Obesity: At a time when many restaurants are stepping up to help their customers control the growing obesity threat, Burger King is looking to profit from the low road. According to the New York Times, "Perhaps no restaurant chain has flaunted its portions more than Burger King." Burger King's approach is to target "superfans," customers who already eat fast food at the rate of 9 to 16 times per month. To lure these fast-food fanatics, the company has distinguished its menus with increasingly massive products, including the BK Stacker, which can amount up to 1,000 calories per serving, even before French fries and a drink.

The unhealthiness of their products has drawn government action abroad. The Spanish government sought to ban an advertisement for Burger King's XXL double cheeseburger in 2006, saying that the sandwich ⎯ the caloric equivalent of eating 10 fried eggs ⎯ violated the terms of an anti-obesity agreement with the Spanish Federation of Hoteliers and Restaurateurs, of which Burger King is a member. Defiantly, Burger King responded by stating it had no plans to abandon its XXL burger advertising campaign.

Burger King relies on advertising to children ⎯ the most at-risk for obesity ⎯ to bring in a share of their profit. When the United Kingdom banned junk food and fast food advertising during children's programs, Burger King executives in Europe estimated that the move would cost Burger King $196 million in sales.

Carcinogens: Burger King has proudly marketed sandwiches "as you like it," but the company has been less enthusiastic about letting consumers know what is actually in their food. In New York City, Burger King has fought a new law requiring fast food restaurants to prominently display nutritional information for each of their products. After the New York State Restaurant Association lost a legal challenge to the law, legislators in the state of California and several other cities nationwide passed similar requirements.

The company has also been sued in California by several public interest groups and
the California Attorney General for not disclosing, as required by Proposition 65,
warnings that its food contained the carcinogens acrylamide and PhIP. In the most high-profile of the suits, Burger King, along with other defendants, settled with the California attorney general and agreed to post warnings about acrylamide in fries.

Burger King also settled a suit brought by the Phyisicians' Committee for Responsible
Medicince by agreeing to post warnings about PhIP contained in grilled chicken
sandwiches. Acrylamide and PhIP may cause cancer or nerve damage in high
dosage.
Trans Fats: Burger King recently became the last major restaurant chain to replace trans fats, which U.S. health officials have advised Americans to consume as little of as possible. Though Burger King offered more products high in trans fats in 2007 than all but one other fast food chain, it refused to replace trans fats well after McDonald's Corp., Wendy's International Inc., Yum Brands Inc. (the owner of KFC and Taco Bell), and Starbucks had already elected to make the change. In fact, Burger King only changed its position after it was sued by the Center for Science in the Public Interest in May 2007. Because several reasonable alternatives were available to replace these health hazards in their products, this standoff underlines Burger King's willingness to risk customer health to make a quick buck.

Conclusion:

In the midst of the current economic crisis, Goldman Sachs has become a poster child for corporate excess by doling out $6.5 billion in bonuses to its financial staff, even after receiving federal bailout money. Yet Goldman's leadership of Burger King, the world's second largest fast food hamburger restaurant and one of Main Street America's largest employers, demonstrates that Goldman's taxpayer-funded bonuses were not a one-time mistake. For years, Goldman has overseen Burger King's low-road approach to the American economy -- one in which huge profits enrich CEOs and owners while taxpayers, workers, and consumers bear the cost.

As the crisis intensifies and Americans face hard times, Goldman Sachs should be held responsible for its impact on Main Street as well as Wall Street. Regulators should demand that Goldman and other bailout recipients stimulate the economy through their lending practices and their employment practices. Goldman should commit to the following for all direct employees and those in the companies they own:
6. Living wages
7. Affordable health benefits
8. Freedom for workers to choose to form unions and collectively bargain (Employee Free Choice)
9. Stronger health and safety protections for consumers and workers
10. Stronger protections against sexual harassment and other worker exploitation

Goldman Sachs and Burger King can play an important role in economic recovery. The bonuses Goldman awarded in 2008 could alone could provide an $18,000 pay increase for each of Burger King's 360,000 corporate and franchise employees and put discretionary income in the hands of hundreds of thousands of American families.