the misrepresentation... but I'm not sure we could agree on what that damage is.

As a Public Relations move--the only one of these three categories which matters in the short term--it probably wasn't a great idea.

Now let's say that on the moral scale that a bunch of influential people got together and perceived this as SO morally bankrupt and so damaging that they decided that something HAD to be done.  This is why people group together and lobby for legal changes... although personally I'm not sure I'd like to see that many legal changes in the direction of using government beurocracy to coddle people in ways that they more easily attend to themselves.

[tommy]

Ron, i believe the consumer should have every possible resource on his side to protect him from unsavory characters.  i believe in this strongly.  i also believe that if your religion or personal choice dictates that you don't put any animal product in your mouth you'd better be smart enough to ask first.  laws can only protect you so much, you have to start by protecting yourself.

i am done discussing and i shall progress directly into the taunting.

[Wilfrid]

Don't worry everyone, Tommy just hasn't thought it through yet.  And Tommy, when I figure out how to do picture links I will post some ugly effer for you to look at!

Which reminds me, Annique left Jimmy's a couple of weeks ago to seek a new life as a movie star in LA.  Tragic, but I'll be looking out for her movies!  Oh, no-one knows what we're talking about.  Sorry.

[jhlurie]

On the issue of "consumer protection laws", these are always spoken of as if they were one concrete movement--one definitive set of proposed laws or regulations that would become some kind of magic wand to stop all instances of corporate greed.  To any reasonable viewpoint, I can't see how that would be true.  If DAMAGES occur then consumer protection laws make sense.  But to use them to create something out of nothing is just plain wrong.

I won't debate that a vegetarian could be "damaged" by eating meat.  But how do you put a value on that damage?  Should you?

Consumer protection laws should prevent people from getting hurt.  In some cases they should punish evil doers.  What they shouldn't do is take the place of common sense.  We don't need a huge beurocracy to be "Daddy" for us, just a smaller one that keeps people from acting like criminals.

[Ron Johnson]

Jhlurie:
Unfortunately, I am a lawyer.  However, again I will say that I was never advocating legal action against BK for this.  Merely, that I don't believe it was my friend's fault for assuming that a veggie burger was in fact vegetarian, especially after he asked the employee.  We keep talking about how its the customer's responsibility to ask.  I clearly stated in my post that he did ask.  He then relied on what he was told.  How much further should he have gone, to the manager, regional manager, franchise owner?

[tommy]

We keep talking about how its the customer's responsibility to ask.  I clearly stated in my post that he did ask.  He then relied on what he was told.  How much further should he have gone, to the manager, regional manager, franchise owner?

dude.  come on.  you don't ask the 4 dollar and hour high school drop out.  we went down this road already, and i think we all agree.

from now on if i say "ask", i am implying "find out to the best of your ability".

xo

[Wilfrid]

So, Tommy, you've forgotten Annique already.  Listen, if you start taunting the vegetarians, they're going to laugh right back in your face:



Don't say I didn't warn you! :p

[jhlurie]

I don't believe it was my friend's fault for assuming that a veggie burger was in fact vegetarian, especially after he asked the employee.  We keep talking about how its the customer's responsibility to ask.  I clearly stated in my post that he did ask.  He then relied on what he was told.  How much further should he have gone, to the manager, regional manager, franchise owner?

ah... the "stupid employee" angle. :)

I can see a bit of your viewpoint on this.  Then again (and I know this is hardly an "enlightened" politically correct argument... just a realistic one) what else did your friend expect from someone who works at a Burger King for a living?  tommy's argument still works in general... should you really expect an authoritative and informed answer from a 16 year old or senior citizen making ten cents an hour over minimum wage?  Perhaps it seems a bit unfair to your friend, but I don't think it's way out of whack to expect a more informed answer from a restaurant manager, and perhaps then a slightly greater level of responsibility if the answer was wrong.

Then again... you use the word "fault" in reference to this whole incident.  Doesn't fault imply that there were damages?  That's most of this whole debate... are elaborate rules and regulations necessary when the damages are negligable?

Okay... lets take this a step futher.  A lot of people are allergic to peanuts.  Laws have been passed to regulate labelling of when peanuts are used in packaged goods.  But do those same laws extend to un-packaged food?  Maybe they SHOULD because in that case a mistake might KILL someone instead of morally outraging them.

[Wilfrid]

By the way, I wasn't advocating legal action against BK either.  I was just saying that, as a layman, I could see how someone could try to make out a case.

Can everyone see the funny picture I put up?

