Behold, the Doucheburger

Discuss

132 Responses to “Behold, the Doucheburger”

  1. I thought the whole idea behind this was that it was not supposed to be delicious, but rather to lampoon people that drop money on stupidly expensive food. 666′s regular offerings are just beef and bun and ketchup, with cheese optional.

    It also comes wrapped in 3 $100 bills.

    • Ian McKellar says:

      American supermarkets sell “swiss cheese” that isn’t. You can’t trust any labeling here :(

    • Robert Drop says:

      And wasabi isn’t wasabi.  
      The thing is, the main appeal of Kobe beef is that the meat is finely marbled – that is, the fat is evenly distributed throughout the flesh, making it tender and flavorful.  Which means it would be totally pointless to grind it up since ground beef is, by definition, evenly mixed muscle and fat.  Even before I read that Kobe beef isn’t, my reaction to seeing the term “kobe hamburger” was “what idiots.”  It’s no less meaningful knowing it isn’t what it claims to be.
      Given that in this case it’s another one of those absurd burgers where every ingredient was chosen because it sounds expensive rather than for actual taste (or even actual expense), it’s fully in keeping with the broader scam going on (which is, in this case, a joke).

    • Peppermint says:

      Very enlightening, and yet another reason why I will never move to the US. “AAAH THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS DYING BECAUSE FILTHY PIRATES!!!1!!11 …Fake Parmigiano? Nah, that’s not possible :D”

      Thank you for the link.

  2. Kozmund says:

    I will bet you 9000 Doucheburgers that there is more gold by weight in that burger than Kobe beef.

  3. Ian Anthony says:

    No, it is not Kobe beef. Literally no meat outside of Japan is kobe beef. It is not available for sale outside of Japan. Does that make it more of a doucheburger?

    • penguinchris says:

      Yes, actually, because a douche stereotypically might pay more for something labeled a certain way, but wouldn’t know the difference. It costs more, so it must be better.

  4. Pedantic Douchebag says:

    The “Doucheburger”, Xeni? *I* wouldn’t eat this shit. Give me a big greasy bacon cheeseburger, and be done with it.

  5. John Falk says:

     Decadence.

  6. MonkeyBoy says:

    But what about the bun? That one looks like it was bought plastic bagged from a supermarket.

    Unless the bun is the equivalent to something made from wild-grass seeds stolen from a pack-rat’s den then I won’t waste my money on it.

  7. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Do people really find eating something that fatty to be appealing?   I have no problem with eating some fat, but this just sounds nasty.

    • Ian Anthony says:

      When evolution hard wires you to love it, you really, really love it.

    • blueelm says:

      I just keep thinking I’d probably see that gold foil again one way or another waaaay too soon.

    • Slowermo says:

      I’m sure I would find it terrible but not because it’s fatty. You’re missing an important evolutionary trait if you don’t find fatty foods delicious. 

    • SedanChair says:

      It’s with the profoundest sense of regret that I inform you of the existence of “bacon culture”

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        I hate bacon. I hate butter. Cheese is okay. A little olive oil. Dark chocolate and pretty much anything dark chocolatey even if it’s fatty. I’ve been this way since I started eating solid foods. I just don’t like fat very much.

        • penguinchris says:

          I’m with you – fat and any source of greasiness I find to be really disgusting (and good cheeses and most chocolates are good). People say things like once in a while they just get the urge to eat something really greasy, but, no – that shit’s gross.

          However, I still do end up eating a lot of fatty things because if you can get past the repulsion of the greasiness, the flavors are really good and impossible to really find from any other source. I eat a lot less of that stuff than most people, but I often find it difficult to resist.

          As for the doucheburger, it doesn’t actually seem to me that it’d be particularly greasy and fatty compared to an average high-fat-beef bacon burger. But I haven’t had some of the ingredients here so I could be wrong.

        • Missy Pants says:

          Really? I hated fat as a child too, save butter. Now I have bacon, or bacon fat, or duck fat, or olive oil, or some combination of all of the above on a daily basis… I would starve if I had to give up fat. Or carbs. (And before anyone asks I’m not fat in the least, and I’m 40).

    • Niczar says:

      It’s not nearly as fatty as marine mammal meat and blubber, which is what eskimos eat most of the time. 

  8. Anon Kopimi says:

    The burger only a Koch brother could afford and only Ann Romney would serve.
    (Only Mitt could love it.)

    • Au contraire. This is a genius marketing move. They will sell very few of them, but will get lots of lots of free publicity out of its existence.

    • Scixual says:

      It probably has too much flavor for Mitt. I recently moved to Utah. It is BLAAAAND here. (clarification: the culture of Utah is largely the culture of Mormonism. Non-Utah Mormons may or may not have similar tastes.)

    • niktemadur says:

      Don’t forget Alex Rodriguez.  The Yankee clubhouse serves black truffle french fries, ketchup salted with baby tears.
      Washed down with a strawberry steroid milkshake as one of ‘em WWF cheerleaders stimulates digestion with a nude body-to-body shake-and-massage.

