July 25, 2003
Tim Blair Can Have the PETA Post
Tim Blair Can Have the PETA Post
Paul McCartney has joined the PETA onslaught on KFC! I got no fewer than three Yahoo alerts on this yesterday but still didn't deem it worthy of blog note.
I like Tim Blair's take on it, though, so I'll share that.
hln
Paul McCartney has joined the PETA onslaught on KFC! I got no fewer than three Yahoo alerts on this yesterday but still didn't deem it worthy of blog note.
I like Tim Blair's take on it, though, so I'll share that.
hln
Posted by: hln at
11:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
July 23, 2003
PETA PETA PETA (pander pander pander)
I have no fewer than THREE things to post about PETA today. I've been
getting behind, you see.
1) First, I visted Boycott Hollywood today, and, much to my delight, there was a PETA-applicable post. In PETA Goes to the Movies, Reilly writes about Legally Blonde 2 (a movie I will not see) and Reese Witherspoon's character's interaction with the organization.
As he's discussing this, he's offering his own commentary. My favorite is a quote that Reilly lifted from Frontpage Magazine.
2) I'm actually surprised PETA isn't smashing windows over this article about Alec Baldwin and his "Meet your Meat" video. There's a rather sizeable error. Bad Baldwin.
3) And, finally, I'll let this one speak for itself. A woman changed her named to GoVeg.com.
hln
1) First, I visted Boycott Hollywood today, and, much to my delight, there was a PETA-applicable post. In PETA Goes to the Movies, Reilly writes about Legally Blonde 2 (a movie I will not see) and Reese Witherspoon's character's interaction with the organization.
As he's discussing this, he's offering his own commentary. My favorite is a quote that Reilly lifted from Frontpage Magazine.
-
If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain
and suffering at our hands, then of course we're going to be blowing things
up and smashing windows." Such violence, he adds, is "a great way to bring
about animal liberation. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to
take bricks and toss them through the windows."
2) I'm actually surprised PETA isn't smashing windows over this article about Alec Baldwin and his "Meet your Meat" video. There's a rather sizeable error. Bad Baldwin.
-
In a letter to journalists, Baldwin said the film "documents the routine and
horrific abuses that animals raised and killed for food endure and makes the
case for Americans to adopt a vegetarian diet and enact humane legislation
to weed out the worst abuses."
3) And, finally, I'll let this one speak for itself. A woman changed her named to GoVeg.com.
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 3 kb.
July 19, 2003
Chrissy Hynde? Who's That? On
On Thursday in Paris, in what can only be a publicity stunt or another
manifestation of public idiocity, Pretenders' lead singer Chrissy Hynde got
cozy with PETA in Paris (how...trendy).
hln
-
PARIS, France (AP) -- Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders joined animal
activists in a loud protest outside a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in
central Paris.
...
Hynde and a dozen others, including leaders of the animal rights group PETA, were briefly detained by police after blocking traffic Wednesday on a main boulevard and smearing red paint across the restaurant's window to symbolize the blood of dead chickens.
"The protest won't end here," said the 51-year-old pop singer, who was scheduled to perform Friday in a pop music festival in western France. "Even if I shout for two hours I can assure you, I'll still have a voice for the concert."
hln
Posted by: hln at
01:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.
July 14, 2003
More PETA and KFC, courtesy
Of course, since I wrote about this, when I found the NRO article (Friday's
- I missed it then because I was ill) entitled PETA-Fried, well, I felt I had to share.
My favorite spots?
And...
hln
My favorite spots?
-
Bachelder "jumped on the corporate jet and flew to PETA's hometown of
Norfolk," PETA's website crowed, acquiescing to five of PETA's eight
demands. According to the organization's victory report, among other
matters, Bachelder pledged to install cameras in all of KFC's 29
slaughterhouses by the end of next year, with a plan to audit the tapes
monthly. KFC also agreed 1) to ensure that its suppliers would add
stimulation devices to the perches in the chicken sheds; 2) to move quickly
to kill chickens in electric stun baths rather than merely immobilizing
them; 3) to implement humane mechanized chicken-gathering systems; and 4) to
provide increased space for chicken housing. KFC promised to report back to
PETA on a regular basis to verify its compliance.
In return, PETA didn't have to agree to do much of anything. The anti-KFC campaign would continue, though with a 60-day suspension. PETA would not picket the 2003 annual shareholder meeting. It agreed to modify its website assertions about KFC, and suspended "all planned billboards." And it promised not to undertake further "step-ups" in the anti-KFC campaign for 60 days — meaning that it would be at least 61 days before protesters returned to picket Bachelder's home.
