Burger King's Quad Burger -- Obesity on a bun

by Roger Sinasohn (Subscribe to Roger Sinasohn's posts) Aug 3rd 2006 2:00PM

Categories: Places To Go, Health & Safety, Eating & Nutrition

You can't really blame Burger King's new sandwich for the problem of obesity in this country, but it is certainly indicative of it. With a whopping four hamburger patties, four slices of cheese, and eight slices of bacon, the new Burger King Quad Stacker sandwich is big enough to clog the arteries of an entire small town. The company describes it as "the flame-broiled meat lover's burger" adding "no veggies allowed."

This would be a great boon to mankind if it were marketed to anorexic-looking supermodels, but I fear it's aimed directly at the already-overweight general public. Mind you, it's not Burger King's fault if people eat it and get fat, but it's not certainly not what you'd call a healthy option. Of course, with all the problems with childhood obesity, one could argue that Burger King has a responsibility to avoid products like this, but I'm not sure I agree with that. What do you think? Do restaurants and fast food joints have a responsibility to only offer healthy foods, or is it up to us as parents to make sure that our children eat well?

Source

Comments (27)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

thordora 8-03-2006 @ 2:18PM

Fat tax baby. If I want to eat crap, I should pay extra taxes to levy the likely costs for medical care I will necessitate if I become obese. I'm taxed if I smoke or drink, so why not if I decide to eat total garbage. It's bothered me for a long time that sugar water offers better "value" for my dollar.

Ashlee 8-03-2006 @ 2:20PM

So gross! Once again I'm delighted we don't eat meat!

ClaireB 8-03-2006 @ 2:49PM

I don't get Burger King. Here McDonalds, Wendys and Chick Fil A are all pushing healthier meals, giving fruit as optional sides and offering bottled water and Burger King comes out with THIS. I love the "no veggies" part. Like veggies are so un-manly or something.

Anna 8-03-2006 @ 3:01PM

I absolutely do not agree with the first commenter's statements. I am overweight, but as healthy as or healthier than most of the thinner people I know. I have no diseases, cholesterol of 140, blood pressure is 110 over 70 pretty consistently, and I don't have heart problems. I do have allergies. Now...there are plenty of thin people who have diseases or other health issues that cost the same money as a heavier person would cost the insurance companies. I'm sick of bigger people being to blame for health insurance costs. Get real!

Taxing people for eating - no matter what the food is - is ridiculous. Why not tax people who talk on cell phones in cars? They're detrimental to the roads, just like us bigger people are detrimental to the skinny guy's insurance, right? Give me a break.

thordora 8-03-2006 @ 3:16PM

Anna, you act as if I'm pretending only us "big boned" girls suffer the consequences of poor eating. We don't-EVERYONE does.

We acknowledge that alcohol is dangerous to a person's health and well being, if not used in moderation-yet I know we're taxed 18% on it up here. I rarely drink, and yet I still need to pay the tax. I'm willing to do so, because alcohol can be dangerous, and unhealthy.

Some of us eat things that we KNOW are bad for us, and they have PROVEN that these things are bad for us, regardless of weight. How many obese people are diabetic? have problems with their joints? Breathing difficulties? Sure, "skinny" people do as well, but if I'm overweight and my knees hurt, it's because I'm carrying extra weight, period.

At some point, we need to PAY to eat garbage, just like we pay to smoke, or drink, or yes, talk on the cell phone. Kids and adults, fat and skinny, buy junk food because it's CHEAP and AVAILABLE. These foods are not good for anyone.

I want a fax tax in the hopes that it will make fatty, crap food a little less accessible to people, and get people eating better. I want a fat tax because since people tend to listen to their wallets over their diets.

And just for the record, I am at least 100 pounds overweight, and am slowly changing my diet. I am healthier than some of my skinnier associates, right now. But there are numerous studies showing that carrying extra weight is NOT good for the body, and I believe them.

Something needs to curb this culture of gluttony which I sadly count myself part of. It has nothing to do with picking on bigger people, since I'd essentially be picking on my own coke inflated butt. It has everything to do with accountability. My views may also be influenced by living in Canada. My tax dollars fund the health care system, and I'd rather see people who put themselves at risk helping a little extra, just like I did when I smoked. Sorry if I offended you.

