RE: [SFBAVEG] Burger King

March 26, 2002

Hi Alka/Davy

As always, you both managed to sum up very eloquently how many of us feel.

Thanks you.

For what it's worth here's my 2 cents on the BK/Erik issue...

I did have a chance to read the articles on Erik's website a few days ago,

and I'm still at a loss and saddened why such a prominent " figure-head " from

the vegan community is backing this. I guess we're all free to make our own

choices in life.

Do we really think BK is targeting the new burger at vegetarians? I honestly

do not think so.

I personally think they're going after the 'weight-watcher' crowd who are

moving over in droves to alternative 'healthy' fast food restaurants such as

Subway. Remember the guy who lost 50+lbs eating big subs. Well BK wants the

same kind of person doing that with their products and there's no way a

regular burger is going to cut it. I can just see the commercials now - and

I bet the person will not be vegetarian.

Someone estimated that we vegans make up less than 1% of the total

population of North America, so I doubt very much that we're on BK's radar,

let alone center stage in their marketing department. Erik's encouragement

is a loosing proposition all round. BK will make this a success (or failure)

with or without us, and we would have move one step closer to becoming

carnivores, and in doing so help support one of the most environmentally

hostile companies out there.

Let's also not forget that BK has had a vegetarian burger for sale in the UK

since the 80s. This was long before mad cows and has always been a good

selling product. I realise vegetarianism is more progressive in Britain, but

the product survived without pushing vegans at it. Do we really think BK has

ignored the UK marketing data? I doubt it. It just amazes me that it's taken

them 15 years to release a similar product here.

This remind me that the one and only time I ever got food poisoning was from

a BK veggie burger some 13 years ago in rainy Stockport in the North of

England. I'm sure it was combination of cross contamination with the meat

products and under cooking.

Some positive thoughts - I have several carnivorous co-workers that have

tried and loved the new burger, none of them are aware that I'm vegetarian,

let alone vegan, so their comments were honest. Oh! and all of them are on

diets and have ZERO interested in saving any animals apart from themselves.

But who knows maybe this will be the first step in their evolution.

I really do wish BK success with this product, but not at the cost of

veganism or the ideals we stand for.

Take care

Chris

owner-ar-sf [owner-ar-sf]On Behalf Of

Chandna, Alka

Monday, March 25, 2002 11:42 PM

'DAVYben'; maynardclark; Veg-Biz;

Building-Vegetarian-Culture ; ar-sf

Cc: Erik; 'veg-sf'; ' '

AR-SF: Burger King

Dearest Davy & other friends,

Thanks so much, Davy, for sending along your thoughtful and insightful

message on the new BK Veggie. I agree completely with your analysis that for

those of us who already embrace veganism within the context (and as an

integral part) of the broader plate of social justice issues, munching on a

BK Veggie (hold the mayo, ignore the miniscule quantity of butter flavoring)

will *not* offer a solution to the environmental/labor/GMO/family farm havoc

wreaked by the multinational. Certainly, the history that Eric Schlosser

documents in " Fast Food Nation " on the manner in which the burger chains

lobbied for keeping the minimum wage low, the manner in which they squeezed

out family farms in favor of centralized control, and the manner in which

they led the drive towards mechanized production and slaughter of animals is

enough to make a person of any conscience lose their lunch. What a tragedy

it would be for any of us who have made a commitment to growing a

life-affirming community through support of locally-owned, organic, vegan

co-operatives and businesses to take our money away from the mom-and-pop

establishments to hand over to Burger King corporate bandits.

Saying that, I do think we need to acknowledge that the mainstream " culture "

(sic) has been hijacked by corporate interests (to the extent that the wares

of large corporations are considered *desirable*). Furthermore, convenience

weighs in heavily when people are making choices about where and what to

eat. Taking a page from Schlosser, we know that every *day*, about

one-quarter of all American adults eat at a fast food restaurant (!!!!).

While we should certainly keep our eyes focused on the larger prize of

weaning people away from the corporate burger chains, in the shorter term,

we can help the people who are going to eat at Burger King anyway make a

choice that's healthier for them, better for the environment, and certainly

more compassionate towards the animals. We may not be able to change the

consumer convenience culture overnight, but the BK Veggie does offer a

markedly better option (flawed, I submit, but better nonetheless) for the

hordes who will continue to dine at Burger King.

