Vegan Sues Burger King For False Advertising, Alleging 'Impossible Whopper' Cooked With Beef Fat (bloomberg.com) 350
A lawsuit filed in federal court claims that Burger King is falsely advertising that its "Impossible Whopper" is "100% Whopper, 0% beef." "[Phillip Williams, the plaintiff in the Florida lawsuit] says he is a vegan who purchased an Impossible Whopper because of that zero percent promise, only to learn later that the patty was cooked on the same broiler as regular meat burgers, and thus was actually 'coated in meat by-products.'" Stephen L. Carter writes in a Bloomberg column that courts used to be skeptical of cases like this, "but times may be changing." From the report: Now, I'm as quick as anybody to condemn frivolous litigation, but if the allegations are true, Williams might well have a case. Vibrant free markets rely on truthful advertising, at least when the advertising influences the purchase decision. If a consumer happens to be vegetarian or vegan (or even, like me, pesce-pollotarian), the claim that the Impossible Whopper contains no meat will be crucial to the choice whether to give the sandwich a try. Not long ago, courts turned skeptical eyes to arguments by vegans that they'd been snookered. Back in 2003, for instance, a California judge dismissed a lawsuit by a "strict ethical vegan" against the maker of a tuberculosis test that, according to the plaintiff, was said to be vegan-friendly but actually contained animal products. The plaintiff lost not because the claim was ridiculous, but because, according to the court, the class of "strict ethical vegans" was too small. A reasonably prudent seller, wrote the court, possessed "no duty to warn of the possibility of rare, idiosyncratic, hypersensitive, or unusual reactions to an otherwise safe and useful product."
The court's reasoning is dated, the product of an era when veganism seemed quirky. No longer. According to a 2018 Gallup survey, some 3 percent of U.S. adults say they are vegan. Using current census data, this works out to around 7.6 million vegans. One doubts therefore that a present-day court would so blithely conclude that the class of those likely to be influenced by a claim of vegan content is small, or that its preferences are idiosyncratic. And, indeed, recent results have trended the other way.
Puffery -- "a mere puff," as the courts used to say -- is an extravagant advertising claim made in a context where no reasonable consumer would take it to be a factual assertion. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and absurdity are often puffery's ingredients. (Think "service second to none" or "best-built car on the planet.") Had Burger King advertised its Impossible Whopper as containing "so little meat a vegan won't care," a court would certainly have deemed the claim puffery. But the statement that the sandwich contains "0% beef" isn't puffery; it's a clear and precise assertion about the existence of a fact. If it was foreseeable that the claim would encourage those who eat no meat to try the product, and if the claim turns out to be false, it should be actionable. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the claim is actually false. As Impossible Foods has pointed out, the customer can ask Burger King to microwave the burger, thus avoiding any contamination with meat products. This proposition, if it turns out to have been properly advertised, might well allow the restaurant to avoid liability altogether. And let's not forget that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the lawsuit is potentially important.
The court's reasoning is dated, the product of an era when veganism seemed quirky. No longer. According to a 2018 Gallup survey, some 3 percent of U.S. adults say they are vegan. Using current census data, this works out to around 7.6 million vegans. One doubts therefore that a present-day court would so blithely conclude that the class of those likely to be influenced by a claim of vegan content is small, or that its preferences are idiosyncratic. And, indeed, recent results have trended the other way.
Puffery -- "a mere puff," as the courts used to say -- is an extravagant advertising claim made in a context where no reasonable consumer would take it to be a factual assertion. Exaggeration, hyperbole, and absurdity are often puffery's ingredients. (Think "service second to none" or "best-built car on the planet.") Had Burger King advertised its Impossible Whopper as containing "so little meat a vegan won't care," a court would certainly have deemed the claim puffery. But the statement that the sandwich contains "0% beef" isn't puffery; it's a clear and precise assertion about the existence of a fact. If it was foreseeable that the claim would encourage those who eat no meat to try the product, and if the claim turns out to be false, it should be actionable. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the claim is actually false. As Impossible Foods has pointed out, the customer can ask Burger King to microwave the burger, thus avoiding any contamination with meat products. This proposition, if it turns out to have been properly advertised, might well allow the restaurant to avoid liability altogether. And let's not forget that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the lawsuit is potentially important.
"pesce-pollotarian" (Score:5, Informative)
I learned a new word today!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"pesce-pollotarian" (Score:5, Funny)
I learned a new word today!
