KFC: We do Chickens Wrong!

[MomurdA]

I also boycott hewlett packard. Not for personal reasons but because they build the worst personal computers i have ever seen. Everytime a customer calls me saying there comp is messed up, i ask what kind it is. Id say at least half the time they say 'hp' and then i just sigh. sorry thats kind of off topic Their printers have many issues as well, and im sure they contribute to the cruelty to farm animals indirectly, somehow.

[RGA]

Actually i think Peta is going after the place people know. people don't know XYZ chicken farm but they DO KNOW KFC!. The only people able to put any REAL pressure on chicken farms is the company who is the number one buyer ion the US of chickens. You put the pressure on the retailer who then puts the pressure on the chicken farm. It's easier for average Joe to get on side when average Joe has a TARGET.

Seems to have worked for George W. Bush -- give them a target even if it's the wrong one.

I think any kind of outfit like Peta is going to have to "market" and go for the emotion ploy. They can't go to the intelligent viewer because to put it bluntly they are in the vast minority of North Americans and even some of the smarties are apathetic unless you club them over the head in shmaltzy guilt trips.

My friend worked as a clean-up person at a chicken plant -- they called it a plant - and after 6 months they offerred him a management position which he declined. He gags just looking at chicken.

No question there are others buying chickens from the same plants. Peta is simply going after the buiggest two buyers KFC and McDonalds. No point in going after some small time outfit because the chicken farm could easily ignore them...But I don;t know if they could ignore KFC and McDonalds.

McDonalds has been pressured into change in the past by their customers...I don;t see why KFC as a customer to their supplier can't put the pressure on. These places actually hold more power because they can't replace KFC. If everyone in the world completely did not go to a single KFC on the planet for an entire month -- either KFC goes under or by second day the chicken plant is completely changed.

It's bad enough the hormones are disasterous on human health and the heart clogging quality of their food but on top of that they knowingly support companies who are cruel to animals. It's just so evil -- and people are worried about some terrorists -- man who sticks up for the chickens. Hmm maybe it's because I saw Chicken Run not long ago.

Free Range purchasing is what I try to do on any meat purchase. yes it's more expensive which means I get an OTO instead of a Soro -- but I can live with that better than the lame excuse that my grocery buill is an extra 10% I'm healthier for it too.

[Woochifer]

Actually i think Peta is going after the place people know. people don't know XYZ chicken farm but they DO KNOW KFC!. The only people able to put any REAL pressure on chicken farms is the company who is the number one buyer ion the US of chickens. You put the pressure on the retailer who then puts the pressure on the chicken farm. It's easier for average Joe to get on side when average Joe has a TARGET.

With all of the corrupt corporate practices out there where you CAN make a one to one correlation between a company's direct actions and harm that they cause, I think that PETA's approach of targeting companies for practices that do not occur directly under their watch speaks volumes for the self-serving aspect of their actions. PETA has time and time again gone for the sensationalist stunts that make the evening news, rather than try to focus their campaigns on the actual parties that need to be held responsible and directing their responses in ways that make the best difference. Right, vandalizing department stores and antagonizing shoppers who aren't even shopping for mink coats is the best way of stopping animal cruelty by mink trappers and producers.

If anything, the "average joe" looks at PETA as a joke, and if anything, their antics have done more damage to their cause than any good. A talk show (and it's not a right wing show if you need to know) that I listen to makes a mockery out of just about everything that PETA does, and when PETA put out the call for a KFC boycott, the response by most of the callers was to say that they would buy an extra bucket of chicken at KFC to let PETA know what they think. If PETA thinks they're "educating" the average Joe, then their "educating" has only turned the public against the cause of humane treatment of animals.

Seems to have worked for George W. Bush -- give them a target even if it's the wrong one.

So by supporting PETA's stance, are you then saying that Bush's approach is the correct one?

I think any kind of outfit like Peta is going to have to "market" and go for the emotion ploy. They can't go to the intelligent viewer because to put it bluntly they are in the vast minority of North Americans and even some of the smarties are apathetic unless you club them over the head in shmaltzy guilt trips.

It seems that you respond to the sensationalist, rather than the rational. You still don't get that organizations like PETA who try this approach aren't trying to change things, so much as they are calling attention to themselves. I can't think of too many campaigns that they've started that have actually been successful.

The tone of this paragraph is the type of arrogant "I know better than you do" attitude that frankly turns off most people. If people want to be apathetic, or if they have other priorities in deciding on which companies they support, then that's their choice. The problem with clubbing people over the head with "shmaltzy guilt trips" is that they will not necessarily react the same way that you do, and just because you're a "smarty" does not change the fact that people will make their own choices based on what they focus on.

How different is this than the shock tactics that anti-abortion activists use in harassing doctors and patients? They feel that clubbing people over the head with gruesome images and calling doctors "baby killers" will spur the average Joe into supporting their cause as well.

No question there are others buying chickens from the same plants. Peta is simply going after the buiggest two buyers KFC and McDonalds. No point in going after some small time outfit because the chicken farm could easily ignore them...But I don;t know if they could ignore KFC and McDonalds.

