Defending Chicken Handling by KFC Corporation

KFC Corporation

Even after seven years of the campaign held by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), KFC Corporation remained intact, and its operations were learning steadily as usual. However, its employees were harassed by the demonstrations held, where PETA was behind all these. PETA’s allegations were that KFC was not handling chickens in a good way in their supply chains. During one of the PETA demonstration that occurred on 23rd June 2003, KFC CEO David Novak was splattered with fake blood as a show of how they mistreated the chickens in their supply line. Currently, KFC is the largest and most famous in the supply chain of chicken in their restaurant. This state of KFC Corporation is mainly based on the number of customers that the corporation serves worldwide daily. KFC now has over 18,000 outlets in 115 countries. It serves approximately 8 million customers daily in their outlets. The resources used to measure the state of KFC are the number of customers it has and its continuance growth despite the campaign held by PETA against the company.

I support KFC Corporation in this controversy since the allegations by PETA were just false allegations. PETA way of treating the animals does not line in any way with what KFC handle chicken in their supply chains. For KFC, it is a business of preparing chickens for their customers. So long as the way KFC handle their chickens does not affect the human health, then I believe they do it to their best of knowledge. The demonstrations held by PETA just proves that PETA was just jealous of the success and innovation of the KFC Corporation. For the seven years that PETA held the campaign against KFC, they did not lose more customers since their products aligned with their slogan, “Finger Lickin Good.” The harassment of KFC officials among them splattering them with false blood was a poor way of demonstration by PETA. Even if PETA had evidence that KFC handled the chicken poorly in their supply chains, holding campaign against them was not the best step to be taken. They would have filed a case against KFC and give them time to defend themselves. However, the demonstrations had a very small impact to KFC since they only lost a few customers who later came back since KFC products are among the best.

The criticisms by PETA against KFC was pertaining how KFC handled chickens in their supply chains restaurants. The truth was that KFC did not raise any chicken for themselves, but they purchased the chickens from other poultry processing industries. The criticisms by PETA were not convincing since KFC was only involved in preparing food for their customers used chicken raised by the poultry industries. Therefore, PETA would have first approached the poultry processing industries regarding the way manner in which chickens are supposed to be handled. These criticisms are similar to the timeless criticisms in the chapter. These are mainly because they lack tangible evidence of the allegations that PETA makes against KFC.

The methods and arguments that KFC uses to support its actions were that it was involved in raising the chickens. Therefore, KFC only acquired the number of chickens that was enough in serving their customers. KFC revealed that it applied humane treatment guidelines in handling the chickens in its supply chains. The act of killing the animals was not an offense since they were killed with a purpose of preparing meals for their customers. Hence, KFC arguments were that the chickens that are killed are cooked into delicious dishes to serve their customers. These sounds right since some animals are a source of food to human beings. Despite the bigger number of chickens slaughtered by KFC, it was done to satisfy the wide customer base that it hand created due to their good services and products. KFC conducted a better defense method by proofing to the public and PETA that it does not in any way mishandle chickens in the restaurant supply chains.

The use of range in PETA’s actions is not acceptable since they lacked clear evidence of the allegations they made against KFC. PETA claim was that chicken was mishandled by KFC in their supplier chains. However, KFC was not involved in any way in raising chickens, but they acquired them from poultry processing industries. The group used controversial tactics since it was well known for how it protected the animal rights. So the public had a strong belief that whatever PETA said concerning animals was true. That is why the public were blindly following PETA during their demonstrations since they just assumed that PETA was right. PETA’s sources of power in corporate campaigns were that it has the public following despite them being not knowledgeable of the intentions of PETA.

It was not good for PETA to pressure KFC Company while it was following the law and the public customs. These are because KFC had all the necessities required of it by law to operate their supplier chains. The products that it prepared for their customers were fit for their consumption since they followed the public custom. These were the result of KFC success, hence, even after pressure by PETA it did not lose a significant customer base. PETA does not represent a compelling truth against KFC in their manner of public incitement, customers, and stakeholders. These are because PETA would have evidence that the services and products provided by KFC were not fit for the public consumption. However, PETA’s allegations were mishandling of chickens, which is not a service that KFC was involved in since it acquired the chickens from other poultry processing industries. PETA required basing its campaigns from how the services and products provided by KFC were inadequate and dangerous.

Animals do have rights as human beings have their own. Some of the rights of animals is that they have a right to life. Animals also have a right to good treatment and being fed by those who owns them. Hence, animals should not be killed aimlessly if the humans are not going to feed on them. Animals that are edible should be killed when a need arises to eat them. KFC only acquired chickens to prepare them for food products that were meant for human beings. Therefore, these are not against the rights of animals. Human beings have duties of feeding and watering animals. They have the duty of protecting the domestic animals that they keep. Also, human beings have an obligation to ensure animals safety by caring for them when they become sick. Humans have the duty to kill some of the animals that they can eat for the purpose of feeding on them. KFC Corporation protects the animal welfare at an acceptable level. Since they just prepare food products from chicken that is good for human being consumption.