It's actually spelled, "pretentious".
Re: (Score:3)
Reminds me of an old joke ...
Q. How you do ask if someone is Vegan?
A. You don't have too -- they will tell you!
Re: (Score:3)
So he only eats Joe Pesci?
For you they will use the 'special grill' (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I also hope he eats his burger with gloves, wouldn't want to get any human skin oil upon his vegan burger, he would have to sue himself.
Hmm, I'm not sure, is eating human meat vegan? [science20.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Vegan's aren't human, they're vegan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For you they will use the 'special grill' (Score:5, Interesting)
In India the sandwich shops I went to often had a meatless and a meat-included counter with an air-gap between them. I guess you just can't be too sure when your soul is on the line.
Re:For you they will use the 'special grill' (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Were the gloves plastic? Isn't plastic made out of decomposed animals?
I'm a vegetarian (Score:4, Informative)
If a consumer happens to be vegetarian or vegan (or even, like me, pesce-pollotarian)
I still eat chicken/beef stock, wouldn't eat this shit, but it's not like I'd go into burger king anyways.
Vegetarian just means no meat, fried in the same broiler as actual beef wouldn't count as meat (to me).
Re: (Score:2)
Vegetarian just means no meat, fried in the same broiler as actual beef wouldn't count as meat (to me).
Maybe to you. I know many vegetarians who would disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, you surely can't be that confused:
1. Vegetarians don't eat animals or products that involve the death of animals
2. Vegans don't eat animals or products that involve the death of animals, or animal products
This is not complicated.
Eggs are animal products. They are not animals. If you think they are, you really need to consider re-taking your biology education. Vegetarians therefore eat eggs while vegans don't. Obviously, eggs eventually contain animals, but we are talking about the eggs that folks rout
Re: I'm a vegetarian (Score:3)
True story: I know a woman in Frankfort who swears bacon is vegan. Which has started the joke - how many vegans does it take to eat a pound of bacon? One, so long as no one is looking.
Re: (Score:3)
Vegetarians who have had no meat fat in their diet for a long time will lose the ability to digest it properly. So, if enough of it gets snuck in their food, it will give them diarrhoea.
If you regularly eat meat fat, this probably hasn't happened to you. But the risk of this happening gives vegetarians and vegans good reason to be strict about not allowing it in their food.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like it would give them good reason to allow tiny amounts of meat in their diet, to maintain a minimal level of enzymes (?) to prevent getting diarrhoea/B12 deficiency unnecessarily.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly if it's cooked in beef fat it isn't vegan.
It is not cooked in beef fat. That is a deliberate exaggeration.
This is Burger King. They use a flame broiler. This isn't a deep fryer filled with beef fat. It's a series of rollers that propel a burger patty thru flames to cook it. There is vaporized beef grease in the air and on every surface -there is no way to avoid some amount of exposure.
Re: (Score:3)
Too many labels on people. Some people don’t like to eat meat so they are vegetarian. Oh they may eat eggs, milk...
then you get Vegans who like to one up each other in being the most pure vegan.
I have heard of some vegans avoid eating root vegetables or anything that would kill the entire plant.
BK didn’t advertise as Vegan only vegetarian. So the fact it touched meat juices doesn’t counteract it.
Re: (Score:3)
The guy who lead the original vegan movement founded a foundation, and they define what a vegan is and is not.
https://www.vegansociety.com/a... [vegansociety.com]
I'm not a vegan.
Re: (Score:3)
Too many labels on people. Some people don’t like to eat meat so they are vegetarian. Oh they may eat eggs, milk... then you get Vegans who like to one up each other in being the most pure vegan. I have heard of some vegans avoid eating root vegetables or anything that would kill the entire plant.
I'm a level 5 vegan -- I won't eat anything that casts a shadow
There's always one idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Impossible Whopper does meet the standards for "0% beef" despite having beef fat residue on it. You need only read the laws regarding Nutrition Facts labels to learn that if something has "0g" of something doesn't mean none. Laws regarding advertising are far more lenient as you can call something fruit juice without using fruit to make it (Seriously, the laws are very relaxed). They never claimed it was a vegan burger and hell, if they did they would probably still win the case because it's in the spirit of being vegan!
There isn't going to be any change here, just another vegan announcing to the world that they are vegan.
