Burger King announces new animal-friendly policies

[finbarrio]

Very interesting shift in Burger King's philosophy. It might seem like a small step, but considering they're the kings of 'meat is macho' marketing, I think it's a pretty big small step.

 

-----

 

 

Burger King Shifts Policy on Animals

 

How much does the treatment of animals factor into your thinking when choosing a restaurant to patronize or food products to buy?

 

By ANDREW MARTIN

Published: March 28, 2007

 

In what animal welfare advocates are describing as a “historic advance,” Burger King, the world’s second-largest hamburger chain, said yesterday that it would begin buying eggs and pork from suppliers that did not confine their animals in cages and crates.

 

The company said that it would also favor suppliers of chickens that use gas, or “controlled-atmospheric stunning,” rather than electric shocks to knock birds unconscious before slaughter. It is considered a more humane method, though only a handful of slaughterhouses use it.

The goal for the next few months, Burger King said is for 2 percent of its eggs to be “cage free,” and for 10 percent of its pork to come from farms that allow sows to move around inside pens, rather than being confined to crates. The company said those percentages would rise as more farmers shift to these methods and more competitively priced supplies become available.

 

The cage-free eggs and crate-free pork will cost more, although it is not clear how much because Burger King is still negotiating prices, Steven Grover, vice president for food safety, quality assurance and regulatory compliance, said. Prices of food at the chain’s restaurants will not be increased as a result.

 

While Burger King’s initial goals may be modest, food marketing experts and animal welfare advocates said yesterday that the shift would put pressure on other restaurant and food companies to adopt similar practices.

 

“I think the whole area of social responsibility, social consciousness, is becoming much more important to the consumer,” said Bob Goldin, executive vice president of Technomic, a food industry research and consulting firm. “I think that the industry is going to see that it’s an increasing imperative to get on that bandwagon.”

 

Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said Burger King’s initiatives put it ahead of its competitors in terms of animal welfare.

 

“That’s an important trigger for reform throughout the entire industry,” Mr. Pacelle said.

 

Burger King’s announcement is the latest success for animal welfare advocates, who were once dismissed as fringe groups, but are increasingly gaining mainstream victories.

 

Last week, the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck announced that the meat and eggs he used would come from animals raised under strict animal welfare codes.

 

And in January, the world’s largest pork processor, Smithfield Foods, said it would phase out confinement of pigs in metal crates over the next decade.

 

Some city and state governments have banned restaurants from serving foie gras and have prohibited farmers from confining veal calves and pigs in crates.

 

Temple Grandin, an animal science professor at Colorado State University, said Smithfield’s decision to abandon crates for pregnant sows had roiled the pork industry. That decision was brought about in part by questions from big customers like McDonald’s, the world’s largest hamburger chain, about its confinement practices.

 

“When the big boys move, it makes the entire industry move,” said Ms. Grandin, who serves on the animal welfare task forces for several food companies, including McDonald’s and Burger King.

 

Burger King’s decision is somewhat at odds with the rebellious, politically incorrect image it has cultivated in recent years.

 

Its commercials deride “chick food” and encourage a more-is-more approach to eating with its turbo-strength coffee, its enormous omelet sandwich, and a triple Whopper with cheese.

 

Burger King executives said the move was driven by their desire to stay ahead of consumer trends and to encourage farmers to move into more humane egg and meat production.

 

“We want to be doing things long before they become a concern for consumers,” Mr. Grover said. “Like a hockey player, we want to be there before the puck gets there.”

 

He said the company would not use the animal welfare initiatives in its marketing. “I don’t think it’s something that goes to our core business,” Mr. Grover said.

 

Beef cows were not included in the new animal welfare guidelines because, unlike most laying hens and pigs, they continue to be raised outdoors. Burger King already has animal welfare standards for cow slaughter, he said.

 

The changes were made after discussions with the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known as PETA.

 

PETA, in particular, has started a series of high-profile campaigns to pressure fast-food companies to change their animal welfare practices, including a “Murder King” campaign that ended in 2001 when Burger King agreed to improve its animal welfare standards to include, among other things, periodic animal welfare audits.

 

Since that time, PETA officials said they had met periodically with Burger King officials to encourage them to adopt tougher standards. About a year ago, the Humane Society began its own efforts to encourage Burger King to improve its farm animal standards.

 

Mr. Grover said his company listened to suggestions from both groups, but ultimately relied on the advice of its animal welfare advisory board, which was created about six years ago and includes academics, an animal welfare advocate, an executive of Tyson Foods and Burger King officials.

