30. REBEL VEGETARIAN - Why It May Be Morally Right For Ethical Vegetarians and Vegans to Eat Burger King and KFC's Plant-Based Products Despite Their Non-Veggie Cooking Methods

This January has been re-imagined as “Veganuary” by many seeking to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy products by going vegan for the month.  This comes after a year where “plant-based” has become a common refrain and vegan options have sky-rocketed at every local supermarket, restaurant and eatery across the UK.  Having been vegetarian myself since 1998 I have welcomed this recent upswing in the world’s efforts to reduce their meat intake, and continue to chastise myself on a daily basis for my moral failure in not going totally vegan despite several failed short-term attempts.  But the recent story of Burger King’s “Rebel Whopper” has brought to the forefront of my mind the strange diversity of motivation which make people choose to cut out meat and/or dairy from their diets, and the resulting consequences, and potential for error, within ethical thinking.

For those who didn’t hear, Burger King, the fast-food giant, wanted to jump on the growing plant-based bandwagon and introduced a non-meat version of their trademark burger.  However, they revealed that the burger, though containing no meat, would fail to be labelled as either “vegetarian” or “vegan” because it would be cooked on the same grill as their meat products.  Likewise, a much lauded Quorn vegan burger sold at KFC highlighted that, while the burger might be vegan, KFC fries are not, because they are cooked in the same oil as some of their chicken.

Luckily for me, for a variety of other reasons which would require a whole other post to go into, I don’t frequent either establishment, so don’t have to deal with the moral dilemma of whether to order the “Rebel Whopper” or KFC’s fries or go hungry.  But as I read each story it did make me wonder why cooking a plant-based product in the same oil, or on the same grill, as something animal-based stops it from being vegetarian? Which is not to say I don’t understand the gut-reaction that says it isn’t. Personally speaking I am one of those vegetarians who get really annoyed when a mixed sandwich platter has the hummus sandwich resting against the tunafish one, or if I see canteen staff hover too long over the veggie option with a dripping spoon full of meat lasagne. It turns my stomach to see my plant-based food contaminated with even the suggestion of meat, and I have gone hungry many times after not being satisfied with the purity of vegetarian cooking conditions.

But the question has to be asked: is this a moral position, or an aesthetic one? Would eating such things actually be morally wrong, or merely gastronomically unappealing?

Let’s imagine the burger and the fries are cooked separately.  Surely the same harm to animals is being done through the cooking of real meat burgers and chicken at KFC and Burger King, whether they share a grill with my plant-based food or not?  Now, of course, when they share a grill or cooking oil, there is the issue of impurity: my vegan burger has now got meat on it, or at least meat-adjacent fats and splatters.  But, personally, I am not vegetarian because I don’t like the taste of meat, or for the health reasons of avoiding meat products.  I am vegetarian because I do not want to contribute to the unnecessary suffering of animals.  As the same level of animal suffering occurs whether or not my burger shares a grill with the meat burgers or not, my belief that the burger is no longer “vegetarian” is surely irrational?  

Ironically, it is precisely those at whom Burger King are aiming their “Rebel Whopper” – those looking to reduce their meat consumption – who should be put off by the cooking method, not those of us concerned with animal rights.  As it is these people’s motivation to avoid consuming meat, and by eating a product cooked alongside meat they will not avoid meat consumption, then it is these consumers who are not getting what they are looking for from supposedly “vegan” or “vegetarian” food cooked in this way, not those of us concerned with animal welfare.

One might choose to avoid, cut out completely, or reduce the consumption of animal-derived products for any number of reasons.  You may do so because:

a)     You feel there is an intrinsic wrongness to the unnecessary suffering caused to non-human animals by those products.

b)     You feel that, even though there is no intrinsic wrongness to the unnecessary suffering caused to non-human animals by these products, because that suffering is unnecessary and avoidable, and culpability in suffering is to be avoided, you should try to avoid it wherever possible.

c)     You have heard that going vegan or vegetarian is necessary for reducing our carbon emissions and that the only hope of avoiding environmental destruction is a more plant-based diet, so have gone vegan or vegetarian “for the planet”.

d)     You hold religious beliefs which tell you eating meat, fish or dairy is forbidden.

e)     You want to eat healthier, and believe plant-based diets to be more healthy than animal-derived ones.

f)      You don’t like the taste of meat, fish and/or dairy.

g)     They are allergic to meat, fish and/or dairy.

h)     You are engaged in a personal challenge, such as “Veganuary”, for any number of personal reasons based more around self-control, will-power and denial than animal-rights issues. You are vegetarian/vegan to see if you can.  

Of these eight reasons one might go vegetarian or vegan, only (a), (b), (c), and (d) are what we might call “moral” reasons, and only (a) and (d) moral reasons that make it intrinsically wrong to eat meat, fish or dairy, with only (d) – the religious argument linking the wrongness of the act to some sort of notion of religious purity: doing that which God has forbidden – being a relevant reason to claim eating the Burger King “Rebel Whopper” or KFC fries are against your ethical beliefs.  With (a), as no further unnecessary suffering is occurring because of how your plant-based food was cooked (Burger King and KFC are still killing the same number of cows and chickens regardless of your vegan order), there is no clear moral reason the cooking conditions of your food change the moral status of the meal.  Likewise, for (b) and (c) the level of suffering, be it animals or planet, doesn’t change as a result of your food being cooked on one grill or another.

Meanwhile, reasons (e), (f), (g), and (h), all give strong rational reasons why an eater might wish to avoid the Burger King and KFC “vegan” options, despite the holder of any of these views having no special moral commitment to the treatment of animals.

In reality, the holders of beliefs about eating meat, fish and/or dairy derived from moral reasons (a) to (d) are likely, like me - I hold my beliefs due to reasons (b) - not to go to businesses like Burger King or KFC at all.  Our moral objections to meat, fish and/or dairy meaning that economically contributing to a company responsible for the mass slaughter of so many animals becomes an obvious moral wrong, even if they are now also selling vegetarian and vegan options. However, the irony in our moral thinking continues, as neither business slaughters all those animals because they are moral monsters who enjoy the suffering they cause.  They slaughter animals because they profit from that slaughter.  If there was no money in the meat, fish and dairy game, then the slaughter would stop.  So it may actually be the more moral thing for us vegetarians and vegans to go to Burger King and KFC and buy their plant-based products – however they may be cooked – to show that there is a large market for ethical food.  The more of us who buy vegan and vegetarian options at places like this, the more our money will talk.  If Burger King and KFC could make their money, or even more money than they currently make, by selling plant-based burgers instead of animal-derived burgers, they would.  And then there would be no beef burgers or popcorn chicken to share the oil or grill with in the first place. Problem solved.

When we conflate aesthetics with ethics, and confuse visceral disgust with doing the wrong thing, our thinking can get very muddled, and perhaps even lead to us doing what is ethically wrong in the name of doing what is right. 

Author: D. McKee