Re: (Score:2)
Their product page is a bit strange, I never noticed that tag line before.
https://mobile.bk.com/menu-item/impossible-whopper [bk.com]
At the top is:
"100% Whopper, 0% beef"
Right below is:
"*For guests looking for a meat-free option, a non-broiler method of preparation is available upon request.. "
Lower down yet is the standard disclaimer seen everywhere:
"ALLERGENS: Egg, Soy, Wheat, Prepared on equipment used for products that contain soy."
My first seeing of that page was about two weeks ago when checking what chains i
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There's always one idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
For some people, it's very important.
The law should not be based on what fringe people find very important, because there's no limit to crazyness they can come up with.
Re:There's always one idiot. (Score:4, Insightful)
For some people, it's very important.
The law should not be based on what fringe people find very important, because there's no limit to crazyness they can come up with.
This. If someone cannot stand the idea that a single molecule of beef fat may have contaminated their veggie burger, they need to stay home and cook for themselves, or only go to restaurants that are exclusively vegan. Any restaurant that cooks meat will be unable to meet this requirement. Grease is in the air, and settles on everything. If you wear glasses, and do something like fry bacon or a steak, you know that you need to clean your glasses afterwards. Those microscopic dots of grease get onto everything, including the vegetables sitting on the next counter, onto the utensils used to flip the veggie burger, etc.. Welcome to the real world.
Fanatics of every stripe are annoying. Vegan fanatics among them.
Re: (Score:3)
How about this, the impossible burger ain't so impossible when it has been fried on a grilled beef flavoured surface, so that's where the flavour comes from, not so impossible after all ;D.
Furthermore... (Score:3)
the statement that the sandwich contains "0% beef" isn't puffery
I bet if you divide the mass of beef fat contaminant by the mass of the whole sandwich, you'd get something like 0.003 or 0.3%, and if you round that to the nearest percent, it would be 0%.
So a fair defense would be that the food industry has never before been required to use that much precision -- tenths of a percent or less -- when advertising its products.
Re: (Score:2)
if you round that to the nearest percent, it would be 0%.
This is how trans fat works. If a product has less than half a gram of trans fat per serving, they can legally advertise it as "0 grams trans fat".
FDA regulations on trans fat [fda.gov]: The Nutrition Facts Label can state 0 g of trans fat if the food product contains less than 0.5 g of trans fat per serving.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also how "lactose free" milk works. You only need to be below a threshold, not that you won't find ANY lactose in it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Impossible Whopper does meet the standards for "0% beef" despite having beef fat residue on it.
More importantly, how can it be false advertising when the very first word is "Impossible" followed by other words. They said it was impossible!
Re: (Score:2)
The Impossible Whopper does meet the standards for "0% beef" despite having beef fat residue on it. You need only read the laws regarding Nutrition Facts labels to learn that if something has "0g" of something doesn't mean none. Laws regarding advertising are far more lenient as you can call something fruit juice without using fruit to make it (Seriously, the laws are very relaxed). They never claimed it was a vegan burger and hell, if they did they would probably still win the case because it's in the spirit of being vegan!
There isn't going to be any change here, just another vegan announcing to the world that they are vegan.
Everyone who has had one of these things knows that Burger King microwaves them anyway. Soooo, I doubt there is even any beef fat residue on it.
Couldn't be more wrong. Can't have pic of a fruit (Score:3)
> Laws regarding advertising are far more lenient as you can call something fruit juice without using fruit to make it (Seriously, the laws are very relaxed).
Quite the opposite. There is a reason one product is called "apple juice" and another is called "apple-flavored beverage". I have a can of "peanut and honey spread" here because "peanut butter" isn't allowed to contain honey etc.
Actually juice has to use specific named varieties of fruit. You can't use just any type of orange and call it "orange j
Re:There's always one idiot. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not even beef fat residue. The "broiler" Burger King uses is a metal conveyor belt, over gas flames. The crud that gets on your Impossible Burger could be more accurately described as cremated cow remains.
If someone is going to get that bent out of shape out of eating a little bit of charcoal that used to be cow, it must take some serious mental gymnastics to rationalize patronizing a restaurant that primarily caters to carnivores, in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
I came here to say this. I buy some hydration tablets which claim, "Zero calories! 0g sugar!" But when you look at the nutritional information, there's actually something like 0.8 calories. Which, for a pint of liquid, is pretty close to zero; it's not exactly going to throw my blood sugar out of wack when fasting. Given that this is standard practice in the food industry, an
Re: (Score:3)
I'm inclined to agree with you here.
