Has Anyone Eaten an Unhappy Chicken?

The demands of the animal rights advocates are beyond reason to me. Consequently, I have an extremely difficult time trying to figure just what benefit is derived by caving to their demands. And, caving to those demands is occurring more and more often.

Per this Associated Press story, the animal rights people just recently got McDonald Corp. to commit to direct its meat suppliers to use less antibiotics when raising chickens, beef and pork. There is dispute within the scientific community as to whether this action is beneficial. Prior to this decision, McDonald Corp. had already caved to demands to set minimum standards concerning the raising of chickens.

Through some clever, and some say nefarious, political maneuverings, the population of the State of Florida caved to the animal rights crowd. For some ill-defined reason and providing no defined benefit, they voted to amend their constitution to protect pigs. [As an aside, this is the same state that can't locate hundreds of children they have placed in foster care. Children are missing, but pigs have constitutional rights. Does that make sense to anyone?]

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has recently been able to get celebrities to spearhead their efforts to get KFC to cave to their demands regarding how their chickens are raised. Jason Alexander has stated, "I am your ally," to PETA and that he would put pressure on KFC. Just recently, Paul McCartney has joined the PETA effort by publishing an open letter to the president of the company calling for reduced cruelty to chickens. He wants KFC to implement an eight-point PETA plan which dictates to KFC management how they should run their business. The PETA plan, in my estimation, is ludicrous and, you'd think that Jason Alexander and Paul McCartney combined would comprise one rational adult. But, I guess not.

First, I must digress and discuss the bases for the demands by the animal rights people. Everything they do is prompted by their subjective definition of what is cruel and inhumane. It is entirely subjective. For example, as a youngster I used an ax to chop the heads off many chickens. They would then be allowed to run around until they bled out, at which time, I'd dunk them in scalding water, pluck the feathers, gut them, and wash them. To me, that's nothing more than preparing food for dinner. To the animal rights crowd, it's cruel and inhumane.

Based upon their subjective views, the PETA plan for KFC stipulates that killing chickens by slicing their throats is "extremely problematic for the birds� welfare." Therefore, they want all chickens gassed to death. It's seems to me that killing the chicken in any manner would be "extremely problematic" to its welfare. Nevertheless, if I was in the business, my goal would be to do what was necessary to satisfy my customers and make as much profit as the market would allow. If slitting the chickens' throats was the best way, I'd do it. If somebody thought it was "extremely problematic," too bad.

Another point in the PETA plan is the requirement to have KFC install surveillance cameras to:

. . .make the job of auditing easier and more precise. They should be installed at key points for animal handling, including unloading areas, shackling areas, the points of entry into the �stun� bath and scalding tank for chickens, the stunning and hanging areas for pigs and cattle and places where chickens have their throats slit.

This appears to me that PETA wants to take over management of every aspect of the business of processing chickens. Think for a moment. What kind of response would there be if the government came in with demands of this nature, based solely on the subjective definition of cruel and inhumane. No ordinance, no regulation, no law, just someone's definition mandating how a privately owned company conducts business. If the government did this, there would be outrage and there should be outrage from KFC.

From a cost-benefit standpoint, it seems that there is no benefit to be derived by caving to any of the demands of the animal rights crowd. There is, however, a substantial cost. Everything they demand makes the businesses less efficient and their product costs increase. Some believe that their goal has nothing to do with animals at all. They are using animals to put companies in noncompetitive positions or drive them entirely out of business.

David Martosko, director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom claims the real agenda of these groups is "total animal liberation," in the words of activists.

"'Total animal liberation' means no beef, no pork, no leather, no fur ... " Martosko [said]. . . you drive up the production cost for hog farmers, he argues, they're forced to pass the added expense to consumers, who will be inclined to consume less pork until production is ultimately driven out of the country.

In conclusion, a couple other things need mentioning. First, these folks won't stop their unreasonable demands. Appeasement doesn't work. They'll continue until it is no longer profitable for a company to continue in business. Any company caving to them should get the Neville Chamberlain award.

Last thing, this nonsense will stop when one of two things occurs.

A high profile company, upon receipt of the animal rights demands, says, "No! This is a privately-owned company and we will manage it as we desire." [or]

The animal rights crowd is allowed victory and all animals are liberated and given defined legal rights as members of society. Everyone would be forced by a massive police state into vegetarianism and there would be a sea change in the food industry. Citizens would probably be living in trees, riding bicycles, and existing on granola trail mix diets. But all would not be lost since, at the state-enforced vegetarian stage, citizens would see that many animals weren't vegetarian and could petition the lawmakers for equal rights.

KFC and others need to stand up to these radicals and put a stop to this nonsense. Nobody has tried so far. I think they would fold if someone did. I bet Ronald Reagan would tell them what to do with their demands.

Of course, I could be wrong in my thinking.