  9. Supreme says:

    I’m one of the doodz that owns 666Burger…
    First of all, holy awesome!! I can’t believe my truck is on BoingBoing!
    The DoucheBurger is a joke burger – it’s meaty satire. The point is that putting all this crap on top of a burger doesn’t make it taste any better and it is contrary to the essence of a burger. It’s simple to pile a bunch of expensive stuff on a burger and charge a fuckload for it. I have an unbridled disgust for these types of burgers and seething anger towards those that make them and try to sell them as something fancy and worthy of respect, when in essence, it’s just a chef/customer being a douchebag. Call a spade a spade.

    • SteveKiwi says:

       So a fuckload is $666? Huh. Okay, you learn something every day.

    • It’s a pretty canny piece of marketing for you as well. Kudos!

    • Is the foie-gras ethically sourced?
      Jokes are jokes, but when they come at the expense of an animals suffering it takes some of the edge off, you know?

      • Bender says:

        I heard the kobe beef was from a cow who died of natural causes. 

        • There’s a difference between farming, and torturing an animal for the sake of a novelty food.

          If you’re not aware of this difference then I suggest you educate yourself further on the subject before chipping in.

          • Bender says:

            I beg your pardon.  I’ll take a class before the next time I comment. But seriously, have you never seen a video of, or been to a factory farm? (And unlike the state of CA, I’m not a believer in the fact that it’s torture, but that’s for another post here someday.) 

          • Oh I have, and it’s not pleasant at all; I’ve been a vegetarian for 27 years and the environmental impact of farming, as well as its unnecessary and cruel nature is what keeps me that way; but I wasn’t really looking for a debate on meat in general, it’s an argument that never really goes anywhere, and it’s certainly not a way to make friends.
            However, Kobe Beef, which is what you referenced, is traditionally from very well looked after livestock; that’s half the point. Foie-gras on the other hand is fundamentally cruel; I’d go as far as to say it’s sick and demented.

            Kobe Beef vs Foie-gras from a cruelty perspective is an entirely false equivalence.

            Incidentally more people need to open with ‘I beg your pardon’; so kudos for that, at least!

          • Supreme says:

            There are differences between farming methods – most of the (meat) crap you buy at supermarkets comes from producers that “torture” their animals – not for a novelty food but, for a regular food.

            Torturing an animal or making them live a shitty live is equally as bad regardless of what type of food it is for…and not just morally – meat from animals that are treated humanely is generally more delicious. 

          • I agree, but it’s vaguely off topic, one doesn’t justify the other, and supermarket meat doesn’t appear to be relevant with regard to this burger.
            Both are important topics, but foie gras seems more relevant here, and is fundamentally cruel (unless ethically sourced, which isn’t easy, or cheap), unlike farming which can be pretty humane, but often isn’t.

          • Supreme says:

            The reason I bring up the other types of “cruel” meat is that this anti-foie activism seems misguided. 
            the amount of foie gras consumed in America is miniscule. And that’s a part of what appeals to activists and legislators alike: it’s easier to take on the three American producers of foie gras than it is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
            That is what’s motivating the foie gras protesters and the legislators. 
            Is foie gras production really any different than the inhumane conditions that exist for veal? Or other livestock from poultry to hogs to cattle? I think the answer is “no” – it’s just low hanging fruit and easy to package as a “controversy”. 

          • In this case it’s relevant, that’s why I mentioned it. Vegetarians that complain incessantly about supermarket meat, out of context, tend to not be received very well – and being goaded into conversations like this tends to be what gives us a bad reputation; especially considering all that I asked was if the foie gras was ethically sourced, a pretty reasonable question considering that 97% of it isn’t.

          • Incidentally I agree with you about the attention crappy meat should get, and doesn’t. But admitedly there are social and economic factors that affect cheap, crappy meat. Foie gras is an easy target, as is Veil, because they’re supplementary luxury goods; whereas cheap supermarket meat to a lot of people is a staple.

          • blindidiotgod says:

             You mentioned later that Kobe beef is from well looked after livestock when in fact it’s somewhat in the same category of cruelty as foie gras: http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2007/12/kobe_beef_estabrook?currentPage=all
            and least the geese (or ducks for some foies) get to run around between feedings, not that I’m condoning the process. In fact, I consider foie gras and Kobe not only to be cruel but, a fine example of culinary laziness; all the work goes into producing fat in the animal, not in the preparation of the dishes (unless you make foie gras confit which does require some effort and initially some creativity but just seems wrong in the first place). It’s also an easy out since everybody (other than vegetarians and even then they still enjoy veg based oils) simply loves fat (even if it doesn’t love them), so you can put that shit on anything and call it a day.    

          • Admittedly I’m not super educated with respect to Kobe, but from what I understood they were quite well pampered, clearly I was misinformed (maybe this was part of a traditional rearing technic long since dead), so am happy to concede that point.