The promised reforms may all be fine, appropriate, and humane changes in the raising and slaughter of chickens. Indeed, it is an important human obligation to treat food animals properly and to kill them as humanely as is practicable. But it shouldn't take pressure from fanatics for corporate executives to do the right thing. Indeed, acting under such pressure merely adds to the power of animal-rights liberationists, making them an ever-greater threat to the legitimate use of animals.
If KFC thought that it had bought peace and security from PETA by so clearly and publicly caving in to the organization's threats and intimidation, it didn't know its enemy. I use the word enemy in its literal sense. PETA's goal is not to reform KFC's practices. It isn't ultimately seeking a universal standard for humane treatment of chickens by food producers. These goals are mere tactical efforts on the way to PETA's ultimate goal: driving KFC — and all other meat-serving fast-food restaurants — out of business.
And...
-
When I first read this, I almost spat out my morning coffee. PETA ideologues
believe that killing animals for food is the moral equivalent of genocide.
Indeed, PETA minions have for several months traveled the country promoting
vegetarianism on college campuses in the "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign.
Holocaust on Your Plate explicitly equates animal husbandry and meat-eating
with the death camps and the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust. To
illustrate its thesis, PETA crassly juxtaposes photographs of a pile of dead
pigs with a pile of the bodies of dead concentration-camp inmates and claims
that "the leather sofa and handbag are the modern equivalent of the
lampshades made from the skins of the people killed in the death
camps."
It must be understood that PETA-type fanatics do not see Holocaust on Your Plate as hyperbole or metaphor. For them, it is a literal truth. Down to the bone marrow in their vegan bones, they believe that KFC's cooking of chickens is morally equivalent to SS guards' herding of Auschwitz inmates into the showers. One can only imagine the future potential for demagogic advertisements should KFC's suppliers begin the gas slaughter of birds.
hln
Posted by: hln at
06:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 685 words, total size 5 kb.
July 08, 2003
KFC, Jason Alexander, Cruelty, PETA, and That Google Search "kfc tortures chickens"
Wow, how's that for an intro? I got the aforementioned hit yesterday
afternoon at about 3:40 CST. Sorry I took so long to put up something
relevant.
First, we have KFC's Animal (read: chicken - because mashed potatoes and biscuits aren't fauna) Welfare Policy.
Then, we have PETA and its lawsuit and a website dubbed KFC Cruelty.
And, because it wasn't interesting enough as it was, we have PETA nudging Jason Alexander out of his spokesperson role.
I bet all these things were what you were looking for, dude.
Now, what's the deal here? (Jason, you can go home now. Thanks. We're done discussing you). PETA, please sit in the corner and don't speak until addressed.
Let us drill down into KFC's website to the Poultry Welfare Guidelines (An Overview). This is obviously marketingspeak, as the "welfare" of the animal when it is delivered to KFC is, well, moot. But, the bit where it says it audits its suppliers, okay, I'll take heed now and pay attention to the presentation (below).
(From KFC Cruelty site
- A fisk of a fisk)
Okay. Hello? Weren't we talking about KFC and its suppliers? I'm certain we were. (Checking website name...yep!). And those "many examples" of which you spoke - show me. Defend, justify, and explain.
It's a lot of blah blah blah from here.
I'm certain PETA has some valid claims - after all, in the scheme of things, mass produced dinner animals probably have short, rotten, painful lives. It's too bad PETA can't synthesize the reality from the rhetoric into a stronger argument that rational America could digest and perhaps rally behind.
Incidentally, and off topic, I took a graduate class in Persuasive Attack and Defense. What we have here is PETA issuing a kategoria, an attack. Theoretically, if this attack actually damages KFC's reputation (in the company's eyes), what will take place next is the Image Restoration stage, strategies of which include denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification (asking for forgiveness), or any mixture of these. KFC can also attack its accuser, shift the blame, focus on other issues, or redefine the attack. Glad I kept Dr. Benoit's book, Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies for handy reference in times like these. (And, of course, I'm horribly oversimplifying).
hln
First, we have KFC's Animal (read: chicken - because mashed potatoes and biscuits aren't fauna) Welfare Policy.
Then, we have PETA and its lawsuit and a website dubbed KFC Cruelty.
And, because it wasn't interesting enough as it was, we have PETA nudging Jason Alexander out of his spokesperson role.
I bet all these things were what you were looking for, dude.
Now, what's the deal here? (Jason, you can go home now. Thanks. We're done discussing you). PETA, please sit in the corner and don't speak until addressed.