Right, and if BK said it was vegetarian, they should certainly be held to account. But if all they said was "0% beef", then I think there's a pretty good chance they'll prevail.
Re: (Score:3)
Laws regarding advertising are far more lenient as you can call something fruit juice without using fruit to make it
Really? Hmm... All I could find on a quick Google was 21 CFR 101.30, which states pretty clearly that you have to label the percentage of juice in your product, and cannot call it fruit juice if it contains minimal fruit juice.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov... [fda.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
If your religion or moral compass states you shouldn’t be eating food and shouldn’t be in contact with other foods it is really up to you to go to places that will follow your standards. Not complaining about places that don’t.
Me if I am hanging out with people who are particular in their food I will have them go to safe places.
Beef? (Score:5, Funny)
They first have to prove that the regular burgers contain any beef before they can claim that vegie burgers are cooked in the remains of the 'beef' burgers.
Re: (Score:2)
Vegan? (Score:4, Insightful)
Vegans don't want to eat dairy products (eggs, milk, cheese) and for this reason are quite unlikely to want most items advertised as "vegetarian". I have no idea why this person would dare try the Impossible burger which has never claimed to be vegan, right?
what is it, 0.00000001% beef? (Score:2)
Oh for fuck's sake, just throw the case out. Even the kashrut isn't that strict[*].
That aside, my local BK sells the Impossible Burger, and it's pretty good, imho.
[*] meat and dairy must have less than one part in 60 of one in the other, and only then by accident -- any more, or deliberate, is considered mixed.
Cooking on same skillet is a no no (Score:5, Informative)
They don't have to accommodate us, if it is fried in the same vat with meat products, then we choose a different dish. But we expect truth.
Despite all the precautions we have taken, we are sure we had ingested some food contaminated with meat, but at least in our mind we are at peace having done the due diligence on our part.
Truth be told, America has been a lot more vegetarian friendly than the India I grew up in. In USA they accept my preferences without question, and help when they could, and say sorry politely when they could not. In India many were hostile to my vegetarianism, inferring my caste from it and conflating it with many other political and religious issues.
Its a huge flame grill (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many restaurants tell us, "sorry we use chicken stock / meat sauce / same vat". We usually find something else to eat, and leave a generous tip as thank you gesture.
Surprisingly some Muslim restaurants are quite strict about meat/non-meat separation. Halal rules are close to kosher rules and there are muslims who would not mix dairy with meat. Aladin's eatery is a chain that has a separate vat for f
Re: (Score:2)
The restaurant will tell you the truth about the menu and the ingredients, but the waitstaff at your average American restaurant aren't making sure the cooks are cooking your meal in separate oil and pans. They don't have time for that nonsense. And I don't know why you are surprised about Halal restaurants. That is why they exist. You aren't the only person on the planet who has special dietary requirements.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing that people in India were so hostile to you. You seem like a reasonable guy.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised. I'm from India as well, an Indians can be very prejudiced.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that hard to believe. Why would someone be prejudiced against some guy who comes into Subway and demands that they change their gloves when making his sandwich?
Re:Cooking on same skillet is a no no (Score:4, Insightful)
You have the right to believe my faith is shitty or worse.
Of course, I have the same right to call you similar things, but I usually do not exercise that right.
I have my right to worship trees.
I have my right to refuse to eat meat.
I intend to exercise those rights, I will try to minimize the cost and inconvenience to others in my pursuit of happiness.
I will not seek any form of government assistance in my faith, other than the standard truth in labeling, truth in advertising laws and good faith voluntary disclosure by entities I deal with.
Wait 'til they hear about the animal testing.. (Score:3)
This product was tested on animals [plantbasednews.org], which I think is much more troubling than where it's prepared, and has traditionally been a much bigger issue in the world of animal rights.
As a long-time vegan, I think the lawsuit is pretty frivolous as well..if you're opposed to animal exploitation, you shouldn't be going to a place like BK in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
"Vegan Cyclist" you sound like the most annoying person on the planet, but you have one test left to achieve that goal: are you a furry?
Drive by a Burger King or a McDonalds (Score:3)
If you're vegetarian or vegan I don't know why you'd even go near the place.