If the goal of PETA's campaign is public education about corporate practices, then the informaton needs to be put out there about the facilities engaging in the abuse, and letting the public know where those chickens go. At that point, if the abuse is so agregious in the view of customers that they feel the need to take action, then they will on their own accord. For PETA to take this information to launch into an attack on KFC guarantees publicity, but does nothing to change the practices that so purportedly revolts them.

McDonalds has been pressured into change in the past by their customers...I don;t see why KFC as a customer to their supplier can't put the pressure on. These places actually hold more power because they can't replace KFC. If everyone in the world completely did not go to a single KFC on the planet for an entire month -- either KFC goes under or by second day the chicken plant is completely changed.

Right, and those were letter writing campaigns that were supported by their customers. When a group of environmentalists made note of McDonalds using nonbiodegradable styrene packaging, they encouraged customers to write to McDonald's and put pressure on them to change. That approach worked -- they now use recycled paperboard. Oh, and that campaign worked without the threat of a boycott.

Seems like PETA found abuse at a chicken processing facility, and responded not by encouraging customers to let KFC know that the company should do something about it. Their response was to start making inflamatory proclamations and start a boycott of one company, even though these practices affect a much broader cross-section of the industry. Doesn't do any good if people stop going to KFC and go to Church's or Popeye's instead, when those companies might use the same chicken suppliers.

Wheaties put a bass fisherman on their box cover, and PETA's response was to start a boycott. Does going to the boycott card and sensationalizing the issue do anything in the end? I suggest you look to results rather than presumptions about how people will react once they are "educated" about a subject.

It's bad enough the hormones are disasterous on human health and the heart clogging quality of their food but on top of that they knowingly support companies who are cruel to animals. It's just so evil -- and people are worried about some terrorists -- man who sticks up for the chickens. Hmm maybe it's because I saw Chicken Run not long ago.

And there's the rub. Some people just don't give a crap about animal cruelty or where their food comes from. You might view it as evil and make posts about it, but if people don't care, then in the end, all the criers calls don't amount to much. I might care that Wal-Mart engages in unionbusting tactics and predatory pricing, but for someone else, they might just see the low prices and not give a crap about the other external costs.

Free Range purchasing is what I try to do on any meat purchase. yes it's more expensive which means I get an OTO instead of a Soro -- but I can live with that better than the lame excuse that my grocery buill is an extra 10% I'm healthier for it too.

And that's your choice, just as others make their choices.

[RGA]

actually I was not supporting Peta but playing devil's advocate as to why they would go about the tactics they go about. Fahrenheit 9/11 IMO was the best film last year and it presented largely fully known information geared to people not up to what was going on. And even then it ultimately proved to be a film that merely preached to the choir. There is a way to be heavy handed that Michael Moore makes work and where Peta has been unsuccessful.

Peta and Green Peace and msot of these big outfits I'm not a "supporter" of because they become or can become corrupt self-serving entities. As you note with their sensational 6 o'clock news casts trying to spread the Peta organization name rather than focussing on the cause you're fighting.

Peta or a group like then has done some disengenuous things. When Robert Atkins died there were several downright LIES about his death thrown out there in order to get people to stop eating meat. This is why such organizations lose credibility and it's hard to regain it later. Michael Moore was hindered by his previous films and his grandstanding is hilarious but not if you're a stodgey stick up the ass right winger when it comes across as anti-American.

Peta I think somewhere down the line had a good idea. But it's commercialized. There is one other animal rights group which is more credible anyway I believe called WSPA

[FLZapped]

Peta or a group like then has done some disengenuous things. When Robert Atkins died there were several downright LIES about his death thrown out there in order to get people to stop eating meat. This is why such organizations lose credibility and it's hard to regain it later. Michael Moore was hindered by his previous films and his grandstanding is hilarious but not if you're a stodgey stick up the ass right winger when it comes across as anti-American.

HAHHAHAHHAHHAA....Michael Moore was hindered by his propensity to lie. No different than what happeneed with Atkins.

[RGA]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around. Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie. It's funny how there was a holocaust survivor who said he was in the Bergen Belson camp and recounted that they were afraid of being gassed ... there was no gas chamber that facility and so some people use that to claim that the Holocaust was a lie. Moore may have one or two facts wrong but what about the 87 he gets right? Chucking out all the facts or the forrest for one dead tree is idiotic.

For instance Atkins has been blasted by many pundits -- few of whom have actually bothered to read what he has to say -- for instance I doubt too many people know that you can be a vegitarian and be on the Atkins plan...no what you see on CNN is a big greasy burger fried up in a pan with the title this could be dangerous. What is media presented and what is the truth is not the same thing. And the medical practitioners who got on his case interestingly enough have no REAL evidence of their own. The biggest scam in the United States today is all and any drug and the media fear tactics on cholesterol and to a further extent fat content of foods.

Atkins believed in and was a big supporter of buying Organic foods, meats without nitrates, free range, vitamin suppliments (because the foods were overprocessed and lossed much of the nutrients) avoidance of high sugar foods and white flour carbohydrates and white rice. Gee not a whole lot different than most nutritionists.

