KFC vs. PETA - Buckets of Blood
 

PETA Ups Anti-KFC Campaign With 'Blood'

By SONJA BARISIC, Associated Press Writer

NORFOLK, Va. - The animal-rights activists who once suggested Ronald McDonald was a bloody butcher are going after Colonel Sanders, contending cruelty is the "secret recipe" for KFC's fried chicken.

Starting next month, Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans to hand out "Buckets of Blood" to children outside KFC restaurants and at schools near the restaurants. The buckets are part of PETA's campaign against what it says are farming and slaughter abuses by KFC's suppliers.

The 5-inch-tall, red-and-white striped containers mimic KFC's buckets. But instead of fried chicken, each is filled with items including a bag of fake blood and bones, a bloodied plastic chicken and a cardboard caricature of a blood-spattered Colonel Sanders holding a butcher knife toward a terrified-looking chicken.

Labels on the bucket proclaim, "Shhh! The 'secret recipe' in this bucket of body parts is ... cruelty" and "The Colonel's secret recipe: live scalding, painful debeaking, crippled chickens."

KFC spokeswoman Bonnie Warschauer initially said, "We don't comment on the corporate terrorist activities of PETA. They are corporate terrorists and just like the United States government, we will not negotiate with corporate terrorists."

Warschauer added that "PETA has totally crossed the line of free speech and acceptable behavior" and "all they want is a vegetarian world."

"They misrepresent the truth about our responsible, industry-leading animal welfare standards," she said. "We're committed to the humane treatment of chickens."

KFC, part of Louisville, Ky.-based Yum! Brands Inc., has an animal welfare advisory council made up of highly regarded experts, Warschauer said. She added that while the company does not own chicken farms, it monitors suppliers to determine whether they are using humane procedures.

PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said the campaign is "about getting KFC to stop supporting abuse of chickens that shocks the conscience of any kind person."

A label on the bucket says "Just for you, KFC's suppliers cram thousands of chickens into filthy sheds, sear baby chicks' beaks off with a hot wire, slam the birds into crates (breaking their wings and legs), slice their throats open and scald them to death while they're still conscious. Enjoy."

The buckets are reminiscent of the "Unhappy Meals" PETA began distributing in 2000 as part of a public relations assault against McDonald's. The boxes, similar to the Happy Meals that McDonald's serves to children, contained a stuffed doll that looked like Ronald McDonald holding a bloody butcher's knife.

PETA suspended its campaign against McDonald's in response to an announcement by the fast-food chain that it would improve living conditions for its chickens. McDonald's officials said PETA had nothing to do with its initiative.

PETA plans to begin handing out the buckets on the West Coast and in the Midwest in mid- to late April, then branch out from there, Friedrich said. PETA eventually will have people distributing the buckets all over North America as well as in Australia, India, the United Kingdom and South Africa, he said.

___

On the Net:

KFC Corp.: http://www.kfc.com/
Yum! Brands Inc.: http://www.yum.com/
PETA Web site: http://www.KentuckyFriedCruelty.com

My take: Can they both lose this fight somehow? We have PETA, who no doubt is accurate about the awful living conditions upstream in KFC's supply chain, but who really think that the most pampered chicken of all time who got eaten was still abused.

On the other hand, you have KFC, with the deceptive "I got thin by eating chicken" ads last fall.

A pox on the lot of em.

"Starting next month, Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans to hand out "Buckets of Blood" to children outside KFC restaurants and at schools near the restaurants."

Oy!

Double Oy!!

1) This is emotionally abusive. "Hey, Let's all traumatize innocent children who don't yet have the developmental skills to comprehend our motives or our message!" "Fight abuse with abuse!"

2) Well, at least school regs will force them to be off school property and a certain distance away....

Sickening. :nono: How many young children earn the money that's being spend at KFC? Zero. I'm sure KFC chickens aren't exactly treated like lap dogs, but jeez, PETA, at least go after the decision-making adults in the family.

They're really living up to that bumper sticker that asks why PETA goes after women wearing furs but not bike gangsters in leather. They go after little kids, too.

If PETA pests did that to my kid (if I had one), they better run! I'd chase them down and smack them repeatedly with the biggest, greasy drumstick I could find in the bucket. :devil:

It's just a publicity stunt. What advantage would they possibly gain from terrorizing children except to get parents very very angry. I think they are just hoping KFC will cave in their demand using the threat of angry parents and tearful kids. Which just smacks me as very unethical.

It's just too bad they are a bunch of unethical terrorist vegans because they could do a lot to improve the treatment of animals. They could try to organize a boycott of KFC by revealing how bad their livestock is treated. Instead they are so focused on trying to convince people tha eating meat is wrong period, that the real issue of animal cruelty get lost. It's a real shame

I dunno, why shield "shelter" children from the horrid animal cruelty perpretrated by these corporations? They SHOULD be made aware of it, as far as I am concerned.

They're not likely to target the adults in the family who are actually buying the chicken for the same reason that they don't harass biker gangs wearing leather. :bash: Most of the adults would likely tell them exactly where they can stick that bucket of fake blood and how best to rotate it for maximum effect. :rolleyes:
Seems PETA has more in common with those chickens than they realize. :rolleyes:

A child isn't mature enough to think objectively about such a weighty subject. Their level of reasoning is too immature; not until adolescence does a person have a reasonably well developed ability to understand "gray" abstract concepts, and issues that don't directly relate to themselves. To a child, everything is black and white, and everything is about themselves.

