Kentucky Fried Cruelty — We Do Chickens Wrong

[Diplomat]

PETA's pecking orders
By Debra J. Saunders
In its latest grab for publicity, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals threatened to picket "The Producers" in Los Angeles because star Jason Alexander moonlights for Kentucky Fried Chicken. PETA has dubbed May its "KFC Month of Action," with the catchy slogan "Kentucky Fried Cruelty — We Do Chickens Wrong."
The threat led to a meeting between Mr. Alexander and PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk. According to PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich, PETA has decided not to picket "The Producers," as Mr. Alexander subsequently complained to KFC about its abusive practices.
KFC spokeswoman Bonnie Warschauer wouldn't comment other than to say, "You'd have to talk to Jason Alexander's people" about the conversation. I tried, but I only got as far as Alexander's publicist's assistant, who offered no information.
PETA's Mr. Friedrich said Ms. Newkirk discussed misinformation on the KFC Web site, such as the company's claim that its "guidelines and audits are designed to manage and monitor each step of the process to ensure that all birds are handled humanely and suffer no pain."
It's true: "No pain" has no truth. As Joy Mench, director of the Center for Animal Welfare at the University of California at Davis, noted, poultry producers have developed strategies that make chickens grow to 20-week size in six weeks, which can make chickens lame, and "there is evidence that lameness can cause pain."
Ms. Mench clarified, however, that this is a poultry-producer issue, not KFC's problem.
That leads to the issue of misinformation on the PETA Web site, with its list of eight "key demands" of KFC, including that KFC stun chickens with gas, not electricity.
Ms. Mench agreed that gas-stunning would be preferable to electric-stunning of chickens but noted that the USDA has yet to clarify that gas-stunning is kosher.
But even where PETA seems to be right on gassing, its other demands don't quite wash. The group also demands machine handling of chickens before they're killed. (Ms. Mench agrees that chicken-handling is "not pleasant work," but noted that some mechanized methods result in "more birds that are dead on arrival" at the processing plant.)
In the course of our talk, a hurt-and-perplexed Mr. Friedrich confessed he has been quite unhappy with my criticism of PETA, an organization that, he claimed, simply wants to lessen cruelty in the world. People who are kind to animals, he added, tend to be kinder people.
That claim doesn't fit with PETA's apparent sympathy with violent animal-rights activities.
I went to the Southern Poverty Law Center's Web site and searched for PETA. Lo and behold, the center quotes Mr. Friedrich at an animal-rights conference: "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.... I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow." link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030516-102244-9094r.htm )

[videsee]

GROAN!

Now I will HAVE TO eat more KFC.
Cause I have decided that is my way of opposing the hypocrisy of PETA.
(didnt I read somehwere some bizarre publicity stunt by the founder.......something like she wanted to give her body parts to people as food!:mad: )

[echarcha]

If you eat non-veg food then somewhere some animal or bird or fish is surely being killed for you to eat the meat.

So what's the point? Is slitting the throat of a chicken with a jade handled knife less cruel than using a plain wooden handle knife?

If PETA does not want to eat meat. Very fine. Dont eat it. But please dont preach others. Its all double standards... preach preach and preach! Heck.. tomorrow they will say that the wheat crop is handled inhumanely when the farmer beats the crop to remove the husk... the wheat has feelings too :rolleyes:

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by echarcha
..... tomorrow they will say that the wheat crop is handled inhumanely when the farmer beats the crop to remove the husk... the wheat has feelings too :rolleyes:
:smash: :up: :clap: :clap:

[Zen]

Recently read the first few pages of the Bible. I don't know it's version number and release number but It was One of those in Red Binding - The one you generally get in the Hotel rooms!
I have heard that unlike Quraan, Bible is available in different flavors! white folk are big on freedom of choice anyways!!

So according to Bible and I am not shitting you guys - God created all the animals and a man can enjoy everything which walks as his food. This is the god's gift to his best creation.

I have heard a lot of White American friends saying "If its alive and moving - I'll eat it!"

On the other hand Christians specially Catholics are agains abortion. May be somewhere else, further in those pages I have yet to read, god said "Respect life! .... You shell not kill!" ... I believe this is one of the commandments too!!

So there is this contradiction. If A christian is supposed to respect life in the true sense, He has to be a vegetarian! Or am I missing some fine prints here?!

Now these PETA guys.... I don't know what they are upto, I believe a lot of them have Chirstian roots and they may be thinking on the same lines ... I don't know! Are the vegetarians? ... They have to be!!

I am a non-vegitarian with a guilt... but nothing tastes like chiken tikka masaala - I think there are many others like me!
My inner voice tries to stop me but I ignore it and in America its not cool to listen to it... its like being a mamma's boy - not cool!!

