KFC Abuse Scandal: Workers Jumping, Drop-Kicking Chickens

[Moonbear]

Anyway, if you want to start a thread about PETA, feel free. This thread is about the chicken abuse.

My apologies for getting so carried away about that. I had only brought it up initially in relation to the chicken abuse tapes because their history leaves me distrustful of them, and in responding to the questions about that post, I drifted astray of the topic at hand.

I've found more news articles on the chicken abuse in the meantime, and will agree that while I don't always agree with PETA's agenda or methods, in this case, it looks like they did catch a real problem, so I'd admit to eating crow for that if I didn't think the animal rights folks would get mad about that too.

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5481874

KFC President Gregg Dedrick said the fast-food company will stop buying from the Moorefield plant until the company can ensure no future abuse will occur. KFC also will place a full-time inspector in the Moorefield plant to watch for further abuse.

PETA and the Humane Society of the United States want Hardy County Prosecutor Lucas See to charge workers and managers with animal cruelty, but See said Wednesday he has not finished viewing the videotapes. Once he does, he may ask local authorities to begin an investigation.

Under state law, employees found to have tortured the birds could be charged with felony animal cruelty, which carries a prison sentence of one to three years.

PETA spokesman Michael McGraw said that the group also wants all KFC suppliers, including Pilgrim's Pride, to install cameras on slaughter lines that he said move too quickly and are staffed by poorly paid workers and uncaring managers. PETA also wants the phase-in of "controlled atmosphere killing," in which chickens are gathered by machines instead of people.

"In cases where workers are paid so little -- and they really do have terrible jobs -- they tend to take out their frustrations on the animals," McGraw said. "Modern technology can actually be more humane."

Now, this is a KFC supplier, but why are they focusing specifically on KFC suppliers and not all poultry operations? Pilgrim's Pride is a large corporation, they supply poultry to a lot of grocery chains as well, so why are they only nailing KFC for this, or why nail KFC at all? Did KFC have specific knowledge of the abuse that the other companies to which Pilgrim's Pride supplies chickens wouldn't have known about? PETA wants us to boycott KFC, but why not target the company responsible and boycot Pilgrim's Pride brand products? Wouldn't that be the more appropriate target?

The other thing I wonder is do we really want to eliminate jobs and automate the process? Is it really fair to suggest all poorly paid workers will take their frustration out on the animals? Do the actions of a few sick people who might have abused animals even if they didn't work there mean all the rest of the employees will be put out of work? I'm not opposed to mechanizing the process if it's going to be better for the animals, I just wonder if it's true. Or would it be better to improve working conditions for the employees, improve their education about animal welfare, and thereby improve the way the animals are treated as well? I actually do like the idea of putting cameras up to monitor the slaughter lines continuously. That's one difficulty with only occassional inspections -- it's hard to catch people doing things wrong if they behave when inspectors are present. And if they have nothing to hide, nobody will mind the cameras being present.

 

[jimmy p]

YIKES! You didn't see the Holocaust actually happening, so I assume that doesn't bother you either...

There a bit of a difference to fowl abuse and the Holocaust...

 

[jimmy p]

That is a really bad attitude. I avoid such fast-food chains because of how they respectlessly popularize meat. If I'd be in there, I'd opt for french fries. When I'm in the store and have a choice between a grass chicken or a machine chicken, my choice would be clear. A lot needs to be done in the industry and I'm not sure to what extend the regulations are reinforced. In my opinion the rules should be a lot stricter, let the price of the burger double..

I think the view of the opposite site has a lot to do with the de-sensitization that's occurring through mass media. Ad Infinitum NAU, just how many times did you watch the Nicholas Berg video? Jimmyp, did you watch it? I didn't watch it, watching such shocking acts or dreadful imagary plays with your mind and does not do good things to it.

I avoid the big fast food chains as much as I can. I didnt watch the Nicolas Berg video. It was stupid to advertise the terrorists in the first place but that is a different story.

Basically a lot of things go on behind the backs of legislation and the Government and if I cared about little thing that broke the rules then I wouldn't have time to think about anything else. I work for one of the most crooked lines of business there is. The gambling industry

 

[Dissident Dan]

There a bit of a difference to fowl abuse and the Holocaust...