            However Foie Gras that’s been produced ‘properly’ (97% of it last I checked) involves no ‘roaming’ livestock. What you’re referring to sounds more like the processes involved in producing ethical foie gras, which is freerange and ‘enabled’, rather than forced; and represents a vast minority of what’s on offer.

            It seems that the worse we treat animals the more luxurious the end product. Maybe it’ll be ‘Beaten Cats in a Bag Burgers’ next. Stick a high enough price tag on it and it’ll be all the rage.

          • Supreme says:

            First of all I love this civil and educational commenting. It ain’t no YouTube that’s for sure.

            As for the roaming geese/ducks in Foie production – you are incorrect in stating that it involves “no roaming”. Most of the life of the animal is spent roaming fairly freely outdoors. It’s only in the last 90 days of life that the animal gets force fed and is kept indoors (in some cases – others let them roam free and only cage them for the feeding).

            It feels like you want to hate every aspect of foie on principle but, you should really research it from both ends of the spectrum. It’s like just getting your news from FOX – yer getting a bit of a slanted story…

          • It’s one of the things that keeps me coming back :)

            I’ve read quite a bit, well as much as I care to (from different sources), and from what I gather the standard means of foie gras production doesn’t involve any ‘free range’ element, I’m all ears though, feel free to point me in the direction of a source that states as much. Considering that most eggs don’t even come from free range chickens, I’d find it hard to believe that foie gras were any different.
            That said, it’s hardly a product that requires someone to ‘want’ to dislike it, on the contrary, I think it requires quite a lot of effort to justify it.

            If someone wants to eat foie gras, then I can’t stop them, and in a face-to-face environment I probably wouldn’t even call them out on it; but please just take it for what it is, a cruel and unnecessary luxury food that comes at the expense of a miserable life. It requires no defence, because there isn’t one.

      • Supreme says:

        It’s about as ethical as you can get with foie…

        That said, if yer worried about animals suffering…there’s a bunch more horrible stuff going down than foie-making. Like supermarket beef for example..

        • I dunno, have you read much into gavage? The process is how the vast majority of foie gras is produced and is banned in a lot of countries (and US states) due to the fact its completely inhumane (anyone willing to subject an animal to that process for a snooty snack is a sick bastard, no exception).

          I appreciate that there are some horrible farming practices about, but as far as I can see it has no real relevance to this burger or article; other than “X is nearly as bad as Y, so Y isn’t important”.

          • Supreme says:

            Vegetarian, as a conscientious meat eater for 25+ years, yes, I am familiar with gavage. 
            Done correctly, it doesn’t harm the animals – though, admittedly it looks unpleasant. Additionally, that is NOT the only process used to create foie. More responsible farms are making foie by letting the animals gorge themselves (the way many ‘murkans gorge at McD’s – though without the bonus of becoming delicious).  Parenthetically, this self-gorging was how foie was discovered in the first place – over 2500 years ago in Egypt.

            So, yeah…Here’s a short article with accompanying TED talk that can help school you to the reality of foie. Enjoy.

            http://www.cheeseslave.com/chef-dan-barber-brings-sustainable-humane-foie-gras-to-america/

          • I’m aware of the more humane methods, that’s why I asked if it was ethically sourced :) (unless I’m getting confused about conversations here, I’m dealing with this thread via email).

            Gavage, however, is fundamentally cruel; hence why it’s banned by several countries.

          • teapot says:

            @boingboing-7f1da4ed0fa4babef8034f5e95cd8db2:disqus Your addition of foie gras to this burger does nothing but increase the idea that it is a luxury food that people should want to eat. You may be a person who checks that their meats are produced in an ethical way (unlikely for foie gras, though) but the large majority of consumers don’t know or even care where their meat comes from.

            I also don’t buy your assertion that American consumption of foie gras is insignificant, because American tastes bear huge influence on what happens on the world stage. There are as many of you as there are English speakers in the rest of the world. An American company has just invested $100 mil in a plant in China, bastion of cruelty-free meat production. Furthermore the overwhelming majority of foie gras is produced using the gavage method. The top 4 countries that produce foie gras (France, Hungary, Bulgaria & China) account for over 90% of production and of course force-feeding is employed in all of these countries. In France (78%) it is law that foie gras must be produced using forced feeding methods. Furthermore, as is written in this article: “The corn that is used in the West to feed the geese or ducks is clean. In China, corn is often moldy. It contains cancer-causing aflatoxin. This is commonly detected by China’s food industry and commerce departments. Geese or ducks subject to such a diet will be very unhealthy”.

            The fun doesn’t stop there. According to the EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare the mortality rate of birds that are force fed is 2-4% of animal population, compared to %0.2 for birds that are not force fed. The abovelinked wikipedia page goes on to say “Other studies looked at behavioral aversion to the feeding process and found that force fed ducks avoided the feeding pen when given a choice, whereas a majority of the control group not being force fed would enter the feeding pen voluntarily.”. Sounds like they love it!