Sara 8-03-2006 @ 3:23PM

Here I am, an overweight 20 something, newly married, and since we're just starting out, we aren't wealthy, and grocery shopping is has become a choice for us - we can either eat healthy, all organics, real fruit juice, etc, or we can eat cheap. If you grocery shop on a budget, while trying to eat healthier foods, you'll be forced to notice it costs twice as much to make healthy food choices! If it was the other way around? hmm... think of the possibilities.

same with fast food - ordering a salad and bottled water costs more than the two cheeseburger and fry meal! when I literally have only $3 to eat lunch, guess what I'm going to order?

Anna 8-03-2006 @ 3:28PM

Actually, I don't think I acted that way at all. In fact, I was stating that 'big-boned' people are not only at fault. I'm sorry if you didn't get that out of my rant...that's what I was trying to say though.

Anna 8-03-2006 @ 3:30PM

It's funny, because I don't believe a fat tax will stop people from eating what they choose to eat. Has it stopped smokers from smoking, or drinkers from having a drink? I was merely making my comments...I didn't mean to start world war three here. Probably best I just read the comments instead of actually commenting myself.

Anna 8-03-2006 @ 3:37PM

It's just an opinion--I respect your opinion. I merely stated I didn't agree with it. I now correct myself. I didn't agree with the fat tax, but I agree with your reasoning behind your opinion, and I definitely relate. I'm a heavy girl. I lose weight, and then gain weight. It's hard. But while I do like junk food at times, I am a pretty healthy eater. I won't blame weight on my hypothyroid issue, because I'm sure that's only part of it. I take responsibility for who I am, but it's my right to be who I am. The government just continues to look for more ways to make money off of us. I pay through the nose for excellent health insurance, only to fight with them for over a year now on why they should cover my maternity stay. I guess when the topic mentioned 'healthcare' it just set me off.

I definitely wasn't offended by what you said...I respect it. I just have my own ax to grind sometimes...I throw my opinions out there. Maybe I should keep them to myself a bit more though, huh? :) Sorry to have come off as rude in the post(s)...wasn't trying to be rude.

thordora 8-03-2006 @ 3:41PM

I wasn't trying to be pissy to you-and I came off that way-I just hear similar things all the time.

Mostly, I want a fat tax because it is TOO easy and cheap to eat poorly. Of course taxes do deter smokers or alcoholics, because they have addictions. People with food addictions will be undeterred as well. But for the 80% of normal people, a tax on cruddy food may help steer them in the proper direction, and help their kids make a better choice purely thru economics.

I also firmly believe that poor food choices lead to poor health. I should have qualified my original statement, since that is absolutely NOT limited to those of us who are overweight.

That's what I get for commenting while waiting for reports to run at work! :P

Anna 8-03-2006 @ 3:46PM

That's exactly what I am doing, too!! Damn reports take too long!

thordora 8-03-2006 @ 3:46PM

I meant Do NOT deter smokers/alcoholics.

Amanda. 8-03-2006 @ 4:02PM

I'm a dietitian and somewhat up on the food industry biz.

I read an article a year or so ago about the CEO of BK. The gist of the article was the he feels it is good for BK to be number 2 behind McDonald's because McD's must bear the brunt of the criticism regarding fast food and obesity and thus change their menu to healthier fare (salads, yogurt, fruit) to not only please the critics but also to lose money because the American people WANT big, greasy, fat, nasty food!

I take the responsibility of influencing my children's dietary habits VERY seriously. While it would be nice if the restaurant industry would get on board- seeing as how it takes a village to raise a child and I won't always be the gatekeeper to my chidren's nutrition- I realize that for now it is soley my responsibility. My kids have never seen the inside of a BK.

Dawn 8-03-2006 @ 4:04PM

If no one has noticed, there IS a fat tax out there - it's the grossly inflated price attached to every single item of low- or non-processed food and produce in the stores. THOSE prices are the reason why poor people in this country (USA) are FAT. There have been several studies released just this year that have shown definitively that 'lower income families' KNOW what is healthy, and would love to be able to buy it for their families - they just can't afford it. What does it say about a country that structures its economy in such a way as to ensure avoidable illnesses, creating clients for a bloated, overburdened medical ruling class? We garden, and frequent farmer's markets in our area, but even that is hard on our budget. On the judgmental issue of eating this oh-so-terrifying burger, do any of you REALLY think that eating this once a month or less is going to cause the health problems you've mentioned? My husband doesn't eat Super Bowl crap every weekend of the year, does yours? People should have the freedom of choice to eat what they like, when they like. All a so-called 'fat tax' would really accomplish would be to raise food prices even higher than they already are - which would hurt CHILDREN, not fat adults. Nutritionally dense foods cost more. This is a BAD thing. Meanwhile, fluff and garbage are easily and cheaply available on every other street corner. This is a bad thing, too. Personally, I think there is a connection between the rise of the conglomerate food manufacturers (dare we call those farms? I think not!) and the rise in price of good foods. I am not an anarchist, but I have to wonder if the protesters at every WTO meeting aren't on to something.