While I disagree, that was not the point that she was trying to make. She was just addressing the "If I don't see it, I don't care" statement that someone made.

 

[russ_watters]

They are different because they have only a tiny fraction of our intelligence. They do not have our capacity for moral reasoning and reflection, and so they will never escape from their genetic programming. Humans, on the other hand, can and should engage in such reflection.

Ironically, the exact opposite argument is often used to for the same point - we are no different from the animals, therefore our morality should apply to them.

In light of what goes on in the animal kingdom, I consider "ethical treatment of animals" to exist primarily to make people feel better about them.

I don't support mistreatment of animals because it pains me to know it exists. But I had a cheeseburger for lunch.

 

[jimmy p]

While I disagree, that was not the point that she was trying to make. She was just addressing the "If I don't see it, I don't care" statement that someone made.

... That was me...

However she just assumed that because I don't care about abuse to chickens I don't care about the killing of thousands of people because I wasnt there.

 

[loseyourname]

There are tons of factual "inaccuracies" on activistcash.com. For example, they state that "PETA is even opposed to the use of seeing-eye dogs." This is completely false. PETA is opposed to seeing-eye dogs that are abused or mistreated.

And what does PETA consider to be abused or mistreated? What are the other factual inaccuracies - on the page devoted to PETA?

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Filmed in China, it shows kittens being boiled and skinned while they are still alive. They were "bread to die" by the Chinese, so is that behavior OK?

Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong with some other culture? OPEN YOUR EYES. In our culture, killing cows for meat is OK. To Indians, it is not. It's the same situation. Different cultures have different morals. If one day in the future we found pigs were no longer healthy, and that a certain breed of feline could benefit our health and prolong our life if we ate it, I say start farming that breed as a feed animal. That doesn't mean take away peoples pets. By all means, have your pets. But there comes a time when we have to think about survival whether it be culturally defined or not.

Maybe something is wrong with your morals. You say it is morally right to torture, you really think there will be many people on your side?.

As I asked you: how do you justify torture? The lion kills, since otherwise it would die. That's a justification for killing. There is no other way for the lion to go about it.

As I pointed out and Elizabeth again, torturing is anti-social behaviour: it shows a lack of empathy. That's why it should be punishable by law

Nothing is wrong with my morals. I am not saying its morally right to torture. I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food. Once you start getting emotional over your food, then survival becomes threatened. Do you see monkeys taking extra special care when they feed on berries or bananas? Tell me of one other living being other than humans that has emotions over its food?? YOU CANT.. All they care about is survival. They don't worry about HOW they treat their prey. Their motives are to kill, whatever way possible. I don't know about you, but I haven't walked into many alligator community meetings where the subject on the blackboard was "Boar Cruelty".. C'mon now! I understand it is morally wrong to do this sort of thing to another human, or pet animal, but a feed animal is a feed animal. We cannot bother ourselves with its "feelings". That hinders survival. We should only be bothered with the lack of concern for economic prosperity shwon by these employees.

All these employees did was release a natural urge. Though immature (because they now have bruised the meat of chickens which could have been used for food), there is nothing wrong, since there is no torture. There is no difference between their action and throwing cucumbers against the walls and ripping them in half.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

They are different because they have only a tiny fraction of our intelligence. They do not have our capacity for moral reasoning and reflection, and so they will never escape from their genetic programming. Humans, on the other hand, can and should engage in such reflection.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you should put "right and wrong" into the same column as "Brain capacity".. If anything killer whales know more right and wrongs than we humans. Moral reasoning is not based upon brain capacity. Morals are developed upon survival. "Thou shalt not kill" is an example that morals are wrapped with nature.. Back in the "cavemen" days, if a member of a tribe killed another, he was wrong, because now the tribe is one member short, which will harm the tribe because they will not have as much food next hunt, etc.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Ad Infinitum NAU, just how many times did you watch the Nicholas Berg video?

