May 26, 2003
Chalk up another one for the harassment power of animal rights activists. KFC, the world’s largest chain of chicken restaurants, has announced new standards aimed at guaranteeing humane treatment for its birds from hatchery to slaughterhouse.
The fast-food giant, started by Colonel Sanders, is calling on the government to review a possible change in how processors slaughter its birds. In short, KFC wants to know if gassing the birds with blasts of carbon dioxide would be safe for consumers and slaughterhouse workers.
As People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) already told the world, KFC suppliers now stun the birds, then slit their throats.
But KFC and its parent, Yum! Brands Inc., explained the changes were not spurred by protests from PETA.
"We believe this is the right thing to do," said Jonathan Blum, Yum’s senior vice president of public affairs.
PETA has targeted KFC for their treatment of birds and slaughter practices. PETA claims that KFC’s birds spend their short existence crammed into poorly ventilated and barren sheds. The group has demanded that KFC suppliers add more living space and areas for perching.
KFC does not own or operate any poultry farms or processing plants. It purchases chickens from 18 suppliers in the U.S.
The new standards to be implemented by the fast-food giant were developed at the request of the National Council of Chain Restaurants and the Food Marketing Institute.
The first restaurant company to publicly endorse the standards, KFC has more than 11,000 restaurants world-wide, and serves about 8 million customers daily.
Given the speed of what seems to be KFC capitulation to PETA, we wonder how long the politically incorrect name of its parent company Yum! will endure.
Killers on the mound
It’s now… "One, two, three, and you’re nabbed as an animal killer in the old ballgame."
A Daytona Beach minor league pitcher could face animal cruelty charges for injuring a protected bird with a thrown baseball.
Jae-kuk Ryu, a 19-year-old South Korean pitcher for the Class-A Daytona Cubs, knocked an osprey from its perch during pregame practice.
Nowhere in reports on the incident was it made clear whether the act was intentional or otherwise.
"I just talked to one woman; she wants him deported. People have zero tolerance for this kind of thing," said Joy Hill, spokeswoman for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Not only was one of the osprey’s eyes seriously injured, but ospreys are also recognized by the state as a species of special concern, meaning their habitats are vulnerable. Anyone who wounds or kills an osprey can be charged with a second-degree misdemeanour, punishable by a fine of up to $500 and 60 days in jail.
At press time, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission was investigating, and planning to submit its findings to the state attorney’s office.
Ryu isn’t the first ballplayer to target a bird with a thrown ball, but he is the first from the minor league. On Aug. 4, 1983, Yankees outfielder Dave Winfield killed a seagull in Toronto with a warm-up throw. Ontario police charged him with animal cruelty, although the charge was later dropped.
Meanwhile, the Chicago Cubs, who signed Ryu two years ago, are conducting their own investigation to determine how the pitcher will be punished. "I can assure you it would be more than the average citizen will receive," farm director Oneri Fleita said. "The average citizen certainly wouldn’t be demoted, or docked pay, or fined, or whatever it might be. It was certainly something we don’t condone, and we will make sure that the matter is rectified to the best of our ability."
Quotable quote
…"Development is not the wicked witch of the West, and ‘sustainability’ is no yellow brick road."
-Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Bio-Geography, University of London.
Wisconsin: Keeping their milk moustache
If state legislator Rep. Scott Suder has his way, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) will soon be drowning their sorrows in beer.
Suder has the asked Wisconsin’s Consumer Protection Legal Division to examine the legality of a PETA ad campaign that casts doubt on the health benefits of milk.
As part of its campaign, PETA sent a letter to Gov. Jim Doyle asking him to permanently change the official state beverage from milk to beer. The group claims humans who consume cows’ milk support an industry that treats animals poorly, and are more susceptible to a wide range of health problems.
"They’ve crossed the line this time," said Suder. "They state in their letter that milk causes breast cancer, osteoporosis, and a whole host of other diseases."
It is these claims, Suder says, that are potentially in violation of Wisconsin’s false advertising laws, which prohibit any person or organization from making claims in the media that contain untrue or deceptive messages. Suder said the PETA argument bases itself on quack medical science that has linked milk to everything from heart disease to acne.
"Beer in moderation is good for you, while even one glass of milk supports animal abuse and harms your health," said Bruce Friedrich, PETA director of vegan outreach, in a recent press release.
PETA member Andrew Butler organized a "Got Beer? event on April 24 at Madison’s Angelic Brewing Company. According to Angelic manager Steve Keviel, about 30 people attended and were photographed by Butler with beer moustaches in exchange for a beer and a bowl of vegetarian chilli, all tallied up on PETA’s tab.
Wisconsin, touted as "America’s Dairyland," is not the only recent PETA ban-milk whistlestop.
In the past, PETA has suggested to former Gov. Tommy Thompson that milk be ousted as the official state beverage because certain minority populations are usually more lactose-intolerant, and therefore making a dairy drink the state’s beverage was racist.
Supreme Court reins in Greenpeace
With its Toronto canvass still out on strike, Greenpeace Canada has been ordered by a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling to compensate four loggers for wages lost during a 1997 protest.
"Hopefully they (Greenpeace) will think twice about continuing their irresponsible and illegal blockades, and deal with their concerns in a more productive fashion," said Darrel Wong, President of IWA-Canada.
Madame Justice Janet Sinclair Prowse ordered Greenpeace, and protest organizers Tzeporah Berman and Tamara Stark, to pay about $5,000, to be divided among the four remaining loggers who pursued the case through the courts for six years.
For 10 days in May 1997, environmentalists chained themselves to logging equipment on Roderick Island on B.C.’s central coast. They were protesting what they claimed were violations of the Forest Practice Code by Western Forest Products, a division of Doman Industries.
But Judge Sinclair Prowse ruled that Greenpeace "did not have a legal right to go on to the work site, or to interfere with the personal plaintiffs’ work."
The ruling cuts a wide swath, and has environmental activists in worry mode.
"I see this as the next step in a pattern of increasingly punishing people who engage in direct democracy," said Candace Batycki, the endangered forest program director of ForestEthics, a San Francisco-based group with programs in B.C.
The B.C. Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Friends of Clayoquot Sound--a group known for its protests in the 1990s--took similar umbrage. "It’s an unfortunate decision, and a dangerous precedent for all groups working for social and environmental change," said Leah Walberg, a spokeswoman for the group.
The ruling reinforces the charges of picketing Greenpeace Canada canvassers, who told CanadaFreePress.com last December that Greenpeace is in the red because it is on the losing end in too many court battles.