To this end, I do think it makes sense for vegan advocates to do outreach

into the larger (consumer/convenience/corporate culture) society, noting the

BK Veggie when asked, " but where can I eat? "

On a related note, I notice that Erik Marcus who had initially weighed in

against Burger King, in their failure to provide a burger that is fully

vegan, has reconsidered his position. He has posted two interesting articles

on his websites (you can go to http://www.vegan.com, or

http://www.erikmarcus.com) encouraging support of the BK Veggie. As well,

he's posted an interesting selection from his readers' feedback on the

issue.

Cheers,

Alka

DAVYben [DAVYben]

Monday, March 25, 2002 7:32 AM

maynardclark; Veg-Biz;

Building-Vegetarian-Culture (AT) Groups (DOT) com; ar-sf

Cc: Erik

Re: Burger King not vegan-friendly

As a longtime vegan and AR activist I'm opposed to any support for eating

anything at Burger King. If you've read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

you'll know that BK and all other national food chains contribute

significantly to animal, human and environmental degradation. When buying

anything we need to think of the whole consequence - not just animals. This

is good strategy for animals.

To be vegan without supporting environmental, health and human rights is

shortsighted and self-defeating. When you go to any environmental

conference

you'll meet dozens of vegetarians and vegans who don't want to be isolated

from the main progressive left and who recognize that cooperation with this

large group is key for helping animals.

An organic plant-based diet prepared at home or purchased from a stand-alone

restaurant (veg or not) is far better for everyone than any money going to

the giant fast food industry. That money goes to republican right-wing

conservative candidates, supports low-end, go nowhere jobs, buys veg-burgers

with GMO's and is in every sense a " Darth Vader " roaming as a " Happy Meal. "

Davy Davidson

VegTime, Inc.

In a message dated 3/25/02 2:36:30 PM, maynardclark writes:

<<

Language is REALLY crucial here, since we need to be careful about our

facts.

The logical (and factual) distinction on vegans' issues with the BK BURGER

is

between:

- being PREPARED with added mayonnaise

- having mayonnaise inside the burger itself ( " contains " )

For vegans the issue with the BUN is that the strangely optional bun has

BOTH

butter flavor AND polysorbate 60, which I'm told is animal derived (or is

that only polysorbate 80?).

Meanwhile, I'm more interesting in getting a TRULY vegan-acceptable POWDERED

nondairy coffee creamer, not that any of us should be drinking the rotgut

coffee (which is a killer).

Maynard

ebbrewpunx wrote:

by Erik Marcus at Vegan.com

I have some not-so-great news to report. Fortunately, since I'm publishing

this online, I don't have to worry about anyone shooting the messenger.

Today, more than 8300 Burger Kings across the United States launch their

VeggieBurger. When this burger was first announced a few months ago, it was

supposed to be a vegan product. Well, it's not.

I found out a few days ago that the burger was about to be launched, so I

put

in a call to Burger King's headquarters. I was initially told that the

default burger would be unacceptable to vegans, but could be prepared vegan

if the customer made two requests. The reason the default burger wasn't

vegan, I was told, is that it contains low-fat mayonnaise, and is cooked on

the same grill on which Burger King cooks its regular beef burgers.

However, it's easy to get around these two issues. Anyone who goes to a

Burger King can ask that the burger patty be microwaved. That way, it won't

come in contact with cooking surfaces that are used all day long to cook

beef. This microwave option is available at every Burger King, and I was

told

that all franchises have been asked to make this option available for

vegetarians who request it.

The mayonnaise problem is even easier to handle. You can just them to hold

the mayo, and they will honor your request.

During my conversation with a company spokeswoman, she asked if I would like

an ingredient listing. I gave her my email address, and in five minutes I

had

her email in my in-box. When I scrolled down to the bun ingredients, here's

what I saw (I've set the offending ingredient in boldface):

ENRICHED FLOUR (NIACIN, IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, AND FOLIC

ACID), WATER, SUGAR, (SUCROSE OR HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP), VEGETABLE

SHORTENING, YEAST, SALT, WHEAT GLUTEN, SESAME SEEDS, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL

BUTTER FLAVOR, YEAST FOOD (CALCIUM SULFATE, POTASSIUM IODATE, AND/OR

AMMONIUM

SULFATE), DOUGH CONDITIONERS (POLYSORBATE 60, CALCIUM PEROXIDE [OXIDANT],

CALCIUM SALTS, SULFATES, PHOSPHATES, AND AMMONIUM SALTS), DOUGH

STRENGTHENERS

(SODIUM AND/OR CALCIUM-2-STEAROYL LACTYLATE OR ETHOXYLATED MONO- AND

DIGLYCERIDES), DOUGH SOFTENERS (MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, AND/OR PROTEASE

ENZYME). MOLD INHIBITOR (CALCIUM PROPIONATE), PRESERVATIVE (POTASSIUM

SORBATE), OXIDATION REDUCTION ADDITIVES (ASCORBIC ACID,

POTASSIUM/CALCIUM IODATE, ALPHA-AMYLASE, AZODICARBONAMIDE), LEAVENING AGENT

(MONOCALCIUM PHOSPHATE).

