Health experts in Australia aren't happy about the Quad Stacker, the new burger by Australia's Burger King equivalent Hungry Jack's made of "four beef patties, four slices of cheese, two rashers of bacon, barbecue sauce and two sugared buns." (The burger originally came out in Burger King in 2006.) Dietitians are calling Hungry Jack's irresponsible for marketing a burger that contains 1080 calories and 71 grams of fat and, as the article helpfully points out, doesn't even come with a salad. Because a salad would really help.
But as even bad publicity is still "good" publicity, people are curious to try the deathly burgers. Phil Han of National News Nine puts the burger to the test and initially likes it for its "great smoky flavor making it taste as if it came right off the barbie." 20 minutes after finishing the burger, the discomfort sets in: "I can't get rid of the greased feeling—there's a brick in my stomach."
No - Robyn's right. If you look at the article, the quote is "HJ doesn't even offer a free salad," the key word being "a"
In UK and Australian English, "salad" refers the the lettuce and tomato you get on a sandwich, but "a salad" is the composed dish that comes on the side. So a "burger with salad" would be a burger with lettuce, onion, beetroot, etc on it, while a "burger with a salad" would be a burger with a salad on the side.
Either way, despite the fact that it's a gross concept, it's frustrating to me to see that the dietitians interviewed think it's an "outrage," as if HJ was trying to make a personal affront to them. They're just trying to sell some damn burgers! If you don't want'em, don't eat'em.
I can't find the "HJ doesn't even offer a free salad" quote in the article.
What I can find:
"The burger, which sells for $5.95, has no salad" (article text)
"you would think they might offer a free salad with it" (quoted dietician.)
I interpret the article text as meaning "the burger … has no [vegetables on it]" and the dietician quote as "[should] offer a free [assemblage of vegetables] with it", which makes Robyn's "as the article helpfully points out" look incorrect.
By now, I'm thoroughly confused. Pass the (word) salad.
Just kidding. ....No not really. I didn't know the non-meat stuff in the burger would be referred to as salad, but that would make sense.
As zamboni says, it's referred to as "salad" and "a salad" in the article. Which seem to refer to the topping and a separate salad. I'll go with that explanation.
Thanks for commenting! Your comment has been accepted and will appear in a moment.
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it pleasant. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
Print
6 Comments:
I actually assumed that by "no salad" they meant "without lettuce and tomato"... but I'm not really up on my Aussie slang.
Keith W. at 2:25PM on 09/05/08
Yep. That "no salad" refers to the lack of vegetables (lettuce/tomato/onion/beetroot) on the burger itself.
Hungry Jack's isn't just an Australian Burger King equivalent - the truth is much more incestuous. (They _are_ the Burger King. Sort of.)
zamboni at 3:07PM on 09/05/08
No - Robyn's right. If you look at the article, the quote is "HJ doesn't even offer a free salad," the key word being "a"
In UK and Australian English, "salad" refers the the lettuce and tomato you get on a sandwich, but "a salad" is the composed dish that comes on the side. So a "burger with salad" would be a burger with lettuce, onion, beetroot, etc on it, while a "burger with a salad" would be a burger with a salad on the side.
Either way, despite the fact that it's a gross concept, it's frustrating to me to see that the dietitians interviewed think it's an "outrage," as if HJ was trying to make a personal affront to them. They're just trying to sell some damn burgers! If you don't want'em, don't eat'em.
kenjialtci at 3:29PM on 09/05/08
I can't find the "HJ doesn't even offer a free salad" quote in the article.
What I can find:
"The burger, which sells for $5.95, has no salad" (article text)
"you would think they might offer a free salad with it" (quoted dietician.)
I interpret the article text as meaning "the burger … has no [vegetables on it]" and the dietician quote as "[should] offer a free [assemblage of vegetables] with it", which makes Robyn's "as the article helpfully points out" look incorrect.
By now, I'm thoroughly confused. Pass the (word) salad.
zamboni at 4:15PM on 09/05/08
Oh my god, I AM CONFUSED!
Just kidding. ....No not really. I didn't know the non-meat stuff in the burger would be referred to as salad, but that would make sense.
As zamboni says, it's referred to as "salad" and "a salad" in the article. Which seem to refer to the topping and a separate salad. I'll go with that explanation.
Sorry for the confusion!
Robyn Lee at 4:26PM on 09/05/08
I guess either way, the point's clear: meatatarians only.
kenjialtci at 10:53PM on 09/05/08