 

“Where we think we can support what our animal advisers think is right, we do it,” Mr. Grover said.

 

The changes apply to Burger King suppliers in America and Canada, where the chain purchases more than 40 million pounds of eggs a year and 35 million pounds of pork, he said.

 

A reason that such a small percentage of purchases will meet the new guidelines is a lack of supply, Mr. Grover said.

 

Burger King plans to more than double its cage-free purchases by the end of this year, to 5 percent of the total, and will also double its purchases of pork from producers who do not use crates, to 20 percent.

 

Most laying hens in the United States are raised in “battery cages,” which are usually stacked on top of each other three to four cages high. Sows, during their pregnancies, are often kept in gestation crates, which are 24 inches across and 7 feet long.

 

Matt Prescott, PETA’s manager for factory farm campaigns, argued that both confinement systems were filthy and cruel because the animals could barely move and were prone to injury and psychological stress.

 

Under Burger King’s initiative, laying hens would be raised in buildings where they would be able to wander around. Similarly, sows would be raised indoors, most likely in pens where they would be able to move freely.

 

“This is not free range, but simply having some room to move around inside a controlled environment,” Mr. Grover said.

 

While converting barns for crate-free sows is relatively simple, Ms. Grandin said it was much more difficult and expensive to raise cage-free hens because not nearly as many birds fit in one building.

 

Burger King officials say they hope that by promoting controlled-atmosphere stunning, more slaughterhouses will adopt the technology. Currently, there are only a few in the United States using the technique, and most of them process turkeys.

[Guest]

yeah I think its a huge small step too...and I like the space that they give for progression.

[VegaNick]

That is awesome

[Daniel]

I can't be the only person thinking: Where's the good news? It sound like Burger King is still exploiting chickens, pigs, and cows and reproductively manipulating, enslaving, and slaughtering them for human use. Thus, Burger King's philosophy is still that nonhumans are commodities. Where's the progress? If the goal is to transform society towards the vegan ideal then this isn't progress at all.

 

To summarize, the Burger King announcement is, as cartoonists Chris Harback and K Harback say, "Totally Not Vegan!"

 

From "American Vocies" (The Onion):

 

Burger King announced that it would begin buying pork and eggs from farms that do not cage or crate their animals. What do you think?

 

"As a regular Burger King patron, I don't think I could make it any more clear that I don't give a flying fuck what I put into my body."

[finbarrio]

I can't be the only person thinking: Where's the good news? It sound like Burger King is still exploiting chickens, pigs, and cows and reproductively manipulating, enslaving, and slaughtering them for human use. Thus, Burger King's philosophy is still that nonhumans are commodities. Where's the progress? If the goal is to transform society towards the vegan ideal then this isn't progress at all.

 

To summarize, the Burger King announcement is, as cartoonists Chris Harback and K Harback say, "Totally Not Vegan!"

 

From "American Vocies" (The Onion):

 

Burger King announced that it would begin buying pork and eggs from farms that do not cage or crate their animals. What do you think?

 

"As a regular Burger King patron, I don't think I could make it any more

clear that I don't give a flying fuck what I put into my body."

 

I think you're missing the big picture perspective. Do you really expect BK to announce tomorrow that they're changing their name to Tofu King?

[Daniel]

I think you're missing the big picture perspective. Do you really expect BK to announce tomorrow that they're changing their name to Tofu King?

I can't blame you if you think that, but from my perspective on social change this policy merely ensures that the existing state of affairs -- with regard to nonhuman commodification -- will continue. I don't expect Burger King to ever give up using animals, but I'm not the one claiming that Burger King is acting progressively.

 

From my point of view, it is unrealistic think that Burger King is taking a "step," whatever that means, towards progress. Simply put, Burger King is a market for nonhuman exploitation. Using the vegan ideal as the standard of progression leads me to believe that markets like Burger King need to be nullified. This means encouraging the replacement of these markets with vegan ones.

 

In contrast, the Burger King policy only perpetuation nonhuman exploitation. Displacing one means of exploitation for another means of exploitation isn't true progress.

 

Veganism, by definition, "encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals." In an address to the 11th IVU World Vegetarian Congress 1947, Donald Watson, who created the word vegan, said:

 

that the vegan believed that if they were to be true emancipators of animals they must renounce absolutely their traditional and conceited attitude that they had the right to use them to serve their needs. They must supply those needs by other means. Throughout history, whenever man had risen against cruelty and exploitation, he had benefited himself as well as those he had emancipated. That was the law of progress. Therefore further advantages would follow if we seriously tackle those cruelties upon which civilization was still so largely built. If the vegan ideal of non-exploitation were generally adopted it would be the greatest peaceful revolution ever known, abolishing vast industries and establishing new ones in the better interests of men and animals alike.