I then exchanged a couple more emails with her, which established that this

butter flavor is dairy-derived. Now, I can cheerfully eat a burger without

mayonnaise, but it's pretty difficult to eat one without the bun.

What Went Wrong?

When news of Burger King's Veggieburger first came out a few months ago, it

was widely reported that the burger would be entirely vegan. It was also

reported that the burger would come on a vegan whole wheat bun. I don't know

this for sure, but I bet what happened is that, somewhere along the line,

some official at Burger King decided that the regular white bun would be

good

enough. Maybe the whole wheat bun would take extra time to develop, or maybe

they just decided it wasn't worth carrying an extra bun item in inventory.

So where does this leave vegans? It's worth bearing in mind that the amount

of dairy in this bun is incredibly tiny. The bun has more sesame seeds than

dairy, and it even contains more salt than dairy. Even though the amount of

dairy is tiny, I personally wouldn't feel right eating this product. After

all, it's not vegan.

Even though I'm disappointed, I will still strongly urge my non-vegetarian

friends to give this product a try. This product may not be suitable for

vegans, but it could still do more to help farm animals than any product

that

has ever come to market. For the first time ever, you can walk into a

fast-food establishment and order a burger that is, for all practical

purposes, vegan.

I think it's extremely important that vegans take as much advantage of this

product as possible, in terms of letting the non-vegetarian world know about

its launch. Probably the main reason people don't become vegetarian is the

fear of reduced food choices and inconvenience. Now, for the first time, you

can walk into any Burger King and order a burger just like anybody else-and

what you'll get will be totally vegetarian and nearly vegan. I know that,

back when I was contemplating going vegetarian, the decision would have been

a snap if I knew I could still eat at Burger King.

As for me, I'm feeling a bit like Moses, and perhaps you are too. I may not

have walked around a desert for forty years, but I've been vegan for almost

fifteen, and now I'm being denied the promised land of being able to eat a

vegan Veggieburger at Burger King. As disappointed as I am that I won't

personally get to try this product, I hope the Burger King Veggieburger not

only succeeds, but that it's a smash-hit product. If it does succeed, you

can

count on McDonald's and Wendy's rushing similar products to market. Such an

event would mark the biggest step forward for America's farm animals in

history.

And maybe one day, Burger King will introduce that long-awaited vegan whole

wheat bun. With the launch of BK's Veggieburger, we vegans have some reason

to feel let down. But this launch is also a sure sign that we're making

progress.

>>

_______

Get your free @ address at

March 26, 2002

I'd like to add some of my own thoughts on the Burger King veggie burger,

which Vegan Outreach might run in a future Vegan Spam.

Let me start off by saying that I realize there is an opposite view, with

many valid points. But, for a number of years now, I have felt that the

insistence the vegan community has had on purity in ingredients has really

harmed it's spread. We may have sacrificed a tremendous number of people who

would go 99% of the way in order to make a big deal over 1% of animal

ingredients in various foods.

In my opinion, worrying about trace amounts of animal products makes

veganism look like a religion more than a social movement. It is hard enough

for people to see that they are causing animal suffering by drinking a glass

of milk; when people see us so caught up in minutia, the connection to

animal suffering gets lost. Rather, veganism becomes, in their mind,

something that someone else is " really into " and that they, themselves,

" could never do. "

While I have seen many examples of this in my life, something my mother once

said to me summed it up. I lived with her for a number of years while vegan,

and she had been very supportive. She also knew the arguments for veganism

quite well. One day, she had made some food using some margarine that had

whey as one of the last ingredients (she didn't realize this) and so I told

her I didn't want any. She said " You can't possibly think you are helping an

animal by not eating this, do you? " And I realized that on some level, she

was right. Later on, I came to the belief that not only was I not helping

animals by avoiding these sorts of miniscule amounts of animal products, I

might very well be harming the spread of veganism by breaking the

connection, in other people's minds, between the foods I was avoiding and

animal suffering.