            Then there’s this: Dr. Ward Stone, wildlife pathologist with the NYSDEC and Adjunct Professor at SUNY has on several occasions conducted post-mortems on ducks that died from force feeding, including from the same farm a few months after Mr. Downes’ visit.[26] In September 2005, he writes, “…the short tortured lives of ducks raised for Foie Gras is well outside the norm of farm practice. Having seen the pathology that occurs from Foie Gras production, I strongly recommend that this practice be outlawed.”

            The article you linked to is simply written by a guy who is trying to smugly justify his choice to eat foie gras because he likes it, and seems to be an attempt to whitewash the topic through sneaky means. He points out that the practice has been around since it was created in Ancient Egypt… what he (and you) doesn’t point out is that they force fed the birds too. He then craps on for the majority of the post with bad puns, anecdotes from his mother about a friendly French foie gras producer (who’s totally gonna tell the truth, right?) who laughs off questions about the cruelty of the practice and information about ONE GUY and the American who is copying him in producing foie gras using non-gavage methods.

            This article has said American chef describing his own experiments with producing ethical foie gras as “failed gras”… sounds really successful. I note that your “article” includes the following full disclosure links: http://cmp.ly/4 http://cmp.ly/5 .. oh, so you mean to say the author has a ‘business relationship’ and an ‘affiliate relationship’ with those in his story? Bet you it’s completely objective then, amirite? It would be good if the guy actually listed who he’s affiliated with because otherwise it’s only “as little disclosure as is legally possible”… not quite the same legal benchmark as full disclosure. I won’t bother presenting a laundry list of the logical fallacies both you and the article author have committed in making your arguments because there’s no need to embarrass you further.

            Judging by what I’ve written above I’d say it’s you who needs a little schooling, but then I’m not sure if your comments are for the purpose of convincing us or yourself that foie gras is ethical. In any case I assume your burger contains Sousa’s foie gras because you said yourself that it’s “about as ethical as you can get”… or was that just more weasel words?

            (Thanks mods.. look at all this vertical space that got wasted where my 5 line vitriol would have sufficed)

            PS Have a picture of a bird enjoying his dinner. Yum Yum!

          • Thanks teapot.

            You wouldn’t have thought it would be such a hard-fought argument that foie gras is cruel and unnecessary; but I guess for some people a tasty snack is more important than suffering, and they’ll be willing to justify it however they can.

          • teapot says:

            @NathanHornby:disqus My pleasure. You carried the load for a while so the least I could do was chip in. I actually posted two comments before this but those were removed because apparently it’s only OK to use swear words when you’re describing the price of a burger.

            Keep fighting the good fight :)

          • Supreme says:

            Teapot!
            Welcome, angry vegetarian!

            There’s so much to answer…I’ll do my best and hit the points you bring up in order…

            *deep breath*

            Before I jump into it, I just want to point out that I’m not arguing that eating foie (or any meat for that matter) is totally ethical or moral thing. I realize that an animal is suffering in some respect and dying in order to feed me something that I don’t *require* to live. It’s kinda fucked up. That said, I’m ok with that. I think we make a number of choices just by living in this society that result in our comfort/happiness and the suffering of someone else. Perhaps a bad example but, your fancy iPhone was made in a factory in China staffed by people that are treated little better than corralled animals – it’s messed up. The fruit you eat that’s been imported from Mexico – you think those farm workers that picked it for you were living in optimal conditions? All I’m saying by this is that all of our hands are a little dirty based on the choices we make. Some of us hold certain things more dear to our hearts than others but, that doesn’t make our choices any less bad. I know eating meat isn’t the most ethical/moral thing but, I’m ok with that…and I try to mitigate the horribleness of what I do by caring about where my meat comes from and how it is raised.

            Ok…now, on to business.

            Foie Gras *is* a luxury food, so I feel that rather than “increasing” the view that it is a luxury food, my use of it merely perpetuates that view. However, I’d like to think that it does so in a way that ridicules those that top their burgers with it. The whole point of the DB is that it is a completely unnecessary burger topped with ridiculous unnecessary things that should never be served together. 

            Percentages can be very misleading – let’s look at the numbers and see if American consumption is significant.

            France, producing 78% of the world’s Foie is responsible for 18,450 tons of foie (2005 numbers)In that same year France consumed 19,000 tons of foieSo, over 78% of the foie in the world is eaten in France. 
            [http://news.xinhuanet.com/engl...]

            The US and Canada (where most of the Foie you find domestically comes from) are only responsible for 2.4% of the foie in the world 
            [http://www.viva.org.uk/campaig...]

            The next largest producer after France is Hungary, which is responsible for 8.2% (or 1,920 tons) of foie. Most of it being exported to (drumroll, please)…France.
            [http://www.foodnavigator.com/F...]

            So, now we’re at about 86% of world foie consumption just counting Hungary and France…doesn’t seem there’s too much left for the USofA to be a significant consumer of foie…

            In fact, there are only 3 foie farms in the US and they all use rubber tubes and more humane feeding methods.[http://www.seriouseats.com/201...]

