Vegans sue Burger King over meat contamination of Impossible Burger Whopper

Originally published at:


Wait do burger places that offer standard veggie patties cook them on different grills? That would seem inefficient.
Also dear vegans and vegetarians you are not the target audience for these products. The regular meat burger eaters like me are and it is a decent substitution that is quite burger like in taste and feel.


If they’re looking for Burger King to literally install a second grill in every franchise nationwide that is never touched by meat products… yeeaahhh, no.

Vegans: your veggie burger is not “contaminated” by being cooked on the same surface as meat.


As a long-term pretty strict vegetarian (no longer vegan), I wasn’t going to eat these BK impossible burgers for this reason. On a related note, I ordered an impossible burger for the first time a couple of weeks ago and couldn’t eat it because it was too much like meat. My brain couldn’t process that it wasn’t meat and it grossed me out (even after I had the waitress double check it wasn’t beef).

Maybe I’m a weirdo, but I’ll stick to black bean burgers that are clearly not meat


I understand that taking part in things is important to some people, but, FFS, what on earth did you think a meat restaurant would serve you?


This is an interesting case, from a legal point of view.
You would have to dig into the details of exactly how the burger in question was advertised to see if it was represented fairly on the menu. I imagine that there might be quite a grey area between “new burger patties with all-vegan ingredients” and “this will be considered acceptable to eat by individuals following certain diets.”


I’m vegetarian, and this whole issue is a non-starter for me; my concern is; am I contributing to factory farming by ordering a beyond meat or impossible burger? No. Even if it’s cooked on the same grill, I am not contributing to factory farming.

What I see as a more significant issue is the risk of allergan contamination of pea protein/soy/coconut (a close friend is allergic to coconut), which could contaminate the meat, if cooked on the same grill.


The end result of this will be an asterisk that says “burger is cooked with meat products”.

I am a regular consumer of beyond meat products. They are normally in the meat aisle, because they are stored fresh instead of frozen, unlike most veggie/vegan burgers, and of course because their target audience is meat eaters (like me), who will choose plant-based alternatives if they are yummy.

However, our local whole foods had to move them to their own, dedicated cooler instead, because, as I was informed by the staff I asked, “vegans complained that the beyond burgers and sausages were in the meat case”.

So now, these meat alternatives are squirreled away apart from other protein options and, IMHO, are far less likely to be chosen by a curious meat-eater as a result. Great. :roll_eyes:


Um, not something that’s advertised as vegan or vegetarian, but really isn’t?

Truth in advertising doesn’t seem like so much to ask.

That’s a Bingo!

May this thread stick to the topic, with all hands on deck restraining the vegan-bashing reflex.


That also works in the other direction; some people might be allergic to beef. I’m not sure it’s an issue with a grill that gets kissed by fire, though.

ETA: I’ve tried the Impossible Whopper and was impressed. If it remains available, I won’t hesitate to order it again (but I’d really want a Whopper Jr. version).


By what logic does it not qualify as vegan?
Like, literally anything cooked in a kitchen which also cooks meat will have at least trace amounts of meat protein on it just from contaminants in the air.
Where exactly do you feel the line should be drawn?


Isn’t the mayonnaise already not vegan? :confused:


< Cue “Why not both [places]?” Girl >


“Do you want every national franchise to give up offering a vegan/vegetarian option? Because this is how you get ever national franchise to give up offering a vegan/vegetarian option.”


I agree 100% with you. For the people behind this lawsuit they are either just lookign for a payday or veganism is their religion. Either way they are setting the cause back.



It looks like BK explicitly has a vegan preparation in mind - at least on their website


Oh dear, are you one of those people who like to needle vegans and vegetarians about the inevitability of insect parts and mouse droppings in their oatmeal?

Dude, a “vegan” pattie basically cooked in beef fat is completely different from one cooked in a kitchen where beef is also cooked.

Now don’t you make me roll my eyes again, please.


We live in a litigious society, and an effective way to get attention to your pet cause is to sue someone, anyone. I don’t know if boingboing would have drawn our attention to this matter had the vegans written a strongly worded letter, or simply chosen not to patronize the vendor.


Burger King doesn’t use grills - they’re flame broiled!

There’s a conveyor that the patties are put on that travels through the flames - gas fired on both sides. Unless they’ve changed this from when I worked there as a youngster. It was taken apart at night and the pieces put in a lye bath - heavy work.


Like this:


Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. If this is how they were advertised, then there’s an implicit acknowledgement that the burgers aren’t vegan unless the buyer asks for them to be prepared without using the broiler. Were franchises not offering the promised alternative?