A few yeas ago, I started suggesting that our community, to some extent,

change the definition of " vegan " to mean someone who avoids perceptible

animal products. In other words, if you can't see it, taste, or smell it,

then don't worry about it. While this idea has definitely not caught on in

the traditional vegans circles, potential vegans who read our (Vegan

Outreach's) literature that expresses this sentiment often write us saying

that they never would have gone vegan if they hadn't read this.

My idea is to let vegan *activists* worry about minutia (if they want to do

so), but not to expect or encourage ordinary vegans to do so.

I believe it would help us all to get over our uncomfortableness with

someone who knowingly eats a trace of animal products (and I admit that I

sometimes feel this way towards other people; but less all the time). I fear

that it sends a message of " You don't care as much about animals as we do;

you are not one of us " that is unhealthy for making veganism into a large

movement. I have a lot of respect for Erik Marcus for eating a burger that

he knew wasn't " vegan, " because he thought it would help animals to do so.

Jack

March 26, 2002

Jack's post raises some interesting issues concerning the real meaning of

veganism and to what extent it should be encouraged and practiced. I'd like to

respond to some of his points.

Jack wrote, " . . . for a number of years now, I have felt that the

insistence the vegan community has had on purity in ingredients has really

harmed it's spread. We may have sacrificed a tremendous number of people who

would go 99% of the way in order to make a big deal over 1% of animal

ingredients in various foods. " He later added,

" A few yeas ago, I started suggesting that our community, to some extent,

change the definition of " vegan " to mean someone who avoids perceptible

animal products. In other words, if you can't see it, taste, or smell it,

then don't worry about it. "

In my opinion, veganism is, by definition, *pure* vegetarianism. Thus, the

emphasis on purity of ingredients makes sense - but only for reasons of

definition. That doesn't mean that people must be 100% vegan. Folks can choose

to be totally non-vegan veggies, partly vegan veggies, substantially vegan

veggies or total vegans, just as they can choose what color shirt to put on in

the morning. It's a matter of individual choice that should be left to

individuals, without changing the definition of vegan. The current definition

of vegan is extremely important when one considers that, to eventually get to an

era when animal exploitation and it's related environmental degradation come to

an end, we must ultimately strive for pure veganism. Otherwise, the best we can

hope for is a lessening of animal suffering and environmental damage, but never

a real end to these evils. But that doesn't mean that people in transition or

even considering a change of lifestyle should be pushed to become 100% vegan.

I agree that pushing people to go totally vegan before they're ready could do

more harm than good. For that reason, I encourage non-vegan veggie friends to

adopt veganism only to the extent that they are comfortable with it. I urge

them to consider having one vegan meal a day or one vegan day a week, the same

way I encourage omnivore friends to have one veggie meal a day or one veggie day

a week. As long as folks are encouraged to go only as far as they can

comfortably, our movement will not be harmed. In my opinion, it is the

perception that vegans are pushy or see themselves as morally superior, not the

extremism or purity of our diet, depending on one's point of view, that creates

the biggest backlash. And that leads to something else Jack wrote:

" I believe it would help us all to get over our uncomfortableness with

someone who knowingly eats a trace of animal products (and I admit that I

sometimes feel this way towards other people; but less all the time). I fear

that it sends a message of " You don't care as much about animals as we do;

you are not one of us " that is unhealthy for making veganism into a large

movement. "

To the extent that some vegans are spreading a " holier than thou attitude, " Jack

is right - it does hurt our chances of creating a vegan mass movement. But,

from my experience, very few vegans go to that egotistical extreme. I suspect

that many non-vegan veggies who see veganism as implying a " holier than thou "

attitude about animals and the environment, as well as human health, are

defensively reacting to their own self-doubts - self doubts that are not

justified or necessary. In general, vegans I know do not believe that they are

better than non-vegans because of their chosen lifestyle. They do believe that

they are living according to their own values and they encourage others to

accept those values. That does not make them morally superior and " holier than

thou. " Their lifestyle might arguably mean that vegans are a bit more

idealistic or a bit more disciplined than other veggies who would like to be

vegan but can't seem to go all the way, but that does not imply moral

superiority. Pure vegan values are not harmful to vegans or the movement as

long as we vegans are sensitive to the feelings of others at different places on

the same path.

My bottom line is: Whether one is a vegan, semi-vegan, or non-vegan vegetarian

one is on the right path to better health, a cleaner environment, and a more

compassionate world. To paraphrase Marshall McLuan's writing on media, the

process is the message. Thus, there is no need to change definitions. The

point is to move along the path at one's own comfort level . . . and enjoy the

ride!

-

Jack Norris

Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:38 AM

Re: [sFBAVEG] Burger King