            You also seem to skew the situation in France to meet your beliefs. In France, it is law that in order to get the official designation as Foie Gras it must be produced through force feeding methods – similar to Champagne needing to be produced in the Champagne region. That doesn’t mean that ALL the stuff we call foie that comes from France was produced using the gavage methods. In fact, there are a number of French producers that use the more natural self-gorging methods.

            Your quote about Chinese production is similarly misleading – the situation there is an anomaly as opposed to the rule. China only produces 0.6% of world foie. Additionally, that product rarely if ever makes it to the USA.

            Then fun doesn’t stop there – you also are presenting only part of the story in quoting your research. 

            In contrast to Dr. Ward Stone’s observations, Dr. Robert P. Gordon “…visited a farm in New York. “After being on the premises, my position changed dramatically,” Dr. Gordon said. “I did not see animals I would consider distressed, and I didn’t see pain and suffering.” He said it is more distressing to take a rectal temperature in a cat. He cautioned against anthropomorphism, which is different from the human-animal bond…”[http://www.avma.org/onlnews/ja...]

            Take this one with a grain of salt but, “Michael Ginor, owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, author of Foie Gras… A Passion, claims his birds come to him to be fed and says this is important because “a stressed or hurt bird won’t eat and digest well or produce a foie gras.”. Granted, this dude has a very lucrative reason to hold his position but, one point he makes in that sentence is accurate – a stressed or hurt animal will not make for good eating. 

            True that the article I linked wasn’t the best one but, I didn’t want to write  a long well researched missive (there goes that plan) and just pulled the first thing I found. So, to make up for that failure on my part, here are some well written and more resonant articles that make the same point as that crappy article:

            A strong article, including first-hand account of a no access denied exploration of a foie farm. And nice to know that EVERY part of the animal is used, not just the liver.
            http://www.seriouseats.com/201

            An opinion article but no less convincing. Here’s a quote from it:  “What appears to be a gruesome act of quickly putting a tube down the duck or goose’s throat known as ‘gavage,’ does not cause damage to the animal.”[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...]

            Super long article but, heavily researched. (spoiler: the answer to the question posed in the title is “no”)
            http://www.villagevoice.com/20

            That said, the point about Egyptians discovering foie is accurate – they didn’t just pick up a duck and start cramming food down it’s throat. They learned that the yummy liver was made when these animals naturally gorged themselves. Granted, they then turned this into a “forced” practice but, the OG foie was thanks to the gluttony of the animal.

            Judging by what I’ve written above I’d say it’s you who needs a little schooling, but then I’m not sure if your comments are for the purpose of convincing us or yourself that foie gras is unethical.

            … and I don’t buy from Sousa but, get it from an equally reputable domestic producer.

          • Incidentally, and I appreciate that this wasn’t in reply to me, but I don’t live in the US, I forget why US consumption became a significant factor in the debate :)

          • So all that stuff about the birds going through a period of agonising near-suffocation during the latter stages of gavage isn’t true? Not being snarky, but that sounded like the most torturous part of it to me.

          • By the way, thanks for sticking around for the conversation. Debate rarely ends in both parties agreeing (we’re only human), but it would have been much easier for you to not bother at all, or just completely dismiss it. Same goes for @teapot.

          • Supreme says:

            You are correct, the birds suffocating isn’t true. They use the fact that they lack a gag reflex and the long neck to store food they can eat over time. Granted, foie production takes advantage of this and stuffs them to the brim but, it’s not supposed to be horrifying torture (or even particularly uncomfortable) to the birds.

          • Supreme says:

            It’s seriously been a pleasure talking/debating with you. Happy you stuck around as well. No expectations that we’d change each other’s minds but, I know I learned some stuff I didn’t know before from talking with you so – debate successful!

            :)

          • teapot says:

            @boingboing-7f1da4ed0fa4babef8034f5e95cd8db2:disqus Thanks for your reply, but we’ll have to agree to disagree.

            First of all, I am not a vegetarian – I love tasty meats and have eaten my fair share of the animal kingdom. My position on foie is informed by the idea that expecting animals to suffer in excess of what is necessary for me to eat them is not something we have the right to do. I also get and appreciate the idea behind your burger (we also have hoards of insufferable food wankers here in Australia) but my comment was specifically IRT your inclusion of foie. I don’t own any apple products for the exact reasons you mention and if I could purchase a phone that is guaranteed to be produced by people working under humane conditions I would. Also I always buy fruit grown in Australia – I even ensure the juice I buy is made from 100% Australian fruit. Australia has good labour laws and minimum wages that protect workers. We also don’t have the kinds of problems you have in the States with large-scale agribusiness and a corrupt FDA. Our hands *are* all dirty to some extent but as I stated above I don’t believe it is right to expect an animal to be more uncomfortable than necessary for the alleged benefit of making my food tastier.

