Burger King Sued For Taking Too Long To Drop Trans Fat

Anything KFC can do, Burger King should be able to do too, right? That’s what the Center For Science in the Public Interest is saying with a lawsuit against Burger King accusing the chain of dragging its heels on the trans fat issue.

Taco Bell and KFC have dropped trans fats, as has Wendy’s. McDonald’s has completed the transition process in 1,200 stores and will be trans-fat free by the end of 2008. So what’s the big hold up, Burger King? It’s not like there is no trans fat in your food. The CSPI says:

Numerous fried and non-fried foods at Burger King have alarming levels of trans fat, according to CSPI. A King-size Onion Rings has 6 grams of trans fat. A regular-size order of Chicken Tenders with a large order of French fries has 8 grams of trans. A Sausage Biscuit with a large order of Hash Browns has an astounding 18 grams of trans fat–more than someone should consume in 9 days.

Sounds like BK’s food is as plastic as the Burger King’s head. Thankfully for your eating enjoyment, the Whopper only has 1.5 grams. Yum. The fries, however, are tragic. 6 grams in a large package. Let’s go, BK!—MEGHANN MARCO

Burger King Hit With Trans Fat Lawsuit (Press Release) [CSPI]
Lawsuit targets trans fat use at Burger King [Miami Herald]
(Photo: Morton Fox)


Edit Your Comment

  1. Lars says:

    I don’t know. This seems like a waste of everybodies time. Wouldn’t McD’s and other competitors start mentioning the fact that BK isn’t up to their level of trans-fat hating? Moreover, are trans-fats really your biggest problem when eating at a fast food restaurant? I for one would welcome back the Fried Apple Pie at McD’s in a flash, trans-fats be damned.

  2. roche says:

    Personal responsibility surrenders

  3. MisterE says:

    I too remember the Fried Apple Pie from Mcdonald’s. They’re still available overseas – I had them in the Philippines. In Ohio, Mr. Chicken has an Apple Pie that closely matches Mcdonald’s old fried apple pies. They sprinkle a tad of cinnamon sugar….

  4. CumaeanSibyl says:

    This is why you should cook everything in butter, the way God intended.

  5. 2Legit2Quit says:

    Angus Burger = wetdream

  6. Buran says:

    OK, so why exactly weren’t they sued a long time ago for this? Under the logic of “taking too long”, this suit should be thrown out under “plaintiffs waited too long to file” which is a favorite excuse for dismissal used by courts who refuse to return art stolen in the 40s to its original owners. Stolen goods are stolen goods, after all, right?

  7. TVarmy says:

    @Lars: There’s no real benefit to the consumer for trans fats. They don’t taste better than real fats. In fact, they often wrap up your tongue in a bland coating and block out the flavor of the other ingredients, meaning you need more sugar to get the flavor through. The older style of solid fat has flavor, and it only raises your LDL (“Bad”) cholesterol. Trans fat has no taste, lowers your HDL (the “good” kind) and raises your LDL, so it’s a double blow that only helps fast food’s bottom line and the shelf life of a product you’d probably eat within an hour of purchase.

    I know it seems like an attack on your civil liberties, but the stuff has no health benefits, and it can and should be replaced by the older style of fats.

  8. B says:

    @CumaeanSibyl: Or animal fat. I miss the old McDonalds fries that were cooked in beef fat, those were good.

  9. lawnmowerdeth says:

    More garbage from the CSPI control freaks. Back in the 80’s they campaigned to get lard/beef tallow frying replaced with, guess what? TRANS FAT OILS. But back then, they were healthier for you….

  10. OnceWasCool says:

    I hate the food police

  11. SmoovyG says:

    Weinerschnitzel still deep fries their apple pies, and they’re every bit as good as the old Mickey-D’s pies. Of course, before I moved to CA, I’d never even heard of Der Weinerschnitz, so YMMV…

  12. chupamiubre says:

    i don’t see how this is possible? This is like that ridiculous ban on foie gras. I think they need to ban cigarettes long before they go after bugerking and some fat thats mildly bad for you.

  13. sleze69 says:

    Ban salt. It’s bad for you too and there are better preservatives, right?

  14. chimmike says:

    why are they being sued for producing a product that people eat? If people don’t want to be unhealthy, then maybe they shouldn’t buy BK? Why should BK be forced to change? That’s introducing all that excessive gov’t control that the lib’s are so scared of!

  15. BStu says:

    They are being sued for taking too long to do something they have no obligation to do at all? There is no honest basis for a lawsuit. The CSPI is welcome to speak-out against trans-fat all they like, but they have no legal grounds to impose their current interpretation of science on the public.