I've never seen it, I've only seen one picture off CNN from the other guy who was beheaded. I'm not an advocate or pleasure seeker of pain and violence. I think the media shows too much of that, broadcasting fear into the weak-minded. I've never witnessed anything being tortured or killed. I've never been in any wars. My arguements are based on logic. No emotion, or biased liberal media has influenced my opinion. I'm simply looking at the situation as everyone should, from an outside view, kept hidden from any bias..

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

You know, meat is not a necessity.

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity! If it were such a useless thing, why is every animal made of it? Why don't lions eat brush? Why is a snake more apt to hunt the rabbit instead of swallowing a large amount of OVERLY abundant and easier-to-get leaves?

 

[Evo]

Nothing is wrong with my morals. I am not saying its morally right to torture. I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion.

You are saying that it is morally right to torture another living creature as long as you do not consider it worthy. How convenient for you.

now! I understand it is morally wrong to do this sort of thing to another human, or pet animal, but a feed animal is a feed animal. We cannot bother ourselves with its "feelings". That hinders survival.

How does killing without torture hinder survival? Explain that one. Torturing the animal before eating it somehow makes it more nutritious? Or are you saying that unless the animal is tortured before kiling it has no nutritive value?

There is no difference between their action and throwing cucumbers against the walls and ripping them in half.

That is just plain ridiculous.

 

[Evo]

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity! If it were such a useless thing, why is every animal made of it? Why don't lions eat brush? Why is a snake more apt to hunt the rabbit instead of swallowing a large amount of OVERLY abundant and easier-to-get leaves?

Meat is not a necessity, we are capable of consumming complete proteins (combining rice & beans for example) without eating flesh.

 

[Hurkyl]

If there was no advantage to eating meat, we wouldn't be omnivorus..

 

[Evo]

If there was no advantage to eating meat, we wouldn't be omnivorus..

True, but the point Monique was making was that we don't have to eat meat.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm not sure that we have to eat anything living. I'm sure it's possible to live entirely off of manufactured supplements, though I doubt they exist, since it's much easier to derive the nutrients from living matter.

 

[Moonbear]

Nothing is wrong with my morals. I am not saying its morally right to torture. I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food. Once you start getting emotional over your food, then survival becomes threatened. Do you see monkeys taking extra special care when they feed on berries or bananas? Tell me of one other living being other than humans that has emotions over its food?? YOU CANT.. All they care about is survival. They don't worry about HOW they treat their prey. Their motives are to kill, whatever way possible.

You are aware that these chickens were not being slaughtered when they were being abused? This wasn't a difference between arguing if it's better to snap their neck or cut their head off or whack them over the head with a club to kill them, this was people tossing LIVE chickens around, stomping on them, and laughing about it. This isn't about getting emotional about your food. I still plan to eat chicken, had it last night, was roasting it while reading these posts, but the point is to not cause unnecessary suffering of the animals. What precisely we define as necessary or unavoidable is something that we may all disagree on, but I don't see how the treatment of those chickens portrayed on that video was in any way necessary. It clearly didn't even kill all the chickens as some were tossed fluttering away (I'm not sure if any were actually killed, or just injured). To say that's okay would be like saying it's okay to beat the crap out of a terminally ill patient because they were going to die soon anyway and the family had requested life support be terminated based on their living will.

The cucumber analogy is ridiculous. Last I checked, cucumbers don't have a nervous system and aren't capable of feeling pain. Even animals in the wild kill their prey swiftly, or as swiftly as they can given their abilities, such as snapping the neck or injecting them with a poison. It would be to a predator's disadvantage to play with their prey prior to killing it, as that would increase the risk of it escaping and them going without a meal that day. The only situations where you see an animal carry back live but stunned prey is when they are teaching their young to hunt, or when they are still young and inefficient hunters.

All social animals have rules, and when those rules are broken, the offenders are punished. Humans are social animals, and one of our rules is you don't play with your food, you kill it swiftly if you plan to eat it, and you don't waste it by killing it before it's ready to be eaten.

 

[Monique]

Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong with some other culture? OPEN YOUR EYES. In our culture, killing cows for meat is OK. To Indians, it is not. It's the same situation. Different cultures have different morals.