            I agree that I should have written that your use of foie in the burger perpetuates the idea it is a luxury food. My bad judgement in word choice. I see this perpetuation as a problem as being a foodie is the latest idiotic trend. Eating exotic foods and instagramming a pic of it is the latest thing to do and if these hipsters (note: I’m not talking about all foodies, I’m talking about the ones doing it because of the trend) are presented with the idea that foie is an exotic, desirable food then demand and consumption levels will undoubtedly increase. I’m not claiming US consumption is numerically significant, but US chefs and bloggers who promote the food are certainly driving demand and noob consumers are quite likely to buy the cheapest possible product (likely to not be produced ethically).

            I’m not sure why you linked to viva… they’re arguing against your position. Plus I cannot find the figure you referenced anywhere on the site. Do you have any proof of your assertion that most of the foie consumed in Canada and the US is domestically produced? Considering the French influence on Canada, the legal status of gavage in Canada plus the fact that the production in Canada has been increasing in recent years I don’t think these facts bode well for your argument.

            I believe you are wrong about use of gavage in France. My understanding (as supported by this french law) is that in order for foie to be sold as foie gras in France it MUST be produced using the gavage method. My point IRT China’s production still stands as the figures for production that you referenced are from 2005. The guy in the article you tried to link (you can’t put brackets at the end of weblinks without a space at the end) says that they aim to increase production up to 1000 tons/year over the next 5 years. The article I originally linked about the new plant states that China does product 1000 tons/year already. Extrapolating the figure in the xinhuanet article (100 tons from 200,000 birds) and applying it to the new production facility being planned (which will have 2 million geese and 8 million ducks) it is more than safe to say China’s production is easily more than 0.6% of world supply today (maybe 5%?) and is only set to grow.

            The reason I didn’t include the commentary by the AVMA is because I don’t believe them to be objective. Below the very quote you referenced, Wikipedia has the inclusion of this: “Critics of the AVMA have stated that the organization tends to defend the economic interests of agribusiness over animal welfare, and that it has also declined to take a position against other controversial practices such as forced molting and gestation crates.”

            IRT the HuffPo article, the definition of “damage” is up for debate. There may be no physical signs of damage but it is not right to assume that increasing the physical size of an animal’s liver to 10 times its normal size is going to be a comfortable thing to endure. As stated in my original comment, I think it is important to note that force-fed birds avoid feeding areas compared to non force-fed birds who actively hang around the feeding area. How do you explain this behaviour if you believe the practice is not unpleasant for the animal?

            IRT Egypt: the discovery of animal’s ability to gorge may have come accidentally but once discovered it became normal practice to force feed: “There are many depictions of animals being force-fed, among them cranes, hyaenas and geese.”

            It seems to me that there are a number of holes in your argument. Your presumptuous pejorative use of the word ‘vegetarian’ and suggestion that we need schooling isn’t supported by the evidence you provided. As I said at the top, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t expect that I’ve changed your opinion but I just hope the information presented here will allow people to make better informed decisions about the ethics of eating foods produced at the the expense of the comfort of animals.

      • Dale Ratner says:

        I agree with you. I get the idea of making fun of the excesses of foodie culture but this joke seems more wasteful.  I doubt anyone who would pay the amount cares whether they are labeled as being douches or not. More importantly, if we are talking about the importance of sustainable food practices, stocking these items to make fun of douches misses the point it seems because you need them to make the burger.

        And I’m not a vegetarian and generally enjoy most of the items listed. I just have a notion of guilt that prevents me from spending 600 dollars on one food item.

    • Dale Ratner says:

      I get what you are saying. My favorite burger is usually only medium rare and with pickles on top (Kosher half-sour)

      However, it did get described as being fucking delicious by someone.

      Mileage might vary but I think stunts like this do not really work. Yes there are a lot of really silly food items out there that cost way too much with an unjustified price tag and people are only doing it for the prestige. Bottle service has always puzzled me. But it seems wasteful to stock the expensive stuff to make a point and as I said before, people who would spend this much on a burger sadly do not care about whether they are seen as douches or not. People who do care are not going to buy the burger even if curious about the taste.

  10. Scott Rubin says:

    Can someone explain the gold foil to me? Won’t that ruin the delicious taste of everything else?

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Gold doesn’t have a taste, does it?

      • Sekino says:

         But what about texture? I hate when tiny bits of foil remain stuck on baked food and I accidentally bite it. Makes me gag. Then again, maybe gold foil has a delightful tempura-like crunch. I wouldn’t know.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Gold leaf is about 3.5 millionths of an inch thick. It’s almost two dimensional.

        • Andrew Pam says:

           Aluminium foil and gold foil are very different.  I’ve had (tiny) amounts of gold foil on fancy chocolates, and it definitely doesn’t have the annoying texture and taste of aluminium foil.

        • spejic says:

          Silver foil is used on some Indian sweets. I didn’t notice it at all when I ate some. I imagine gold leaf is the same.

      • davidmang says:

        This. Gold is flavorless due to its lack of reactivity. That’s part of the joke. Also, mixing all that shit together won’t taste good anyway–the addition of gold is just more satirical icing on that meaty cake.