Someday I'll come clean and I'll stop eating flesh of dead animals!

[echarcha]

I really feel irritated when one more such and such rights group comes up and tells me that dont do this and that. COme on!


Do you know the latest case in California? Already CA has more than a fair share of whacked out folks and now we have a new case. This lawyer claims that OREO cookies should be banned for sale in CA.

Why?

Well it seems that the trans-fat or some such stuff that they put in the cookies is extremely harmful if consumed. It causes sever cholestrol or some such problems and can kill. The FDA lists this stuff as dangerous if consumed a lot.

Now, if I am a sensible person, I will NOT eat cookies or have them once in a while. Its not like I will drop dead the minute a Oreo cookie touches my tongue.

Its for me, as a consumer, to decide if I wish to stuff my mouth and choke my arteries with Oreo cookies or not. Why should the govt. come up with a official ban on sale of these cookies? If the govt. should be caring about such things then why not ban all liquor and tobacco and fattening foods liek cheese and sour cream and sugar and everything else? We could just live eating raw grass and vegetables! :rolleyes:

I hate it when some people like this laywer wish to decide for us what we should eat!! Its like that stupid case against McDonald's where the lawsuit claimed that eating this food made the people fat and hence they are suing! That is utter non-sense. McDonalds or KFC are not dishing out nutritionally balanced wholesome meals. They are dishing out fast food which just tastes good and has tons of fat. And they dont advertise their food to be nutritionally great! So who should use his/her brain before eating a burger or a chicken wing? Should the govt. think for us and make our choices?

[BlrBoy]

Originally posted by echarcha
I really feel irritated when one more such and such rights group comes up and tells me that dont do this and that. COme on!


Do you know the latest case in California? Already CA has more than a fair share of whacked out folks and now we have a new case. This lawyer claims that OREO cookies should be banned for sale in CA.

Why?

Well it seems that the trans-fat or some such stuff that they put in the cookies is extremely harmful if consumed. It causes sever cholestrol or some such problems and can kill. The FDA lists this stuff as dangerous if consumed a lot.

Now, if I am a sensible person, I will NOT eat cookies or have them once in a while. Its not like I will drop dead the minute a Oreo cookie touches my tongue.

Its for me, as a consumer, to decide if I wish to stuff my mouth and choke my arteries with Oreo cookies or not. Why should the govt. come up with a official ban on sale of these cookies? If the govt. should be caring about such things then why not ban all liquor and tobacco and fattening foods liek cheese and sour cream and sugar and everything else? We could just live eating raw grass and vegetables! :rolleyes:

I hate it when some people like this laywer wish to decide for us what we should eat!! Its like that stupid case against McDonald's where the lawsuit claimed that eating this food made the people fat and hence they are suing! That is utter non-sense. McDonalds or KFC are not dishing out nutritionally balanced wholesome meals. They are dishing out fast food which just tastes good and has tons of fat. And they dont advertise their food to be nutritionally great! So who should use his/her brain before eating a burger or a chicken wing? Should the govt. think for us and make our choices?


I understand what u say buddy..I dont understand why there this stupid constitution, law and order.. we should be free people..

If i want to piss on statue of Liberty i should be able to do it..

If i want to show middle finger to Bush.. i shoule be free to do so..

I dont understand who is the govt to stop me from taking drugs..

[echarcha]

Originally posted by BlrBoy
I understand what u say buddy..I dont understand why there this stupid constitution, law and order.. we should be free people..

If i want to piss on statue of Liberty i should be able to do it..

If i want to show middle finger to Bush.. i shoule be free to do so..

I dont understand who is the govt to stop me from taking drugs..

BlrBoy,

Having a Constitution and having a Law whereby Government decides that eating cookies is not good and bans cookie sale are two very different things.

I know you wish to argue with me and have an axe to grind with me. But think before you just take on this topic for the sake of grinding that axe with me. You have prolems with me, fine. We can handle that. But if you are serious in what you say, then its a matter for concern.

[BlrBoy]

Originally posted by echarcha
BlrBoy,

Having a Constitution and having a Law whereby Government decides that eating cookies is not good and bans cookie sale are two very different things.

I know you wish to argue with me and have an axe to grind with me. But think before you just take on this topic for the sake of grinding that axe with me. You have prolems with me, fine. We can handle that. But if you are serious in what you say, then its a matter for concern.

The reason govt. pass law in health hazard is not because they want to tell what u have to eat and not to eat. Its because it cost govt to maintain the health of people. If govt. finds enough proof to show that Oreos causes bad health, they have every right to pass a law banning that cookies in the interest of health in general.