But what are those morals based on? Your example is particularly bad since it has NOTHING to do with torture.

I do not see this action as torture, because i do not see these chickens as animals worthy of emotion. They are our food.

Ok, so if I decide one day that you are not worthy of emotions, does that mean your emotions seize to exist? Don't serial killers view their victims as lacking emotion?

All these employees did was release a natural urge.

All serial killers do is release a natural urge, since they view their victims as lacking emotion, they don't commit torture either.. according to your logic.

I've never witnessed anything being tortured or killed.

I remember you telling a story about your granddad butchering animals in the backyard.

I remember the day when I was young on my grandpa's farm, and watched him kill his pigs and chickens. What he would do is whack them on the head with a shovel or the broad side of a hatchet so they would be knocked unconscious so he could decapitate them without them squirming. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it would just bounce off them. Sometimes he would have to catch the chicken to crack its neck, and sometimes that would just kill them, or sometimes it would render them parallized and seizuring. I never heard my family talk about that as uncruel.

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity!

Just how many vegetarians walk this world? They are perfectly healthy, I'd say they have a better health than the meateaters. Proteins are also in beans/nuts/oils.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you should put "right and wrong" into the same column as "Brain capacity"..

Why not? Moral reasoning is a cognitive function. We can do it, other animals can't. Does that make you uncomfortable?

If anything killer whales know more right and wrongs than we humans.

Oh, now I've heard it all! Move over Socrates, Shamu is the next great moral philosopher!

What evidence do you have for this?

 

[Dissident Dan]

If there was no advantage to eating meat, we wouldn't be omnivorus..

It probably provided an advantage by being an available energy and nutrient source while we roamed the African savannahs, but today there is no benefit.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

you kiddin me? Protein and the vitamins in meat is an absolute necessity! If it were such a useless thing, why is every animal made of it? Why don't lions eat brush? Why is a snake more apt to hunt the rabbit instead of swallowing a large amount of OVERLY abundant and easier-to-get leaves?

Wrong again. Protein is necessary for human beings, but the "vitamins in meat" (whatever that means) is not. I am a vegan and have not eaten meat in over 10 years. How come I am still alive? Lions are CARNIVORES, as are snakes. They cannot digest plant matter. Human beings can--we are OMNIVORES. Meat is NOT necessary for human beings, and in fact the average vegetarian lives 6 to 10 years longer than the average meat-eater.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

There a bit of a difference to fowl abuse and the Holocaust...she just assumed that because I don't care about abuse to chickens I don't care about the killing of thousands of people because I wasnt there.

I am aware that there are differences btween these two situations. My answer was in response to your comment that "if I don't see it happening, it doesn't matter to me." If you make generalized statements like that you should be prepared for the responses you get. I never said you were in favor of the Holocaust, and I would never presume to imply that about ANYBODY without knowing them. Please read posts more carefully before you make accusations like this. Thank you.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

I've never witnessed anything being tortured or killed...My arguements are based on logic. I'm simply looking at the situation as everyone should, from an outside view, kept hidden from any bias..

Perhaps this would explain your lack of empathy for other living things. Perhaps you should see something suffer. If you spend five minutes on the killing floor of a slaughterhouse, and you will see the TRUTH. Go do it--I dare ya.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Who are you to judge what is morally right or wrong with some other culture? OPEN YOUR EYES. In our culture, killing cows for meat is OK. To Indians, it is not. It's the same situation. Different cultures have different morals. If one day in the future we found pigs were no longer healthy, and that a certain breed of feline could benefit our health and prolong our life if we ate it, I say start farming that breed as a feed animal. That doesn't mean take away peoples pets. By all means, have your pets. But there comes a time when we have to think about survival whether it be culturally defined or not.

My eyes ARE open, thank you very much. I don't care what culture you are from--in my opinion, torturing an animal is unnecessary and WRONG, and I'm guessing a few people out there agree with me. It doesn't matter if you're in Kansas or China. What takes place on factory farms and in slaughterhouses every second of the day is just as horrible as what takes place in the Asian live markets. It's not a cultural judgment, it's a moral judgment.