    • bcsizemo says:

       Never seen Goldschlager?

      • penguinchris says:

        I think it’s a fair question though… I am aware of Goldschlager but have never had it and was also curious how the gold might affect the taste and texture of the burger (even though it’s there as a joke). Also, what do people actually do with the gold in Goldschlager? Do they drink it? Some of it must et stuck to the bottle, it’d feel weird to throw it out I think.

        • Jonathan Roberts says:

          Apparently it’s supposed to produce tiny tears in the lining of the stomach or throat, which should give you the effect of the alcohol quicker. I think the blurb on the bottles mainly focuses on some alleged health benefits to gold (they had quite a few brands in a duty free shop I went to in UAE). I still can’t see what the benefit of gold leaf in a burger would be though, aside from the bling factor.

          • penguinchris says:

            That’s… kind of disturbing actually! My sense was that it was considered a “girly” drink and something that teenage girls like; considering that most girls are affected more quickly by alcohol than guys that doesn’t sound like a good combination (assuming the quicker alcohol effect is real).

            I’m not surprised they sell loads of that in the UAE, I had a long layover in Abu Dhabi and the stuff they had in the shops was ridiculous (I didn’t look at the liquor though) and they certainly love their bling over there.

          • C W says:

            “Apparently it’s supposed to produce tiny tears in the lining of the stomach or throat”

            You do realize that you’re perpetuating an urban legend?

            Stoner/drug myths will never die.

          • Jonathan Roberts says:

            As Scixual mentioned, it’s unlikely to have any effect on food or drink that it’s used with. It’s too soft to cause tears at all and even if it did, the amount of alcohol that would go straight into the bloodstream would make very little difference. It’s also unlikely to have any of the health benefits that the manufacturers claim, but I expect urban legends and marketing BS are much of the appeal with a drink like that.

        • Scixual says:

           It’s *so* thin, even in liquid it is undetectable by flavor or texture. I think the tearing story is likely to be a myth, then.

    • Guest says:

      Jonathan Roberts explains it well.

      This opening of lines in the stomach sounds appealing to some.  It’s also an excellent method to poison people.  Put flakes of the hardest minerals you can find in someone’s food.  Diamonds work well.

      The gold leaf is just “killing yourself lite,” much like smoking cigarettes, except you only do it for class reasons because it doesn’t really improve the experience or give the kick nicotine gives.  Hence, it’s an excellent doucheburger additive.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Anyone who thinks that gold leaf could injure your digestive system has never worked with it.

        • Guest says:

          I admit I don’t as much as about gold “leaf” per se, but gold is another mineral that can tear ones’ viscera.  How much is necessary to reach that point – though I suppose the purity of the gold matters, it being so soft…?  What’s the toxicity level for gold flakes, in size or quantity?

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Since it’s inert, doesn’t that make its toxicity level non-existent? I mean, if you ate enough, it might form a bowel obstruction, or tear your gut because it was so heavy, but I’m not sure that it’s even mechanically possible to collect like that in your digestive tract unless you’re eating nuggets or wedding rings. A 3-3/8″ square sheet of gold leaf weighs about 0.02 grams.

          • CH says:

            Gold isn’t a mineral, it’s a metal… or well, it’s almost always used as an alloy, but I think edible gold is much purer gold than what is usually used in rings etc. (Hmm… apparently 22k is common.)

            Anything sharp can of course tear your insides, but I would be very surprised if gold leaf actually could do that (like… I cannot see how that would be possible… got any references?). Heck… stale bread could then also tear, not to mention small bone shards and fish bones. Go get some gold leaf… a paper tissue is steel plating compared to that stuff.

          • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

            There are compounds of gold that won’t do you too much good(it’s noble; but not incorruptible…). Probable most notable are the class of drugs generically called ‘gold salts’ sometimes used as a less-preferred treatment for arthritis, or the gold/cyanide combination that comes out of the cyanide leaching step of contemporary gold mining.

            That said, elemental gold, or gold minimally alloyed with copper, doesn’t condescend to react with much, and is sufficiently expensive that mechanically hazardous quantities rarely show up. 

          • Guest says:

            Antinous, CH, and Fuzzy:

            I did not not know gold leaf was so trace.  Maybe toxic is not the right word, but “lethal”?  I think you are right, and the other posters, that the closer to purity/24 carat (karat?) the gold is, the less dangerous.  Smaller quantity and shape helps too.  Wedding rings are not actually as dangerous as smaller amounts of gold alloy that happen to be in a sharp “shard” shape.

            Maybe it’s an English thing or Chemistry thing, but I was referring to “mineral” in the sense of metal ore.  My background is more in history and economics, so I don’t know the technical processes as you describe it.  I do know that, despite modern ideas of poison as always being some chemical that’s meant to “react” in ones’ body, flakes of minerals – or metals – inert or not, is a really old and simple form of poisoning someone.  Food testers for royalty and nobility often didn’t matter because nobody died on the spot.  