Dawn 8-03-2006 @ 4:08PM

Just a brief addendum: Yes, alcohol and cigarettes are taxed sky-high. I don't use either substance, so I never pay that tax. Neither substance is a necessity. FOOD IS A NECESSITY. You are talking about making it harder for families to feed their children, not just healthy food, but any food at all. Why don't you do a google on hunger in America, folks? You might have a real awakening - but keep your kleenex handy. It's heartbreaking.

Kobie 8-03-2006 @ 4:22PM

I just think Burger King (and the rest of them) should offer healthy alternatives and comparable prices. What use is it to offer healthier food if it costs a arm and a leg compared to fatty foods?

As far as the 'fat tax' the idea sounds novel but there are many other things in life that put us at risk. Not just smoking, alchohol, drugs and over eating. We are a society of many and in public policy we have to be fair to the public so if we are to tax people eating at fast food places we have to look at taxing other things like cakes, cookies, candy, Ipods (hearing loss), motorcycles, etc. In the end I think it should be put up for vote and let the majority decide.

The fact is that people who regularly eat such fatty foods, whether they are overweight or not, are most likely to develop health problems compared to someone eating a health well balanced diet w/exercise. With our terrible medical insurance system which tends to leave middle and lower income families without coverage and with fatty foods being waaaay more affordable then healthy then what you have is the part of the population most likely to use public health programs because they can't afford to eat healthier.

But back to Burger King....again...more health options. I love that when I take my son to Mcdonalds every once in awhile he opts for milk and apples instead of fries and a soda. Because I have been fortunate enough to be able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables all of his life he prefers the taste of healthier foods to junk food.

And to those who struggle with afffording fresh fruits and vegetables....find a local Farmers' Market. You can get amazing deals and really stretch your dollars plus the produce tastes waaaaay better than what the grocery store has and for cheaper. Many times the farmers will through in extra food when you are a regular customer and many are willing to negotiate on prices if your budget is really tight.

Jenny 8-03-2006 @ 4:25PM

Actually, it isn't a tax issue, it is a subsidy issue. Corn is heavily subsidized in this country, and that makes it cheap to feed to cows and to use in heavily processed food. Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, or just have a wander around his website at www.michaelpollan.com . I loaned my copy of the book out, but my recollection is that something like 75% of his fast-food meal came from corn in one form or another. And yeah, the food congolmorates are lobbying to keep those subsidies in place. That's why healthy food is more expensive.

That said, I think Burger King may actually be targeting the Atkins crowd with this burger. My sister-in-law is an Atkins zealot, and I could just see her throwing the bun away and eating a stack of patties.

Eden 8-03-2006 @ 4:59PM

If there weren't a market for it, BK wouldn't make it. They obviously did the research and found out what sells versus what people say they want. We can cry "healthy options" forever but we need to stop buying junk. Consumers need to be responsible for their choices (from ciggies to booze to high fructose corn syrup) and stop blaming manufacturers for reflecting their tastes and desires.

"No veggies allowed" -- when I saw the first ads, I thought it was a joke. Has everyone seen this week's Onion's piece on meat becoming our #2 condiment (thanks to bacon, spreadable veal, etc.)?

silver 8-03-2006 @ 10:39PM

The funny thing is that because the quad burger is smaller in diameter than the whopper, it is only 10 calories more than a double whopper with cheese.

Cassie 8-04-2006 @ 1:37AM

If you make a "fat tax" that's going to make it that much harder for some people to eat at all. Sure they may be eating the wrong things, but it's what they can afford. Add a fat tax, and it's not going to make vegetables, fruits, and other healthy foods lower in price. It's just going to make everyone suffer a little bit more.

Not everyone can afford to eat 100% organic meals everyday. Not everyone has the TIME to prepare 100% organic meals everyday. Until there is a cheap drive-through that offers ONLY things that are better for you, people are going to eat red meat with cheese and bacon and extra mayo.

And if you are overweight, and your knees hurt it might not be because you are overweight. There are tons of things that can cause it. I hate when people say things like that to people.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

How To Submit Photos:
If you'd like your children (any age will do!) featured on ParentDish, upload photos into the ParentDish Flickr Pool. Be sure to read our main Flickr page for more information.