I also go to India frequently, and it seems like every trip there's a news story about a vegetarian who thinks they were served meat in a restaurant. I know people who are strict kosher too, and they eat vegetarian outside their home, just to be sure.
Honestly, if you're vegetarian, and you don't want to eat meat, don't go to places that serve it. It's really the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
" If you're vegetarian or vegan I don't know why you'd even go near the place. "
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Don't give them any ideas. Next they'll be suing because the air they're breathing is tainted with " meat smell ".
I imagine the smell of BBQ has a similar effect on Vegans that Garlic or Sunlight has on Vampires :|
Re: (Score:2)
""If you're vegetarian or vegan I don't know why you'd even go near the place""
I agree. Any real meat eater wouldn't accept what they attempt to pass off as food, as satisfying as properly prepared flesh.
Re: (Score:2)
The grease coating for the people cooking is very real. But I'm afraid that for most humans, salty grease tastes _good_. It's very high in calories, the grease carries scent and flavor very well.
BK could win this (Score:2)
Bk needs to prove that the contamination is below these levels. If they can do this, they probably win. On the other
The world as we know it . . . . (Score:4, Funny)
. . . has lost it's damned mind. :|
Wait till people figure out that there is no Burger " King ".
Nope. You heard it here first. No royalty what-so-ever.
A - Complete - Sham
Let loose the hounds of litigation !
Lawsuit is frivolous, BK was clear about this (Score:5, Informative)
The Impossible Whopper launched nationally on Aug 8. On Aug 2, a week before that, this story ran nationally clearly saying that if you wanted a truly beef-free, vegan burger you had to specify you didn't want it broiled and that you didn't want mayo on it.
https://www.today.com/food/new... [today.com]
TODAY: Why Burger King's new Impossible Whopper isn't totally vegetarian
"...unless you ask for the Impossible Whopper in a specific way, it might not meet your definition of true vegetarian fare. While the burger itself contains no meat, Burger King acknowledges that the Impossible patties are flame-grilled on the same broiler as its chicken and beef products."
This actually matters to non-vegans as well (Score:3)
The Alpha-Gal allergy makes you allergic to all mammal meats and dairy except for a few species of monkey.
It is spread through tick bites, and the number of cases has been increasing, so even if you don't have it now, one walk in the woods and it's bye-bye-burgers.
They cannot be pleased, so don't bother (Score:3)
Why are companies bothering to bend to the demands of those that cannot be pleased? Giving them an inch gives them permission to demand a mile.
I heard that a college football game was delayed because a bunch of students sat on the field demanding that something be done about global warming. Why weren't these people immediately arrested? Why were they allowed to delay the game for an hour before they were taken off the field? These people are criminals and should be treated as such.
Getting back to the issue at hand, where does Burger King claim that the "Impossible Burger" was cooked in a manner to keep it free from beef contamination? Why would such vegans going to a restaurant that cooks meat? This is the center of the case, they wouldn't go to such a restaurant except to take them to court.
Keep this up, assholes, and soon nobody will bother to listen to you any more. All you did was telegraph to Burger King that vegans don't want to eat at their restaurants. I fully expect their vegan offerings to disappear from their menu.
Facts don't mean anything any more. (Score:2)
BK will win.
Did the vegan die? (Score:3)
Get violently ill? Accrue medical expenses? Lose wages due to time off work?
No? Then STFU and eat your beet patty burger.
Re: (Score:3)
They are just narcissists. People should be grateful that food is readily available and someone is actually willing to cook it for you. The Western world has become so spoiled.
BTDT. (Score:2)
If it's 0.1% beef (Score:2)
USDA allows near zero to be labled as zero (Score:2)
0% beef may sound like a blatant and unallowable lie but it is quite consistent with FDA labelling rules [readthedocs.io] Many, perhaps most "Zero calorie" foods actually have calories. The rule is that as long as they have fewer than five calories,they are allowed to claim zero. The most blatant case I know of is Splenda. It is advertised a zero calorie sweetener but the first two ingredients [squarespace-cdn.com] are maltodextrin and dextrose, two forms of glucose.
This is why vegans are hated (Score:3)
How can you tell a Vegan? They'll tell you. (Score:3)
The only solution ... (Score:3)
Re:hot coffee's hot (Score:5, Informative)
McDonald's was serving coffee too hot, being told it was too hot, still serving it, then finally serving it cooler once someone sued. and since she originally sued for medical treatment costs only, I'd say McD could've afforded it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hot coffee's hot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hot coffee's hot (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't matter. McDonald's was warned to lower the temperature for safety reasons and they refused. A woman got burned, and McDonald's therefore shared some of the blame. If you spill coffee on yourself at home, does it normally require a visit to the E.R. followed by several skin grafts? Maybe some people like to server their coffee that hot but I don't think most people do.
People forget that McDonald's did not get 100% of the blame in their rush to turn this case into the poster child for ridiculousness. I suspect these people also belive that 100% of lawsuits are frivolous (except in the cases where they are the litigants).
Re: (Score:3)
If you're at home and you cook your own coffee, it requires bringing water up to a boil, turning the stove off, putting coffee in hot, previously boiling water, then turning it on again until it boils but carefully so you don't burn the coffee.
When you serve that, it's at around 80c.. and usua
It is where I live! (Score:3)
Re:hot coffee's hot (Score:4, Funny)
As hot as a young woman's love,
as sweet as her kisses,
as black as her mother's wrath when she finds out.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they were not. They served it as it is supposed to be
No they damn well weren't. Food temperature is regulated for good reason. Unless you think corporations should just ignore important consumer safety laws you don't like? I thought you were totally onboard with government regulation of corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
Their ideal ranges are significantly lower:
Re:hot coffee's hot (Score:4, Informative)
They were serving it above the recommended temperature and had hundreds of similar settlements. She was awarded punitive damages due to the callous nature of the defense team. That is the entire point of punitive damages: seeking to change behavior as clearly McDonalds was fine with injuring people and calling it a cost of business to settle with them before that point.
"In the case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994), for example, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled McDonald’s coffee in her lap, which resulted in second- and third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, groin, and genitals. The burns were severe enough to require skin grafts. Liebeck attempted to have McDonald’s pay her $20,000 medical bills as indemnity for the incident. McDonald’s refused, and Liebeck sued. During the case’s discovery process, internal documents from McDonald’s revealed that the company had received hundreds of similar complaints from customers claiming that McDonald’s coffee caused severe burns. At trial, this led the jury to find that McDonald’s knew their product was dangerous and injuring their customers and that the company had done nothing to correct the problem. The jury decided on $200,000 in compensatory damages, but attributed 20 percent of the fault to Liebeck, reducing her compensation to $160,000. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which, at the time, represented two days’ of McDonald’s coffee sales revenue. The judge later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The case is often criticized for the very high amount of damages the jury awarded."
Re: (Score:2)
It was decided that it was *partially* McDonald's fault. Also the court took into account the fact that McDonald's had been warned about this in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll beg to differ. The "McDonald's hot coffee suit" was about consistently serving coffee at nearly 200 degrees, so hot it melted the woman's nylons onter legs and crotch, caused third degree burns, and nearly killed her. They served it that hot because it made the coffee grounds useful to make more coffee, and others had already been burned severely.
This is more like the ffrench fries being cooked with lard (so-called "beef tallow"), and sold as vegetarian as a matter of course. Many Hindues were also dee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. A few years back I was taken to this awful buffet restaurant when I was visiting in Mississippi. The meat products looked awful, but I had some veggie sides. But the corn tasted weird and slightly unpleasant, and some of the other vegetables too, but I couldn't figure out what it was. My best guess was that it was cooked with lard, something that used to be common a couple decades ago but which today is relatively rare.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the salad was cut with a knife that had, before washing, been used to cut meat?
Re: (Score:2)
Vegans are the worst.
Hard call, Vegans, cyclists, or furries? One things for sure, vegan cyclist furries are over-achievers.
t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they just need to change their advertising. Pretty obvious if you actually read the summary what the right course of action is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Cross-Contamination (Score:2)
You can have a Kosher deli with one slicer and say you sell Kosher meat and cheese. Same theory applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo..can=can't
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of anyone using these non-meat proteins I would not expect much beyond what the product is made of., that the cooked it was made in the same preparation place as other products, and were probably passed from the cooking area to the preparation area in the same pan.
Re: (Score:3)
Not every town has vegan places, some of us can only basically either eat a freakin' salad (that's not a meal) or get a vegan burger at fast food places (A&W, Harvey's, Burger King).
Re: (Score:3)