            My point about the poisoning has nothing to do with the inertness of the metal, ie. reactivity.  I mean the non-processing of the mineral, sticking in your insides, doing nothing other than taking up the space that would otherwise be a part of the healthy tissue in your digestive tract that should recycle with its…cycles of replacement, kills you with enough time.

            The principle is that you get a large quantity of sharp shards which are not processed or passed through ones’ digestive system to “stick” in there.  Putting “rock shrapnel” – sub in whichever word for “rock” with modern and more specific chemical terms – in other people is a time-honored way of taking someone out.

          • Guest says:

            CH et al.

            Oh, you scientifically knowledgable bastards of the twenty-first century, which I mean with endearment.

            Every instance I could cite here that you could verify online turns out to be a matter of people not knowing that the death was caused by the non-gold materials.  Of course, before modern times, no one had ever possessed or produced “pure” gold as we know it.

            Google “Diane de Poitiers” for a funny elixir death, not really caused by the gold.  All old jewelry “I shall flake this off and you shall swallow it” deaths involved some non-gold material, usually lead, much like how gold miners can die today from inhalation.

            Here is a funny article fron NYT from long ago – forgive the obvious racism in it – about people dying from eating Gold in China: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C07EFD61E31E033A2575BC1A9619C94639ED7CF  Maybe easier to access here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C07EFD61E31E033A2575BC1A9619C94639ED7CF

            But my favorites, though this goes beyond our original discussion, is natives pouring molten gold down Spanish throats.  Google “Valvidia” and Gold or just “conquistador” and you know the rest.  There are beautiful paintings of such occurrences.  They are sick, but in a “poetic justice” sort of manner.

        • ImmutableMichael says:

          Yup – anyone who’s tried to re-gild old timber will scoff at the “tearing the lining of the stomach” notion. Working with gold leaf is like trying to nail clouds or glue the aether to kittens.

        • Bender says:

          My goodness! Who HASN’T worked with it!? 

          • IronEdithKidd says:

            Only did it once.  Worst crafting experience ever.  Props to the artisans back in the day the gilt the crap out of churches.  Those were some seriously patient bastards.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            If you accidentally breathe at it, it just sort of disappears.

  11. sam1148 says:

    If it was served on Virgin Atlantic..it would be Awesome burger here. 

  12. Bokonon says:

    Ah Hello…. No Quail Egg?

  13. The Doucheburger– because your forthcoming torrential diarrhea should sparkle.

  14. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    If it doesn’t involve eels fattened on the flesh of slaves, my jaded palate just can’t get interested…

  15. John Hattan says:

    Reminds me of “luxury pie” in Black Books. 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSQWXi0Wot0

  16. Zadaz says:

    I’d expect a doucheburger to have vinegar as an ingredient somewhere. 

  17. zombiebob says:

    Switch the grueyere with Roquefort, and I’m all up in that douche.

  18. gumbowing says:

    It’s a jokeburger for baiting  shitheels. Anyone actually eating one would definitely not feel very fresh afterwards.

  19. Andrew Pam says:

    (In reply to AquilesElHeleno above, but inexplicably moved by Disqus): I’d venture to say non-toxic in any quantity.  You could probably safely swallow a gold nugget or small gold bar, as long as it wasn’t sharp or too heavy; historically, people have often swallowed gold in extremis in an effort to keep it safe.

    • CH says:

      Heh… yea… the danger from swallowing large quantities of gold would probably not be the gold cutting you from the inside but  some thief  trying to cut you open from the outside.

    • Guest says:

      Yeah, swallowing in extremis can even be done with diamonds, if cut/not-cut in the smooth enough shape.

      What I was referring to, in very flailing English, was the “rock shrapnel” effect, not the toxicity one keeps in mind in light of modern chemistry.  I suppose that would be the mechanical aspect.

  20. Misleading labelling – appears to contain neither vaginal nor anal douching, and that’s very disappointing.

  21. sean says:

    I hear Marie Antoinette liked her burgers done this way.

  22. joshmcsomething says:

    Zeitgeist Magazine had an interesting article on this last month… Burgers like this are ridiculous but 666 Burger are the only ones making it for the right reason http://www.zeitgeistmagazine.com/the-douchebag-burger/

  23. Paul Renault says:

    Is the burger followed by some Gulab Jamun with gold leaf sprinkled on top?

  24. Missy Pants says:

    Also, I would totally eat that burger. :)

  25. Gary61 says:

    Made with 90% free-range douchebags.

  26. Emo Pinata says:

    These “luxury” burgers suck ass. Not because they are too fatty, but because a burger is a strong taste that requires ingredients with strong flavors. Foie gras, caviar, etc. are lost to the flavor of beef and cheese.

    If you want a decadent burger, add a damn egg and call it a day.

  27. scriptfoo says:

    Incomplete until bacon is present.

  28. blindidiotgod says:

    Bet Kim Jong-il is eating these in Hell right now…and shitting them out whole…and eating them again… 

Leave a Reply