November 25, 2019
There's the Beef!
Timothy Birdnow
I missed this story, but I suspect so did everyone else. Turns out the Impossible Whopper is exactly that.
Apparently Burger King has been cooking the "meatless" burger in gobs of greasy animal fat!
In fact, the things are dripping with animal tissue.
Newsflash tofu eaters; it's not possible to make a meatless product taste like meat unless you add something. Now what could that be? Oh yeah; MEAT!
This suit should be thrown out as a nuisance, but unfortunately our legal system still does not allow that to happen. In fact, nobody was injured in any palpable way. It's not like they made them eat Soylent Green.
There used to be an old joke about how there is more meat in McDonald's fries than in their burgers. It appears the "meatless" Impossible Whopper meets that definition.
I missed this story, but I suspect so did everyone else. Turns out the Impossible Whopper is exactly that.
Apparently Burger King has been cooking the "meatless" burger in gobs of greasy animal fat!
The complaintfiled in a federal court in Florida on Monday, Phillip Williams of
Georgia said he visited an Atlanta Burger King in August and ordered an
Impossible Whopper, which, when prepared without mayonnaise, he
believed conformed to his "strict vegan diet.†Williams was unaware
that Impossible Whoppers are by default "cooked on the same grills as
its traditional meat-based products, creating a meat-free patty that is
in fact covered in meat by-product,†the lawsuit alleges.
It was unclear how Williams became aware of how Impossible Whoppers are prepared. Burger King advertises the plant-based burgers as "100% Whopper, 0% Beef,†and notes on its websitefor the product that the burger is made with mayonnaise — a non-vegan product that contains eggs. In smaller print below the description, the company says guests who want a "meat-free option†can request their Impossible Patties not be prepared on the broiler where beef and chicken products are cooked.
Newsflash tofu eaters; it's not possible to make a meatless product taste like meat unless you add something. Now what could that be? Oh yeah; MEAT!
This suit should be thrown out as a nuisance, but unfortunately our legal system still does not allow that to happen. In fact, nobody was injured in any palpable way. It's not like they made them eat Soylent Green.
There used to be an old joke about how there is more meat in McDonald's fries than in their burgers. It appears the "meatless" Impossible Whopper meets that definition.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
12:15 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
1
For lief, https://dltutuapp.com/tutuapp-download/ https://showbox.run/ https://kodi.software/ as of now.
Posted by: FIwSH Fedf at November 25, 2019 04:18 PM (3axI9)
2
Any other reasons not to go to Burger King?
Now, is it just me, or does anybody else think that people who have extreme dietary demands -- such as veganism -- might be better advised to just stay at home and prepare their own food? If they can't find restaurants which are geared up to do it, that is? Why does the rest of the world have to bow down to these -- for lack of a better kind word -- extremists?
Now, is it just me, or does anybody else think that people who have extreme dietary demands -- such as veganism -- might be better advised to just stay at home and prepare their own food? If they can't find restaurants which are geared up to do it, that is? Why does the rest of the world have to bow down to these -- for lack of a better kind word -- extremists?
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at November 25, 2019 04:37 PM (avArT)
3
This is the best place to read informative posts talktowendys
Posted by: Sandra at November 26, 2019 02:52 AM (EiB6M)
4
Exactly Dana! You know, if there really is a market for this sort of thing then someone will open a vegan fast food chain. There is almost no market, but a few very loud individuals who manage to frighten these knock-kneed corporate types into virtue signaling. In the end it's not the market at work.
It's like smoking bans; the City of St. Louis imposed one only because St. Louis County did, and they did because they had a die-hard anti-smoker in the County Council leading the charge. He tried three times before getting the Council to approve it.
The result? Bars across St. Louis have to find creative ways for their patrons to smoke. One bar I know of has a "garage" which is heated and they put a pool table inside and some televisions, for a "smoking lounge'.
The point is, whether you think people should smoke or not, the market clearly favors smoking. If you don't want to go to a smokey bar then there are going to be people catering to smoke free environments. But the Liberals wouldn't allow anyone to choose; they imposed it from above, because they knew they couldn't win this thing in the court of public opinion. So now people have to sit at little outside tables in winter at bars to smoke, or go into the garage, or whatever. The choice should have been the consumers, and the businesses that cater to them.
It's like smoking bans; the City of St. Louis imposed one only because St. Louis County did, and they did because they had a die-hard anti-smoker in the County Council leading the charge. He tried three times before getting the Council to approve it.
The result? Bars across St. Louis have to find creative ways for their patrons to smoke. One bar I know of has a "garage" which is heated and they put a pool table inside and some televisions, for a "smoking lounge'.
The point is, whether you think people should smoke or not, the market clearly favors smoking. If you don't want to go to a smokey bar then there are going to be people catering to smoke free environments. But the Liberals wouldn't allow anyone to choose; they imposed it from above, because they knew they couldn't win this thing in the court of public opinion. So now people have to sit at little outside tables in winter at bars to smoke, or go into the garage, or whatever. The choice should have been the consumers, and the businesses that cater to them.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at November 26, 2019 06:47 AM (uE08a)
5
Smokers caved to public pressure, slowly, in Minnesota, and to make a long story short, you can't smoke in public buildings anywhere in the state. That includes bars and restaurants.
The helluvit was, it was proved that the technology existed to build smoke-eater bars. There's one in downtown MPLS where, before the ban went in, one side of the bar was smoking, the other side was non. On a busy Friday night, my wife and I sat on the smoke-free side and could NOT smell any smoke, though people on the other side, five feet away, were smoking away like crazy. This technology was built in from the start, not retrofitted. It CAN be done.
I hate to be in a smoky environment, but smokers got rights and pay taxes too. 'Nuff said.
The helluvit was, it was proved that the technology existed to build smoke-eater bars. There's one in downtown MPLS where, before the ban went in, one side of the bar was smoking, the other side was non. On a busy Friday night, my wife and I sat on the smoke-free side and could NOT smell any smoke, though people on the other side, five feet away, were smoking away like crazy. This technology was built in from the start, not retrofitted. It CAN be done.
I hate to be in a smoky environment, but smokers got rights and pay taxes too. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at November 27, 2019 10:46 PM (HMWy+)
24kb generated in CPU 0.0171, elapsed 0.2898 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2807 seconds, 163 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2807 seconds, 163 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