A child exposed to such propaganda would be more apt to think they are a bad person for eating chicken, rather than KFC the corporation is wrong for treating chickens badly.

This is, of course, exactly what PETA wants.

As a parent, I couldn't agree more. We "shelter" children in certain situations because they are not mentally or emotionally capable of handling certain things (like death, violence, abstract thinking) until they reach a certain level of maturity. Exposing them to such things before they are capable of understanding it as an adult would doesn't "toughen them up" as some seem to think...it confuses and frightens them.
I have no problem with discussing animal cruelty with an older child who is capable of understanding it in a mature way, but handing buckets of fake blood and chicken parts to little kids borders on just plain sick.

Here's the rub: they aren't your children to shelter or not shelter. You don't get to make that choice for my kid, or for the children of others. If these people showed that stuff to Kyra, and I was nearby I'd stick the bloody bucket up their bloody you-know-what's.

As far as you're concerned is of absolutely no relevance to parents on what their children are exposed to. Same goes for PETA nutjobs.

I do want to point out that I don't let KFC off the hook at all. They serve an unhealthy product, and for all I know they mistreat the animals in their supply chain. I suspect that no chicken which ends up on my table has had a happy-go-lucky, free range life. They're processed like widgets.

That doesn't mean I don't eat them. But most people, probably me included, cannot afford to pay consistently for free range and other, better chicken. I guess my social consciousness doesn't extend to chickens.

No "rub", K-dad. To each his own opinion. Chill out and kindly do refrain from your hostile tone.

I dunno, probably the same reason we shouldn't expose children graphic evidence of the realities of war, or graphic portrayals of sexual experience.... If PETA wanted to educate myself of animal conditions I am OK with that. Scaring the crap out of my kids who do not even eat at KFC is another story.

You are making a comparison between exposure to animal cruelty issues and "sexually graphic" material? Hmm....I will respectfully disagree with this point of view. Again, whatcha got here is another person's point of view. That's allowed, right? Thanks a bunch!

War? Ok - to tell you the truth, the way things are going in our society, the realities of war are simply unavoidable. Exposure to these very real issues is ultimately safer and more realistic than attempting to "protect" kids by putting blinders on them. Kids are tough, you know. They can take it, especially when things are explained to them lovingly and intelligently. Their heards are not gonna explode from some reality.

Ok, PETA goes a little ape-sh*t sometimes, for very good reason. It DOES get people's attention and that's what they're TRYING to do. If anything, their displays cause kids to ask: "Mommy, Daddy - why are they doing that?" Then, MOMMY and DADDY, it's YOUR job to explain and enlighten YOUR KIDS about the issue. Unless your explanation is: "Oh, don't worry - those people are mean and crazy. Eat your yummy chicken and stop worrying about it, Sonny-boy." Which I suspect many people do, sadly.

PETA is an amazing organization and I support them. The incredible amount of cruelty that allows people to mutiliate and torture animals is no different than the mind-set which allows bombs to drop and the extermination of villages filled with innocent men, women and yes - CHILDREN. Come on! Nobody gets this? What don'tcha get?

With this profound knowledge implanted in our kids, there's also a good chance that the seeds will be sewn in today's youth to want to DO something about the sad state of affairs we're in. Children are, after all, our hope for tomorrow.

Wouldn't you prefer that there be environmentally conscious, cruelty-and-war abhoring individuals running the show here on earth by the time we're in our golden years? I know I would.

RockerChik...

I think a lot depends here on what age child we are talking about. As ItsTheWoo pointed out, very young (primary school age) children are psychologically incapable of drawing the conclusions from such demonstrations described in the original article that you seem to think they should. In short, they will come away from such an encounter with a very different perception and idea of what the message is than an older child or adult would.



Moral and ethical issues regarding PETA's tactics and activities aside, you're making the assumption here that parents aren't "doing their job". Admittedly, some aren't, but as a parent who has contact with lots of other parents, I have yet to meet one that is teaching their children that cruelty and war are good things that should be engaged in whenever possible.
Am I a bad parent because I don't teach my kids that eating animals is murder? Not in my opinion.
As a parent, it's also MY job to determine when my kids are ready to learn certain lessons on those subjects, not an organization who could use a few lessons in morality and ethics themselves.



IMNSHO, handing a young child a bucket filled with fake blood and chicken parts is neither loving OR intelligent. Neither is exposing them to the "realities" of this world before they are capable of understanding it.
I'll give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about. When 9-11 happened, my kids were in first grade. My husband let them watch some of the footage from that awful event on TV against my better judgement using the same reasoning that you used above. Yes, there were lots of questions and I did my best to explain to them (lovingly and intelligently) what happened in a way that they could understand. What did they take away from it? Nightmares for weeks and the fear that a plane was going to crash into their school, not that the people who would do such a thing were monsters or that it was a horrible tragedy in which thousands of innocent people died...as ItsTheWoo pointed out...it was all about them. Still think it's a good idea to expose young kids to "reality" and that they're tough enough to handle it?



If you're really serious about that, a good place to start would be in eliminating the violent video games and movies that our culture encourages children to engage in from a young age. If that's not teaching them that violence and cruelty are not only okay, but "fun", I don't know what is.