KFC Boycott: Are the Demands Realistic?!
Some of the demands are detailed here: http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/pdfs...
Has anyone done any research into how much it would cost KFC to implement these recommendations? Maybe they're too expensive and would put KFC out of business... I just want a sense of how much it's going to take to convince KFC before I commit to a boycott.
Thanks!
Answers: I've been reading about the proposed boycott of KFC, attempting to pressure them into treating animals more kindly.
Some of the demands are detailed here: http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/pdfs...
Has anyone done any research into how much it would cost KFC to implement these recommendations? Maybe they're too expensive and would put KFC out of business... I just want a sense of how much it's going to take to convince KFC before I commit to a boycott.
Thanks!
Here is some information... according to KFC's chief operating officer, it would cost about two cents per meal to make the changes that would satisfy PETA. (Other estimates are even lower than two cents.)
"PETA would end its campaign if KFC adopted the March 2005 recommendations of its own Animal Welfare Advisory Council (AWAC) members....The changes recommended by the AWAC would require capital investments by KFC's suppliers over a period of several years—and those investments would result in a positive return in as little as 18 months. KFC would only minimally absorb the initial cost. KFC's COO said that it might cost KFC $50 million (roughly two cents more per meal), while other estimates are lower. Compared to the $1.1 billion that KFC spent on share repurchases and the $497 million that it spent on advertising in 2005 alone, this is a small price to pay"
Perhaps I'm heartless, but I truly don't sit in a restaurant and wonder if my chicken was abused before his legs and head were severed from his body...
That being said, I don't believe that the demands are realistic. Maybe if KFC was a zoo, but they're an eatery. Commit a boycott if you must, but count me out.
Although I'm all for treating animals we eat with respect, these rules seem a bit unrealistic. I wonder how many of our local supermarkets or butchers follow anything close to Controlled atmosphere killing, for example. My bet is not many.
Boycotting KFC for their animal treatment is hypocritical and nonsensical if you're still eating factory farmed animals elsewhere. KFC is just a target because they're one of the largest suppliers. The idea is if they change their ways, the others would follow.
No, they aren't realistic, but I don't care. I prefer Popeye's myself.
I agree with ~ about a boycott being hypocritical if you're still eating factory farmed meat elsewhere.
Also agree with BMV (below).
I think the demands are ideallistic, not realistic. For KFC to maintain their price points while adhering to rules of better animal treatment is impossible.
It literally costs heaps more money to look after animals properly and with strict guidelines, as opposed to treating them like rubbish... and unfortunately, KFC is a business - NOT a charity.
It all comes down to money and if this boycott is basically saying "put yourselves out of business or we'll do it for you", then of course KFC will call your bluff. They make so much money every year that a small percentage of boycotters won't make a difference - especially if these boycotters are people who already don't consume KFC products (they won't be affecting the profit margin at all).
Let me explain it to you in simple terms. The only people that are going to be boycotting KFC are people that wouldn't be eating there anyways. Effect = ZERO.
But, PETA will rake in $$$ nonetheless from donations.
Winner: PETA (the usual suspects that reap the $$$ rewards).
Losers: Anyone who committed time or $$$ to the cause.
Do you actually believe that KFC cares about what non-customers think?
I know the truth is unpopular, but it isn't my fault that it's the truth.
It would not do much. Meat-politics, freakonomics, religious stigma and deluded societal "norm". The advertisements and promotions spend tons of money to delude the public for craving.
Yeah, no one will offer his own flesh for testing, though he may still claim that a righteous or truthful one.
I believe animal testing is a bit of a money making business, they get grants for it and it acts like a safety barrier, can't remember the name, but one drug gave people heart attacks... but it was ok because they said "oh well it was ok when we tried it on animals".
Humans—who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals—have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and ‘animals’ is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them— without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret.
The demands are realistic but it's a process. Animal welfare groups have already made headway with Burger King and Wendy's. Those two fast food chains are already phasing out some harmful practices such as buying from manufacturers that use battery cages. Although not all of their chickens will come from farms that ban battery cages, KFC can certainly switch easily.
Most people ask what cost will this have when the consumers go to buy fast food. They often ask "will this make my meat more expensive?" My response to that is, is a chicken's whole being and life worth $1.99?
Yes KFC can make different, more ethical decisions easily and KFC will still profit, unfortunately, even though they pay more for their slaughter.