The food pyramid has been advertised on tv recently saying to have more grain foods and there is a kid holding a box of Lucky Charms because this is the new healthy government approved diet that kids should be eating -- Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms? Sorry but there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake and your health is the LAST thing on the minds of the drug and nutrition industry.

[Woochifer]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around. Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie. It's funny how there was a holocaust survivor who said he was in the Bergen Belson camp and recounted that they were afraid of being gassed ... there was no gas chamber that facility and so some people use that to claim that the Holocaust was a lie. Moore may have one or two facts wrong but what about the 87 he gets right? Chucking out all the facts or the forrest for one dead tree is idiotic.

Leave it up to you to turn a topic that started with you urging people to boycott KFC, and spin it into the ground with Michael Moore, the holocaust, and your worship of Dr. Atkins.

For instance Atkins has been blasted by many pundits -- few of whom have actually bothered to read what he has to say -- for instance I doubt too many people know that you can be a vegitarian and be on the Atkins plan...no what you see on CNN is a big greasy burger fried up in a pan with the title this could be dangerous. What is media presented and what is the truth is not the same thing. And the medical practitioners who got on his case interestingly enough have no REAL evidence of their own. The biggest scam in the United States today is all and any drug and the media fear tactics on cholesterol and to a further extent fat content of foods.

Atkins believed in and was a big supporter of buying Organic foods, meats without nitrates, free range, vitamin suppliments (because the foods were overprocessed and lossed much of the nutrients) avoidance of high sugar foods and white flour carbohydrates and white rice. Gee not a whole lot different than most nutritionists.

Sure, it's possible to be a vegetarian and on the Atkins plan. That doesn't make it a healthy or balanced diet. My wife is a research biologist and the people that she works with (including university medical researchers) to a person think that the long-term health risks resulting from the Atkins regimen of carb deprivation and protein loading will become evident in the years to come, irregardless of whether people have been interpreting Atkins to mean indulging in high protein foods loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol. Problem with Atkins is that it eliminates the carbs that nutritionists consider a part of a balanced and healthy diet (complex carbs, dietary fiber, etc.). Atkins is an effective way to lose weight, but the nutritionists I know certainly don't view the imbalances inherent in that diet as a healthy lifestyle. Ever hear of eating a balanced diversity of foods in moderation, and exercising? That seems to be the only "diet" that has outlived all the various fads that have come and gone over the past 30 years.

If you think that the "biggest scam" is "all and any drug" then are you telling me then that next time you get a staph infection, you're going to instruct your doctors not to give you any antibiotics? Or if you get an organ transplant, you're going to do without the anti-rejection drugs? Of if you're diagnosed with HIV, you'll "cure" yourself without any medications, because "all and any drug" is just a scam? Blanket statements like the one that you made are the stuff of infomercial and Scientology conspiracies, not science and not reality.

If you think that cholesterol is just a "media scare tactic" then I'm sure you'll have to now educate all the actuarials who have been using cholesterol counts in their risk factor assessments for issuing life insurance policies. They'll be glad to know that a person with high cholesterol is no likelier to die from a heart attack than someone with a low cholesterol count, and their stockholders will be glad too because there will be no bottomline impact on their claims by eliminating the cholesterol count as a criteria.

For all the talk that you make about what you intrepret as media scare tactics, your statements certainly don't come across to me as rational or well informed either. Right, all of the medical research out there is nothing more than a scare tactic. Pharmaceutical companies are out to make a buck, but at the same time, I doubt that even you would do without their products in their entirety.

The food pyramid has been advertised on tv recently saying to have more grain foods and there is a kid holding a box of Lucky Charms because this is the new healthy government approved diet that kids should be eating -- Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms? Sorry but there are BILLIONS of dollars at stake and your health is the LAST thing on the minds of the drug and nutrition industry.

Oh brother, here you go again with the food pyramid. In the past, you've made quite a few erroneous references to what it actually means. Here's the rub -- the original four food groups approach was written in 1916 when the one of biggest health issues in the U.S. was malnutrition. As food technology evolved and increased yields and food production efficiencies, malnutrition has waned as a public health issue. The evolution into the new food pyramid occurred because obesity has supplanted malnutrition as the bigger health risk.

Those commercials you mentioned are pretty laughable when the high sugar cereals are included. Indeed they have whole grains, which is good and healthy, but they are loaded with plenty of processed sugar and simple carbs as well, which are linked to obesity.

But, what does the "drug and nutrition industry" have to do with the new food pyramid? It's pretty much self explanatory -- differentiating between different kinds of fats, more emphasis on high fiber foods, more vegetables, more whole grains, etc. I don't see where these BILLIONS of dollars fit into the picture (well, maybe there is that much to be made, just look at all of the Atkins licensed food products that have flooded the market in the past couple of years). Or do you see conspiracies here too?

[FLZapped]

Atkins was lied about not the other way around.

You are correct, I worded that improperly.

Michael Moore's latest film has a few errors which is not the same as a lie.

No, he lied.

-Bruce