Topic: We call it the "Good Morning Burger"

[PJYelton]

I have no problem with them selling burgers like this, and I'm completely against the notion of being forced to add a salad to it.  I think the grey area though is in advertisement.  If the burger is being marketed to the public as the next gotta have meal and you'd be foolish not to try it, how is that different than what cigarette companies been sued over in the past?  And if the ads are in any away appealing to children, thats a whole other issue.

Not saying I'm for or against their right to advertise however they want, just think the issue is more than just letting people eat whatever the hell they want to eat.

[charlie]

But why should they? The ultimate consequence of policies like these is that someday you wont be able to buy any food that is deemed unhealthy. Step by step it's heading towards a world where your own personal choice is minimized in favor of collective decisions that are made for your own benefit.

If I want to eat crap like that then it should be my choice. Same as when I want to smoke or drink (barring when those actions have negative consequences on others)

You can make your own four-patty bacon and cheeseburger if you want. There's no reason a restaurant has to make one for you and sell it to you.

What "policy" are you referring to? If my preferences are followed there will never be an inability to buy unhealthy food. There's a line between somewhat unhealthy and dangerously unhealthy. I don't know what that line is but I'd imagine making this sandwich so easily available is probably on the wrong side of it.

The issue is not about stopping people from making personal choices, it's about being responsible about what you provide for them to choose from (and in some ways the way you market those choices). And the same argument can be made for alcohol and tobacco.

[Steve]

>>You can make your own four-patty bacon and cheeseburger if you want. There's no reason a restaurant has to make one for you and sell it to you.

Are you hearing yourself? I could make my own butter too, lets outlaw that.

[Dumah]

You can make your own four-patty bacon and cheeseburger if you want. There's no reason a restaurant has to make one for you and sell it to you.

Fine, but that's no answer. If they can make stuff at home why not buy it in a restraunt. All you are achieving is controlling what people do in commercial transactions not what they actually do and that's just nanny state bullshit

What "policy" are you referring to? If my preferences are followed there will never be an inability to buy unhealthy food. There's a line between somewhat unhealthy and dangerously unhealthy. I don't know what that line is but I'd imagine making this sandwich so easily available is probably on the wrong side of it.

The issue is not about stopping people from making personal choices, it's about being responsible about what you provide for them to choose from (and in some ways the way you market those choices). And the same argument can be made for alcohol and tobacco.

The policy you ask about is that that you espouse. if you don't want to eat these burgers then don't. If I don't want to eat them (which I don't) then I wont. If someone wants to eat them then there is a demand and its fair that that demand is catered for if it doesn't affect third parties in a negative way.

[Steve]

Bingo dumah.

[Perspective]

If someone wants to eat them then there is a demand and its fair that that demand is catered for if it doesn't affect third parties in a negative way.

If you live in a country with socialized health care than it does affect other people. All those fat asses having heart attacks are getting treated with my damn tax dollars. Wendy's should be paying for that shit!

[Dumah]

If someone wants to eat them then there is a demand and its fair that that demand is catered for if it doesn't affect third parties in a negative way.

f you live in a country with socialized health care than it does affect other people. All those fat asses having heart attacks are getting treated with my damn tax dollars. Wendy's should be paying for that shit!

If you want to go down that avenue then perhaps the extra tax levied on fast food will compensate (bread & uncooked meat are zero rated for VAT in the UK while fast food is standard rated so you have to pay tax on it).

The argument about the affect on public health care is pretty much a smoke-screen. I have no possible option to opt out of public healthcare and make provision for myself, so why should I feel guilty if it were perceived that my lifestyle created a burden on that system (I know I might cause a shit-storm going onto this topic but what the hell)

[charlie]

Are you hearing yourself? I could make my own butter too, lets outlaw that.

Fine, but that's no answer. If they can make stuff at home why not buy it in a restraunt. All you are achieving is controlling what people do in commercial transactions not what they actually do and that's just nanny state bullshit

You both missed the point. A restaurant not serving a 1500 calorie burger does not infringe on your right to eat one.

Also, Dumah, you're talking about nanny state stuff. Who said anything about government in this? I'm not talking about the government. That's an interesting side discussion, but I don't think I would advocate any government preventing a restaurant from serving this food.

The policy you ask about is that that you espouse. if you don't want to eat these burgers then don't. If I don't want to eat them (which I don't) then I wont. If someone wants to eat them then there is a demand and its fair that that demand is catered for if it doesn't affect third parties in a negative way.

I'm not asking for government to regulate what restaurants serve in this case. I'm saying the restaurant itself should be more responsible about what it chooses to serve. I think the restaurant will do whatever it can to turn a profit, but that's not always what's best for its patrons and a responsible business should take that into consideration as well. (Note: Should != Must.)

[Ken Fitlike]

Perhaps it's a capitalist innovation for solving world fuel shortage: fatten up consumers for later liposuction for bio-fuel manufacture.

Is the restaurant(and I use that word in its loosest possible sense) involved a subsidiary of an oily mega-corporation?

And now, forth to the kitchen for my luxuriously sensuous peanut butter and sweet jam butty recipe, now sporting extra lard, double-cream and slow-release zeolite catalysts.

[KnuckleBuckett]

I like that a burger conversation can go on so long.  ES rocks.

[Rob]

If someone wants to eat them then there is a demand and its fair that that demand is catered for if it doesn't affect third parties in a negative way.

If you live in a country with socialized health care than it does affect other people. All those fat asses having heart attacks are getting treated with my damn tax dollars. Wendy's should be paying for that shit!

Weeeeeelll, actually all those people dying early of heart attacks have paid into the system AND have stopped claiming any back, so everyone else wins on both counts.

Seriously, I'm with Dumah on this one. Too much interference is a bad thing. Search this site for hate and politicians.

[charlie]

Seriously, I'm with Dumah on this one. Too much interference is a bad thing.

Didn't everybody agree with Dumah on that?

[hans]

We still have all-you-eat Chinese Buffets. I'm sure I consume as many calories when I eat at those. I don't see the big deal. I highly doubt this will be a regular menu item, although we used to make "monster" burgers all the time for people when I worked at DQ. We'd just charge them for multiple burgers. If someone wants obscene amounts of calories, it's not hard to get them.