Let us drill down into KFC's website to the Poultry Welfare Guidelines (An Overview). This is obviously marketingspeak, as the "welfare" of the animal when it is delivered to KFC is, well, moot. But, the bit where it says it audits its suppliers, okay, I'll take heed now and pay attention to the presentation (below).
-
1. General
Supplier must have a documented program for animal welfare including a designated program leader, formal employee training, and a system of regular self-audits and recordkeeping. Corrective action for violations must be clearly stated and effective.
Birds arriving at the plant must be clean and in good health. If audit reveals dirty or sick birds, corrective action at the grow-out house must be taken.
2. Raising
KFC prohibits its suppliers from using growth-promoting substances, and requires its suppliers to raise birds in clean chicken houses with appropriate space and proper ventilation.
KFC prohibits suppliers from de-beaking any poultry that will be sold in our restaurants.
3. Catching
Birds arriving at the plant must be free of injury. KFC requires suppliers to implement an incentive program that rewards catching crews for minimizing injury if audit reveals that birds are being injured during the catching process.
4. Transport
Transport crates must be in good repair - i.e. no crate damage that would allow injury to birds or allow crates to accidentally open. Transport crates must not be over-filled and enough space must be provided to allow all birds to lie down.
5. Holding
Birds held in storage sheds must be provided adequate ventilation and climate control (fans/curtains).
6. Stunning
Stunning equipment must be maintained to ensure all birds are unconscious prior to slaughter, and the time between stunning and slaughter must be limited to ensure that no bird regains consciousness prior to slaughter.
7. Humane Slaughter
State of the art slaughter equipment must be properly maintained to ensure all birds are slaughtered quickly and without pain.
(From KFC Cruelty site
- A fisk of a fisk)
-
What follows are actual quotes from KFC.com, as displayed on January 1,
2003, shown in italics, coupled with PETAÂ’s responses.
Animal Treatment: Yum! Brands believes treating animals with care and respect is a key part of our quality assurance efforts. This means animals should be free from mistreatment at all times—from how they are raised and cared for to how they’re transported and processed. Our goal is to ensure an environment that’s free from cruelty, abuse and neglect.
We challenge anyone to review the treatment of chickens that PETA is addressing, none of which can be denied by KFC, and suggest that KFC is not cruel to chickens. From hatching to slaughter, KFCÂ’s chickens endure lives of unmitigated misery.
The science is totally clear on all the issues that PETA has raised; not only is Yum! ignoring the latest research on gas killing of chickens, broiler breeders, and the other issues that we raise, it has also done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of any other animals who are killed for its restaurants (e.g., fish for Long John Silver, or cattle, pigs, and dairy cows for Taco Bell, A&W, and Pizza Hut). As the most glaring example from among many, the latest research is clear on gestation crates, which were recently banned by voter initiative in Florida because of their excessive cruelty, yet Yum! does nothing about them.
Okay. Hello? Weren't we talking about KFC and its suppliers? I'm certain we were. (Checking website name...yep!). And those "many examples" of which you spoke - show me. Defend, justify, and explain.
-
Furthermore, cruelty to animals can be more subtle than overtly violent
abuse. Denying animals the opportunity to act according to their natures can
be even more cruel than harming them physically, and KFC denies chickens
almost every natural desire and need—from foraging to dustbathing to forming
reasonable social hierarchies (pecking orders).
-
Partnership: Yum! Brands partners with experts on our Animal Welfare Council
and our suppliers to implement humane procedures/guidelines and to audit our
suppliers to ensure the guidelines are being met.
We challenge Yum! to name one—just one—procedure or guideline that it has implemented for the humane treatment of animals on farms or during transport. Animals spend the majority of their lives on farms, yet Yum! has not done a single thing to address the treatment of animals in that area. Yum!’s supposed “guidelines” address only the slaughterhouse, and even there they are woefully inadequate. The birds are dumped from crates, often breaking limbs, and their injured legs are snapped painfully into metal shackles. Animal welfare experts are in agreement that chickens are often conscious throughout the slaughter process, resulting in the tremendous suffering of millions from being shocked by machinery, having their throats cut, and being scalded alive. Yet Yum!’s guidelines protect birds from none of these abuses, and Yum! refuses to adopt the gas killing of birds, which would eliminate them all.
-
More than half of all chickens killed for KFC are consumed outside of the
United States, yet KFC has not said a single thing about applying any animal
welfare standards outside the U.S., despite the implication that its
standards apply to all suppliers. Yum! also claims that its suppliers are
being audited, but we ask whether a single audit has ever resulted in
disciplinary action. If not, might the reason be that Yum!’s “standards”
are, in fact, simply the same abusive status quo that has been in existence
for years?