And what is all this about "survival"? Are you really afraid of starving to death out there in Arizona? Don't you guys have enough food out there? If there were no meat available tomorrow, nobody in the United States would starve to death. Admit it--you eat meat because you like it. It's OK. Stop hiding behind the argument that taking away any form of meat is a threat to the survival of the human race. I'd buy it if you lived in Sudan, but it doesn't fly here.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

And what does PETA consider to be abused or mistreated? What are the other factual inaccuracies - on the page devoted to PETA?

I am a strong supporter of PETA, but I am not a spokesperson for that organization. If I were to guess, I would say "mistreatment" of a dog would include lack of proper food and water, physical abuse, over-work, etc. Just like any other dog.

More innacuracies? To start, the connection between PETA and ALF. PETA is a non-violent organization and they currently do not have any connection to ALF. Yes, there may have been in the past, and there may be sympathizers within their membership rolls. ALF is not part of PETA, as activistcash.com seems to imply. Also, PETA employees throwing red paint on women wearing fur coats never happened. These incidents did NOT involve PETA staff members--they were attributed to others outside the organization, and were not organized or supported in any way by PETA.

 

[loseyourname]

And the rather alarming quotes from PETA leaders suggesting that a human life is no more valuable than the life of a lab rat or even a cockroach? If that philosophy is an accurate assessment of the official beliefs of PETA, then that alone completely discredits them and makes them radical.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Again, I don't speak for PETA, but it's really interesting to me how everyone is so anxious to discredit PETA when they know nothing about them. You asked me for examples of inaccuracies (aka, lies) on activistcash.com, and I gave you three examples (you can research it further if you don't believe me). What makes you believe the "alarming" quotes you read on that site are accurate? PETA has never, and would never, say that a cockroach is more valuable than a human being. That is totally ridiculous. If activistcash states that on their website, that's just one more "inaccuracy" that we can add to their already long, long list.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Even animals in the wild kill their prey swiftly, or as swiftly as they can given their abilities, such as snapping the neck or injecting them with a poison. It would be to a predator's disadvantage to play with their prey prior to killing it, as that would increase the risk of it escaping and them going without a meal that day. All social animals have rules, and when those rules are broken, the offenders are punished. Humans are social animals, and one of our rules is you don't play with your food, you kill it swiftly if you plan to eat it, and you don't waste it by killing it before it's ready to be eaten.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but as the point has been made before, killer whales often play with the seals they are eating, while eating it.. they throw them into the air out of the water, etc. Also, felines (even your common housecat) play with mice for hours until they are bored and either eat it or leave it to die (all the while slicing and dicing it). A lot of animals in the wild don't kill their prey swiftly! Spiders leave their prey wrapped in webs and then inject them with a fluid that dissolves them.. while they remain alive, slowly losing feeling to their bodies. Some snakes have venom that kills very quickly, some have venom that slowly torments the victim. Wouldn't you think if it was "natural" for animals to have rules, that evolution would have made all animals swift killers?

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Wrong again. Protein is necessary for human beings, but the "vitamins in meat" (whatever that means) is not. I am a vegan and have not eaten meat in over 10 years. How come I am still alive? Lions are CARNIVORES, as are snakes. They cannot digest plant matter. Human beings can--we are OMNIVORES. Meat is NOT necessary for human beings, and in fact the average vegetarian lives 6 to 10 years longer than the average meat-eater.

you are still alive because you take supplements. artificial supplements. Meat is a natural source for us omnivores to survive. Just because we have developed artificial ways to pump our body doesn't mean meat is no longer a valuable resource. Grizzly bears (among many other species of animal) are also omnivores, eating fish and berries. If it was so unnecessary for omnivores to eat meat, why hasn't evolution, or your god, developed a way around it? Why haven't we all (all animals, humans included)been designed or developed into herbivores, if meat was so unnecessary?

 

[Monique]

Meat was necessary since you have to eat less for the same amount of energy. Now that we cultivate all our products, meat is not a necessity anymore. You also don't need to take supplements as a vegetarian, just eat a balanced diet.

Don't tell me meat eaters eat a balanced diet, that'd be hilarious..