    The market is actually giving them what they want on this issue, anyway. Why throw a legal hissy fit over a lonely dissenter? It just verifies the industry complaints about CSPI.

  16. Moosehawk says:

    I think I’m going to stop and get some BK on my way home.

    That double whopper supreme thing looks pretty bitchin’.

  17. MeanMachine says:

    In Belgium they cook their pommes frites in ox (or horse) fat. They’d kick you in the nuts for even thinking about suing them for it. Go Belgium!

  18. d0x says:


    why ban smoking? smokers know its horrible for them and they choose to continue doing it. most people dont have a damn clue what trans fat is or what it does to them. they cant really choose not to eat it when they dont know what the hell it is can they?

    if you ban smoking then you as in YOU should also call for a ban on all fast food since if there was a way to make smoking healthier (i.e trans fat) im sure that would be forced on companies as well..

  19. Beerad says:

    @d0x: “why ban smoking?”

    Well, generally the problem is that when people smoke in a public place, everyone else has to suck in lungfuls of that tasty, tasty, carcinogen-laden air. Smoking is an activity that, by its very nature, impacts everyone in the vicinity.

    Eating food that will kill you isn’t quite the same – sure, I’m smelling that dude’s FatSized Fries, but he’s not cramming them down my throat.

    I actually agree with you that trans-fats should be banned – people don’t really have a choice since corporations aren’t about to be that upfront and honest about what you’re eating (after all, when’s the last time that a Big Mac came with a label “warning – will cause diabetes after excessive, repeated use!”). But banning smoking comes from a totally different rationale.

  20. CumaeanSibyl says:

    @B: Oh hell yes. Can’t make a good pie crust without lard.

  21. TVarmy says:
  22. webwbr says:

    To anyone that thinks they should outlaw trans-fat, then I supposed you think they should outlaw sugar too?

    Good grief, next you’ll want the government to establish meal programs for the “citizens” to follow.

    For breakfast you will eat this…

    For lunch you will eat this…

    For dinner you will eat this…

    Sorry, no snack for you…

  23. TheCatholicizer says:

    The story and comments seem to imply that the CSPI wants to force Burger King to drop the trans fats, which I would be against. However, the lawsuit itself states, “4. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) accordingly asks the Court to issue an injunction ordering Burger King to stop adulterating its food with trans fats and/or to display appropriate consumer warnings regarding the presence of trans fats in its food”(http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/bk_complaint.pdf). I would have no problem with mandatory warning labels, assuming trans fats are as dangerous as the CSPI makes them out to be.

  24. spoonyfork says:

    Great news. Now can we get them all to ban High Fructose Corn Syrup? That stuff tastes really bad. Bring cane sugar back. Archer Daniels Midland what?


  25. krakbuste says:

    I love how many in here are railing against the evil corporations. They are trying to stuff trans-fats down your throat. SORRY that was the CSPI in the 80’s as someone astutely noted. Corporations are bad, boo hoo, I need the government to look out for me because I’m too stupid to research it myself.

    Let’s be honest, you’re too lazy to research it, it’s in plain site, but now you have the food police out there, where does it stop? More importantly WHO determines what is allowable? Did that ever cross anyone’s mind?

  26. Red_Eye says:

    The way I see it is at least BK is being honest and forthright. KFC food still has trans fats, its just under the minimum per serving that the FDA says they can round down. So a single serving of KFC Boneless BBQ tenders with .375 Grams trans fat is ok (according to the FDA) to advertise as ZERO.

    So make sure you never eat more than a single serving of anything at KFC or you may find yourself having a magic gram of trans fat appear. No worries though .375 of 1 item is only a little over 30%, so just hand over that ZERO portion of your paycheck.


  27. jamier says:

    Red_Eye: It works that way with all nutrients, not just trans fat.

    An important difference specific to trans fat is that artificial trans fat from hydrogenated oils is proven to be deadly, but “natural” trans fats which are plentiful in beef and dairy have not yet been proven to be as deadly.

    It would be better if KFC said “zero artifical trans fat” (if that is true). There are at least trace amounts of trans fat in all animal products.

  28. gtr225 says:

    I don’t understand why this is even an issue. If your looking to eat healthy, Burger King, McDonald’s, KFC, etc, etc. are the last place on earth you should go! I think if someone is dumb enough to eat fast food with the thought in their head that they are eating healthy and responsibly, then they deserve all the trans fat they can get.