-
Performance Quantification & Follow-up: Yum! BrandsÂ’ animal welfare
guidelines are specific and quantifiable. Yum! Brands measures performance
against these guidelines through audits of our suppliers and ensures that
all purchasing strategies are aligned with our commitment to animal welfare.
If Yum! has “specific and quantifiable” guidelines, then why has no one ever seen them? This is Yum!’s most clearly duplicitous claim. Without written copies of these guidelines available to the public, how can Yum! expect anyone to believe that they exist? And again, what supplier has ever been sanctioned for violations?
-
To assist us in [our] effort, Yum! Brands formed the Yum! Brands Animal
Welfare Advisory Council, which consists of highly regarded experts in the
field. The Council provides us with advice and recommendations based on key
data and scientific research. It has been a key factor in formulating Yum!
Brands animal welfare program. Members of our Council include:
• Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado State University
• Dr. Ian Duncan, Dept. of Animal & Poultry Science, University of Guelph,
Ontario
• Dr. Joy Mench, Director of the Center for Animal Welfare, U. of Cal.,
Davis
• Adele Douglass, Ex. Dir., Farm Animal Services, American Humane
Association
• Dr. Bruce Webster, The University of Georgia
• Ellis Brunton, Senior VP of Science & Regulatory Affairs, Tyson Foods
• Dr. Jim Ayres, Director of Research & Quality Assurance, Goldkist, Inc
It is true that KFC has hired some people that PETA suggested, specifically Dr. Temple Grandin, Dr. Joy Mench, and Dr. Ian Duncan, as well as farmed-animal expert Adele Douglass, for its animal welfare panel. But even as Dr. Mench writes papers on the suffering of broiler breeders, KFC does nothing; even as Dr. Duncan discusses the inherent abuse of present slaughter methods, KFC does nothing, and so on. In two years, the panel has held three conference calls—not because the animal welfare panelists are unwilling to improve bird welfare, but more likely because KFC and the industry panelists are not willing.
Ellis Brunton and. Jim Ayres work for the exploiters, not the reformers. One naysayer on any committee can slow or totally stifle progress. The inclusion on the panel of representatives of the chicken-killing industry—the very industry that has claimed, always, that no reform is required—shows that KFC’s efforts are not likely to move quickly or effectively. This has been borne out by 21 months of work resulting in less progress for chickens than has been achieved by McDonald’s, Burger King, or Wendy’s and no progress on decreasing suffering for any other animal.
-
Yum! Brands Animal Welfare Progress: Established the Yum! Brands Animal
Welfare Advisory Council to help formalize our animal welfare program. The
Council, which consists of leading scientists and academics in the field of
animal welfare, works with Yum! Brands and its suppliers to ensure our
practices are aligned with the latest research and thinking in the field of
animal welfare.
As discussed above, the science is totally clear on all the issues that PETA has raised; not only is Yum! ignoring the latest research on gas killing of chickens, broiler breeders, and the other issues that we have addressed, it has also done nothing to improve the lives of fish for Long John Silver or cattle, pigs, and dairy cows for Taco Bell, A&W, and Pizza Hut. As the most glaring example, the latest research is clear on gestation crates, which were recently banned by voter initiative in Florida because of their excessive cruelty, yet Yum! does nothing about them. The company is ignoring, rather than aligning its practices with, the latest research and thinking in the field of animal welfare.
It's a lot of blah blah blah from here.
I'm certain PETA has some valid claims - after all, in the scheme of things, mass produced dinner animals probably have short, rotten, painful lives. It's too bad PETA can't synthesize the reality from the rhetoric into a stronger argument that rational America could digest and perhaps rally behind.
Incidentally, and off topic, I took a graduate class in Persuasive Attack and Defense. What we have here is PETA issuing a kategoria, an attack. Theoretically, if this attack actually damages KFC's reputation (in the company's eyes), what will take place next is the Image Restoration stage, strategies of which include denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification (asking for forgiveness), or any mixture of these. KFC can also attack its accuser, shift the blame, focus on other issues, or redefine the attack. Glad I kept Dr. Benoit's book, Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies for handy reference in times like these. (And, of course, I'm horribly oversimplifying).
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:32 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 2067 words, total size 14 kb.
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
37kb generated in CPU 0.0117, elapsed 0.0529 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.0454 seconds, 168 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
79 queries taking 0.0454 seconds, 168 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.