Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most vegetarians don't take the quasi-religious interpretation that coming into contact with another meat product permanently dirties whatever they're eating. Some do, certainly, but not most. A more general definition of a vegetarian food is food whose ingredients do not purposefully include any product that requires killing an animal to extract it. Note that the homeopathic definition of vegetarian means that essen…
While I'm certainly not trying to be quas-religious, what's the point of a definition of it means nothing? If there's meat in the patty because of poor preparation, that's plainly easily avoidable by scraping the grill, and bk just refuses to do it or find one of the other amazingly easy ways to not have it cooked in beef fat, you can't call it vegetarian. Absolutely there's no way for a company to never have insects…
If you adopt a definition of vegetarian that excludes any product that has a microgram of animal meat in it, you rapidly run into the problem that there is literally no vegetarian food, because dead animals end up unintentionally incorporated into pretty much all products in the processing stage. There's not even vegetarian water, because (animal) rotifers are present in it.
I say this all as a vegetarian who avoids fish sauce and animal-based broths, meaning effectively large swaths of Japanese and Southeast Asian cuisines are effectively off limits to me. The attempt to one-up the majority of vegetarians by demanding convoluted purity rituals for the right to claim membership in the One True Vegetarianism doesn't help anyone.