Impossible Foods Investing

The Impossible Whopper Isn’t A Whopper

About the ingredients: Shortly after Burger King released the Impossible Burger in all it’s stores in the USA I contacted them on their main website to ask if the bun contained any animal products. They did not respond.

I’m sure many people who don’t want animals in their buns or their mayonnaise, or any other food, had the same question. Given the anticipation of that question, Burger King should have given that information on their website, rather than keep everybody in the dark about it. Their failure to do that, knowing veganism was at the heart of why they were introducing the Impossible Burger on their whopper sandwich in the first place was a strategy error.

Burger King purposely did not satisfy everybody with the Impossible Whopper. They purposely left the vegan out, by not declaring the bun or the mayo animal-free. They made the burger to satisfy everybody, but not the mayo and maybe not the bun. I still don’t know for sure if the bun contains animal products.

When the animal-free chef engineers a recipe, some vegans may think it’s not vegan enough, for a variety of reasons, but her recipes never contain any animal products to the best of her knowledge.

Was Burger King angry at vegans and the hoops they make companies jump through to become certified vegan? Did they want to stick it to them? Or were they trying to placate their animal-eater base by disregarding the vegan altogether? A little payback that some market analysts may think the animal-eaters want? Probably all of the above.

Since the customer turnout for the Impossible Burger was already massive through other venues, Burger King really didn’t have to be concerned about their animal-eating customers turning up their noses at the product. It was already a proven commodity.

My take at this point: The Impossible Whopper is not an Impossible Whopper, unless the entire whopper fits the impossible designation. Currently, Burger King is in violation of it’s own claim of impossibility, by calling it’s sandwich the Impossible Whopper.

Our WHOPPER® Sandwich is a ¼ lb* of savory flame-grilled beef topped with juicy tomatoes, fresh lettuce, creamy mayonnaise, ketchup, crunchy pickles, and sliced white onions on a soft sesame seed bun.

The new Burger King sandwich should be called “The Whopper With The Impossible Burger”.

As it turns out, the Impossbible part of the Impossible Whopper was only the burger, not the entire sandwich that makes a whopper a whopper.

An Impossible Whopper would include an Impossible mayonnaise, since traditionally mayonnaise was made with eggs. Plus an Impossible bun, since most bread companies include milk product in their buns, even though it’s not needed to make a bun a bun. 

From a business point of view Burger King underestimated their animal-eating base, by disrespecting a group on their behalf, that made the Impossible burger possible. And here they are enjoying the results of all their sacrifices. Somehow it didn’t feel right that they couldn’t eat it too, only because Burger King failed to provide them with an animal-free bun and animal-free mayo along with the animal-free burger.

Making the only sandwich that Burger King sells without an animal burger totally animal-free, (bun, condiments and burger) is so easy. It’s only one sandwich, yet the executives at Burger King, and/or Restaurant Brand International, and/or 3G Capital – the Brazilian Investment firm were compelled to go only halfway with it – at the risk of losing the people responsible for the development of the plant burger as well as those animal-eaters who now feel sorry for vegans that Burger King left them out. 

That so many others have served the Impossible Burger so everybody, including vegans, could eat it makes one wonder about the motives behind Burger King intentionally not doing it.


Although Facebook Vegans most often claim never to eat any plant styled proteins resembling meat styled from an animal, and if they occasionally do, they wouldn’t eat at an establishment that didn’t have the equivalent of two Jewish kitchens, one for cooking flesh and one for cooking fluids, or in this case, one for animal meat and one for plant meat, or forget the two kitchens if the shops only serve vegan that is certified vegan, like Pareve and Kosher is certified Pareve and Kosher, then that’s okay.

Although justifiable, regarding not wanting animal meat to be cooked in the same place that plant meat is cooked, because of the cross-contamination, it’s unrealistic at this stage of conversion from animal to plant to make that a serious demand. Note that separating flesh and fluid of the animal when cooked or prepped and plated in Jewish kitchens ends there, since Jews don’t have two sets of teeth, tongues, esophagi, stomachs, and intestines. Although they eat the flesh and fluids separately, they meet each other once in the mouth, simply because you can’t wash the mouth thoroughly enough between introduction of flesh and fluid to leave no trace of either. 

Facebook Vegans are not the majority of vegans nor even the majority of those who don’t consume animals. In fact, if Jews still make up only 1/10th of 1% of the total human population of the species (which is questionable), then vegan Jews make up a much smaller than 1/10th of 1% of the world vegan population (not counting all the other animals that don’t eat animals).

Some can argue that most vegans are Jews. I see something there. But most Jews aren’t vegan, and therein lies the proof of the rub.

That all being said, most Facebook Vegans who focus on unreasonable or unfeasible demands, while beating up other vegans for not being vegan enough, in other words, one cannot eat anything even grown as a plant out of respect for the worm being crushed by the shovel during planting time, are trolls hired by the animal-exploiting and animal-consuming industries meant to disrupt the proliferation of the animal replacement industries.

Most real vegans don’t care what you make the plant look or taste like as long as there’s no animal suffering or animal in it. On a late Saturday night, when a group of friends turn to getting something to eat after a night of partying, the vegan in the group is delighted to discover that the restaurant chosen by the group not only has a great animal-free burger but has a great bun and condiments to match. Yes. They eat it. And love it. I know, because I do the same.

Make the plant whopper to look and taste like the animal whopper. That’s the Impossible part. 

Make all the customers happy. If the slaughter industries et al are the ones feeding you intel on vegans based on what vegans say on Facebook, then what they’re really telling you is what their own trolls are paid to do on Facebook – set up fake vegan accounts and divide and conquer the animal rights movement and the vegan community.

Lots of animal rights people eat animals, just so you know that. There’s overlap as in any large group or demographic. The majority are the ones who will definitely eat that Impossible Whopper, but not if the bun or the mayo contains animal products. Don’t force them to eat the burger without the bun. Why do that? Your market analysts are feeding you false information regarding the majority of real-life vegans.


Who owns Burger King is my next question regarding judgments being made at the executive level. Let’s take a look.

Restaurant Brands International (rbi) owns Burger King, Tim Hortons and Popeyes. Home office in Toronto, Canada.

Chief Executive Officer: Jose Cil

Who owns rbi?

3G Capital is a Brazilian Investment firm. Offices in Rio De Janeiro and New York city.

3G Capital (which held a 71% majority stake in Burger King) holds a 51% majority stake in Restaurant Brands International. … In January 2019, Jose Cil was named the CEO of Restaurant Brands International…

Brazil appears to be the major influencer here. 

Brazil’s richest man: Jorge Paulo Lemann. 3G’s Capital head and board member.

3G Capital, founded in 2004 as Lemann and four partners were consolidating the Latin American and European beer industry, became a mainstay in the U.S. when its portfolio company InBev acquired Budweiser for $52 billion in 2008. Soon after, 3G’s dealmakers dramatically improved margins at the brewer. Apr 30, 2018.

Carlos Brito, a protege of Lemann’s introduced zero-based budgeting to 3G Capital. 

Zero-based budgeting (ZBB) is a method of budgeting in which all expenses must be justified for each new period [not just new expenses]. The process of zero-based budgeting starts from a “zero base,” and every function within an organization is analyzed for its needs and costs.

THE LEAN AND MEAN APPROACH OF 3G CAPITAL

Although the above referenced article is from 2017 it still holds true for the industry and deserves a quick read.

Berkshire Hathaway is also a major influencial investment party.


Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: