Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Andrei "Protecting" the vulnerable?

Goodness gracious the world's a dangerous place.

And unless action is taken New Zealand is about to get more hazardous - for the "vulnerable" anyway.

And evil KFC are behind it. We need protection from their latest offering according to this story.
A nutritionist says New Zealand's 'vulnerable' should be protected from KFC's newest burger, which has no bun but double the meat.

The controversial Double Down - a bunless burger with two slices of bacon and cheese sandwiched between two slabs of fried chicken - has been confirmed for New Zealand release.
And who is going to do the "protecting", pray tell? You know who BIG GOVERNMENT. Well I for one do not want BIG GOVERNMENT telling KFC how to run their business or telling me what I can or can't eat.

We need protection from goody two shoes "nutritionists" not from KFC IMHO.

8 comment(s):

KiwiGirl said...

Well, if there's no bread around it, I just might be tempted to sample the new offering.

Psycho Milt said...

I notice from watching the news that the nutritionist in this case, like others I've seen, has dry skin and lank hair - a sure sign of someone not eating enough fat.

In this case, KFC have taken a major step to improve their product by stripping out superfluous carbs (the cardboard-like "bread" that fast-food chains make their buns from), and a nutritionist complains. This is why most nutritionists should be put in stocks and pelted with rotten food, rather than interviewed by the news media.

KG said...

"This is why most nutritionists should be put in stocks and pelted with rotten food, rather than interviewed by the news media."

Exactly!

Jeremy Harris said...

You couldn't pay me to eat KFC, drink or smoke but where oh where does anyone think they have the right to restrict others freely made choice to do so these things..?

I don't get it... If you protect idiots from their idiocy, all you get is larger idiots...

Jeremy Harris said...

*get the right

ZenTiger said...

I think the nutritionist is on to something.

I've suddenly realised there are a lot of foods sold without buns. We need to mandate all food purchased must have a bun around it.

Curry in buns, with naan on the side.

What about the humble scoop of chips? Illegal unless it is a sold as a chip buttie.

"Just a salad ma'am? Yes, we only sell them in buns. We have a nutritionist advising us on this, so stop complaining and eat the damn thing"

Grantavius Kennarius said...

Whatever happened to the mantra about "keep your laws off my body"?

ZenTiger said...

They must have decided "in" is not the same as "on".

I saw a photo of the new burger in the newspaper today. It actually looked quite good. Great way to run an advertising campaign on the cheap - get a nutritionist to say it's all bad, and suddenly you've got advertising for free.

Every 4 or 5 years I decide KFC can't be as bad as I remembered it, and so I try one and, yep, it's bad as I remembered it, and I'm inoculated again for another 4 or 5 years. Or 6.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.