[tommy]

wilfrid, i don't see your picture.

jhlurie, peanuts are in thai and vietnamese food and i don't always see that mentioned on the menu.  if i ask the non-english speaking kid if the curry has peanuts he'll most likely nod his head no or yes, depending on the wind.  i shall taunt the kid and sue the thai place the next time this happens.  well, maybe i won't see, but i will be morally outraged, but certainly highly-spiced.

[Ron Johnson]

Tommy if you are saying that asking the store is not good enough because the counter guy makes 5 bucks an hour then that kind of blows your Jean Georges analogy.  At least  I don't think those waiters make 5 bucks an hour.  Again, you say it is the cusotmer's responsibility to ask, but yet you still blame them when they do ask because you don't think the person they asked was smart enough.  Should he have written to BY corporate headquarters before going for the veggie burger?

Jhlurie:  let go of damages.  I am not advocating a lawsuit.  Damages ONLY apply in lawsuits.  My friend does not want to sue BK, never did and never will.    I merely related what he told me about his experience and then you and Tommy said it was his fault for assuming it was vegetarian even though he asked beforehand.
Bottomline, he did not assume.  Even though it is called the "BK veggie" he still asked and was told it was free of animal products.  earlier you stated that if BK "actively" stated that the product was free of animal products, then it would be their screw-up.  Isn't that what they did?

[Steve Klc]

Wifrid--no.

Also, let's not forget that managers and assistant managers of fast food franchises make very good money and have very good benefits--unlike most chefs and line cooks I know.

Legal action diverts us.  My two issues:  was BK pulling a fast one with the vague wording of their press release? and was BK disingenuous to issue a press release announcing the "BK Veggie" and not also mention that it shouldn't actually be considered "vegetarian" since it would be cooked alongside meat?

[Ron Johnson]

Tommy, what if the menu said "Peanut-less" thai food?  Would you be upset when it had peanuts in it and the restaurant said "you should have asked because we don't think "peanut-less"  means totally without peanuts.  You shouldn't assume."

[Wilfrid]

Does this resolve it?  Consumers may be stupid, in some cases, to rely on what they are told by a vendor (especially if the vendor is represented by someone who appears ill-informed), but they are nonetheless entitled to rely on it.  Legally, and I think ethically too.  

(It was a funny picture, too.  :( )

[jhlurie]

let go of damages.  

to some extent that's hard to do... but for at least the first part of this response... sure.

earlier you stated that if BK "actively" stated that the product was free of animal products, then it would be their screw-up.  Isn't that what they did?

And the heart of the issue may be whether or not it is reasonable to expect a low-level employee to be a representative for an entire multi-billion dollar chain...

Did the kid screw up.  Sure he did.  Did B.K. screw up because the kid screwed up?  I'm not sure...

More importantly who is at fault?  This is where (lawsuit or not) those unmentionable damages come into play.  Maybe it's just me, but I wasn't raised as a moral absolutist.  To retain even a little bit of hope in this world I have to believe that major infractions are less morally defensible than minor ones.  That's why damages are more important in more than just a legal sense to me.  If the damages are low I have at least some belief that it is at a minumum uncouth and at maximum dangerous to encourage people to make a fuss over issues of this type, because our energies should be better directed towards problems with greater consequences.

Now in a purely intellectual discussion... sure I can see your point.  But if this came down to ANYTHING in the "real world", be it lawsuit or just going down to your neighborhood BK and hassling them, I would see it as a waste of energy--both actual and spiritual.

As for the completely seperate issue of whether or not B.K was TRYING to pull a fast one... this is related.  We can suspect whatever we want, but if the wrongness of the action is so open to debate then what standard can you use OTHER than damages to assess how much we care about the issue?

[tommy]

Tommy if you are saying that asking the store is not good enough because the counter guy makes 5 bucks an hour then that kind of blows your Jean Georges analogy.  

i don't think it discredits my jean georges analogy at all.  my point was, you have to ask a credible source.  and if i were in a position where i needed to know, because of an allergy or religious or other reason, you can bet your pippy that i wouldn't feel comfortable taking the word of the kid at the register.  i would, however, feel comfortable asking a captain at jean georges (who would, incidently, ask the kitchen to get the answer if he was unsure).

as for your "peanut-less" question.  i would say that there is little confusion in anyone's mind that peanut-less means without peanuts.  that would be deception in advertising, or some other legal term that i don't know about.  

not to harp on it, but "veggie" means "vegetable" to me, not vegetarian.

mrs tommy:  "tommy, how would you like your veggies done"?
tommy:  "just put them in a luke warm pot of water and taunt them,  i hear they're suing BK again."
:p

you see, veggies means vegetables.