A complaint that a Burger King television advertisement was offensive to vegetarians by suggesting a new "Rebel Burger" was so good it could convert them to eating meat has not been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.
The ad said: "It's so good, even the most dedicated vegetarian could turn.
Why do you think we call it the Rebel?"
Complainant A Hirzel'Horn, along with 12 other complainants, objected, saying the ad belittled vegetarianism.
Many were vegetarian for religious reasons, and the ad was equivalent to saying "this burger could make a Muslim 'sway' while observing Ramadan".
Advertising agency Antares Restaurant Group Ltd, who ran the ad on TV, disagreed, saying it was designed to use humour and hyperbole to illustrate how delicious the product was.
They did not accept the analogy of the Muslim abandoning Ramadan, as religious groups were likely to have more aligned sense of beliefs.
"We also believe a large number of vegetarians took no offence to this television commercial. This demonstrates that there are wide-ranging views within this community."
The Commercial Approvals Bureau (CAB), who submitted on behalf of the media, said the complaint was problematic, as vegetarianism had no inherent principles, ethical beliefs or systemic political outlook.
CAB submitted that vegetarianism was a name used to describe someone with a particular dietary habit, which could be formed due to taste, economic situation, ethical or religious beliefs or for no reason at all.
"For a sectarian group of vocal complainants to claim propriety over the whole of vegetarianism is unbalanced, and potentially unjust."
The authority noted the objections to the strong wording from the complainants and their sincere concerns that their choice to be a vegetarian was being undermined.
It also accepted that the advertiser had used a level of humour and satire to exaggerate the desirability of a food product, with a sense of the ridiculous.
The authority ruled that the ad had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility and it was not in breach of the code of ethics.
- NZPA