If u still love cookies. go to mexico and find a illegal oreos cookie dealer get ur stock :D

[echarcha]

Originally posted by BlrBoy
The reason govt. pass law in health hazard is not because they want to tell what u have to eat and not to eat. Its because it cost govt to maintain the health of people. If govt. finds enough proof to show that Oreos causes bad health, they have every right to pass a law banning that cookies in the interest of health in general.

If u still love cookies. go to mexico and find a illegal oreos cookie dealer get ur stock :D

Now that you wish to discuss this topic and not grind an axes, okay here we go..

This lawyer claims that the trans fatty acids or vegetable fat in the cookies is very harmful. What is his claim or proof? The FDA says that trans-fatty acids are bad for health. They dont say that they kill you but they are bad. Now how much does each cookie have? Even if you eat a diet of cookies only throughout the day, it would take you more than a month to see serious side effects of the stuff.

So drawing attention to the fact that trans-fatty acids are bad is one thing. Its even a good thing, but banning cookies altogehter? Come on! I have eaten a cookie once in a while. Nothing wrong with that. But this lawyer wants to deprive me of that once in a while pleasure too? Thats what is wrong.

If this is the reasoning, then fossil fuel causes pollution which is bad for humans. So stop all cars. Drinking flavored sodas is bad for teeth and gums.. so ban all sodas. Drinkin coffee can be bad on the nerves due to caffeine, so ban all coffee. Do you see what I am trying to say?

[echarcha]

POSTED: 3:03 p.m. PDT May 14, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO -- The move to outlaw Oreo cookies in California crumbled Wednesday when the lawyer who tried to ban the tasty snack foods said he had decided to drop his suit.

San Francisco attorney Stephen Joseph told The Associated Press he would not pursue the action any further, and only wanted to get the word out about the dangers of unlabeled fats contained in the popular black and white cookies.

"We have received thousands of e-mails expressing support for what we have done in advising the public of this problem," Joseph said. "But it's no longer necessary to continue the lawsuit because at the time the lawsuit was filed nobody knew about trans fat. Now everybody knows about trans fat."


He expressed no remorse for using California courts as a publicity tool. Kraft spokesman Michael Mudd, however, saw things differently.

"We really don't believe that the courts are the place to make nutrition policy," Mudd said. "That's best handled by nutrition professionals and regulatory agencies."

Mudd said though the suit was filed May 1 and amended four days later, the company was never served with a copy.

Joseph made national headlines earlier this week after word surfaced he had filed suit in a Marin County Superior Court seeking a ban on Oreo sales in the state.

Joseph argued in his suit that the trans fats that make the filling creamy and the cookie crisp are too dangerous for children to eat. Trans fat is the artificial substance contained in many packaged foods but not listed with other nutritional information.

Mudd said Northfield, Ill.-based Kraft Foods North America Inc., the parent company of Oreo-maker Nabisco, continues to research ways to get trans fat out of Oreos while preserving the flavor.

Kraft received more than 250 e-mails concerning trans fat in the days following news of the suit. Most of those e-mails were in support of the company, Mudd said.

Source (http://www.ktvu.com/news/2204327/detail.html)

[BlrBoy]

Originally posted by echarcha
Now that you wish to discuss this topic and not grind an axes, okay here we go..

This lawyer claims that the trans fatty acids or vegetable fat in the cookies is very harmful. What is his claim or proof? The FDA says that trans-fatty acids are bad for health. They dont say that they kill you but they are bad. Now how much does each cookie have? Even if you eat a diet of cookies only throughout the day, it would take you more than a month to see serious side effects of the stuff.

So drawing attention to the fact that trans-fatty acids are bad is one thing. Its even a good thing, but banning cookies altogehter? Come on! I have eaten a cookie once in a while. Nothing wrong with that. But this lawyer wants to deprive me of that once in a while pleasure too? Thats what is wrong.

If this is the reasoning, then fossil fuel causes pollution which is bad for humans. So stop all cars. Drinking flavored sodas is bad for teeth and gums.. so ban all sodas. Drinkin coffee can be bad on the nerves due to caffeine, so ban all coffee. Do you see what I am trying to say?

just because a guy files suit does not mean that he is dictating u to eat this and that... only if he wins the case u will be affected by it.. If he wins the case,, it means he has merit in it and its in ur best interest not eat such stuffs.

Even McD's case was thrown out. Just because someone sues for someone becoming fat does not mean that he is right...

[YedaAnna]

the lawyer guy just wanted to make some money... he did.. hez happy.. chapter closed.. tum log kaiko tension lerahe ho bhailog:(