A reader at "green gossip" website Ecorazzi reported that the local KFC says it fries its vegan patties in the same fryers and oil that it uses to cook its chicken. It's doubtful that they're the only location that does this, but even if they were, there are several other reasons why this sandwich isn't vegan, and might not even be vegetarian. The obvious one is the use of mayonnaise as a condiment, which contains egg products unsuitable for vegans. We couldn't find any nutritional information on this sandwich at KFC or KFC Canada's website, so we can't speculate on what secret animal products (like enzymes or "natural flavors") are in the bun. Having worked at a few fast food restaurants in high school, we know that gloves and utensils aren't changed between preparing meaty and vegetarian items, so you're probably getting some chicken fat in your KFC Vegetarian Sandwich one way or another.

It's nice that KFC made the attempt to offer a non-meat menu item, but vegans and vegetarians shouldn't be eating at fast food restaurants. Even the highly touted Burger King Morningstar Burger is imperfect: the patty itself contains milk and egg, the mayo contains eggs, and the cheese contains milk (and probably animal rennet). Burger King's nutrition info brochure contains the following disclaimer: "Burger King Corporation makes no claim that the BK VEGGIE® Burger or any other of its products meets the requirements of a vegan or vegetarian diet."

If you'd like to learn more about how cheese is made with veal stomach, sugar is bleached with animal bones, and other depressing reasons not to ever eat anything ever again, check out the Vegetarian Resource Group's Frequently Asked Questions About Food Ingredients

(Photo: Getty)

In the year that's passed since our original post, there's been quite a bit of controversy over nutrition information — city and state governments have tried (with varying degrees of success) to pass regulations that would require fast food and chain restaurants alike to post nutritional information where customers would see it while ordering. When New York City passed a law forcing restaurants who already provided nutritional information to post calorie info on menus, some restaurants pulled their nutritional information from their websites rather than be forced to disclose it on the menu. Now that the dust has finally settled (NYC's original law was overturned and they passed a new one that required chains with more than 15 locations to post calorie information on menu boards), we decided to take a look at fast food and chain restaurant websites to see what, if any, effect the scuffle had on the availability of nutritional information.

We have good news. More restaurants are posting nutrition and allergen information than a year ago, and the information is featured more prominently on restaurant websites. There are a few exceptions, of course. A few restaurants have taken a step backwards or are treading water. Chains like Red Lobster, Applebee's and Olive Garden are notoriously unwilling to divulge too much information. Outback Steakhouse is full of suggestions on how to order healthier versions of their menu items, but that's about it. Quiznos has a list of low calorie menu items, but when you compare their information to Subway's website with its extensive nutrition section... well, you get the idea. For the most part, however, nutrition and allergen information is getting top billing on fast food websites, and that's a step in the right direction.

So without further ado:

Consumerist's Ultimate Fast Food Nutrition Guide: 2008

(Photo: Tom Simpson )

Deal with it, Wendy's! BK! Starbucks! Subway is making you all look bad. Put some healthy crap on the menus. Quick, before anyone notices. People will still order the Bacon Triple Stack Mocha Latte Fries.

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REPEAL AND REENACT §81.50 OF THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH CODE(PDF) [via CSPI]
(Photo:Jay Adan)

According to the CSPI, more than 20 states are considering similar laws.

"Californians, and indeed all Americans, deserve to know what they're getting when they're ordering food at chain restaurants," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "A Double Whopper with Cheese has as many calories in Sacramento as it does in San Diego. Why not make that information available when people are making their decisions?"

Menu Labeling Bill Clears Key Hurdle in California [CSPI]

The result is hilarious. From NEW YORK STATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION VS NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF HEALTH:

Dunkin' Donuts submitted a sample menu board in an attempt to demonstrate that calorie information would not fit along with price information. From that sample, the Department's director of graphics produced a replica of the menu board with comparable fonts and layout to demonstrate that calories could be listed easily and visibly, as shown in the illustrations below, and in Mr. Krueger's declaration.. These modifications, as well as the earlier examples, provide clear evidence that calorie listings required by the regulations are feasible to implement with basic graphic design techniques.

Dunkin' Donut's sample menu is on the left, NYC's on the right. We were initially skeptical of this regulation, but have to admit that the Subway menu looks really nice and doesn't seem weird or gross at all. And, since the regulation only applies to big restaurant chains who have already had their nutritional info calculated... We fail to see what the big deal is. For background on what the regulation is and who it applies to, click here.

New York State Restaurant Association VS New York Board of Heath, New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (Legal Brief, PDF) [CSPI]

PREVIOUSLY: NYC Restaurant Group Sues Over Nutritional Info Regulation