The Burger King policy belies "the law of progress." Burger King will never renounce absolutely the attitude that they have the right to use other animals to serve their corporate needs. Nonetheless, as vegans we can work to nullify markets like Burger King by encouraging consumers to become vegan and supplying their needs by other means. And in so doing we promote the transformation of society, as opposed to further perpetuating exploitive institutions.

[Guest]

You can't expect too much. It would be nice but you just can't expect them to become a fully organic free range chicken fast food joint in one night. Hell...its hard enough to get vegetarian restaurants to go vegan(or even more so to get vegetarians to go vegan).

[Daniel]

I don't think it's realistic to expect any kind of meaningful progress from Burger King. Nor do I think a "fully organic free range chicken fast food joint" is worth expecting. My whole point is that we shouldn't expect anything from these markets.

 

In my opinion, concepts like crate-free and cage-free are just so much pie-in-the-sky nonsense. This is in part because calling these policies a "step" or "progress" suggests that there is some expectation that Burger King is going to go vegan at some point. That a lot of fanciful thinking, right?

 

The policies that Burger King is promoting have no practical relationship to veganism and animals' rights. So why not work to nullify and abolish markets like Burger King? There's no reason Burger King has to exist forever, and isn't it more down-to-earth to see that they don't?

 

It may be hard to get a lacto-ovo restaurant or individual to go vegan, but at least that is a practical goal. Where's the logic in forgoing something difficult for something impossible?

[Guest]

Unless you have an atomic bomb Burger King is going to be around for a very very long time. These fast food joints make billions a year and efforts of animal advocate groups maybe destroy $50 million dollars of their profit at best(I doubt its even half that). And these things do have an effect...say Burger King makes an all VEGAN burger. Maybe 3/10 regular customers that aren't vegan try it. One of those three may consider it a favorite(I know a few meat eaters that like boca burgers more than real burgers so this isn't unrealistic). This burger may become popular enough that its sales slow down production of other foods. So therefore they may get rid of an item that will probably be meat based. They won't just keep things. Fast food must be efficient and new things getting efficient often boot out the old so this is possible. Granted we're talking about cage free but this is likely the next step since they've got a veggie burger already.

 

As for getting one vegetarian to go vegan thats nothing compared to getting Burger King to change anything due to the volume of food they produce. If they lost 0.5% profit in meat due to this(since they have to pay extra for the chicken) more animals will likely be saved due to a drop in supply.

[Daniel]

Hi, veganpotter. I see how what you're saying is attractive, but without hard evidence skeptical to believe it. Perhaps we can find some agreement as we discuss this. Here's a few of my concerns.

 

I think the Burger King policy has an effect like an ideological atomic bomb. By this I mean that the willingness to call it a "step" is a form of capitulation on the part of animal advocates. Obviously markets like Burger King will be around for a long time if we ceasing to resist them. I feel that is exactly what is being done here by calling this policy "progress." This is not even a compromise, but rather fatalism if you are willing to accept that these markets will continue to exist. What concerns me is how people abandon the vegan philosophy and submit to the presiding state of affairs.

 

For instance, Burger King is explicit about the fact that nothing on the menus, including the BK VEGGIE®, is suitable for vegetarians or vegans. They explicitly state in the above article that the new policy is not going to cost them. In fact, marketing research shows that policies like Burger King's give the animal products they sell added value and credence -- like a brand name adds value and credence. If you look at the rise in the consumption of animal products since the Second World War you can see that it is this sort of added value that corresponds with rising consumption.

 

This is basic consumer-culture capitalism. Are we to believe that the marketing and business experts working for this multi-billion dollar industry haven't done any research? Are we to believe they some how missed a 0.5% profit loss? Are we to believe they are putting themselves out of business? I'm skeptical, and I'm not likely to believe any of it with out solid proof. My own research tells me that this is a smart business move. Look at all to name promotion being done by animal charities and welfare advocates, the very people that should be the opposition. You can't buy public relations like that.

[finbarrio]

Daniel, well put, and I don't disagree with what you said. I don't think BK will ever change their business, and they are certainly an enemy of animals. The step that I think was taken is that anyone who read that story, even if they have a sarcastic response to it, will be aware that there is an effort afoot to improve the lives of animals. So I think the step was more as progress towards awareness in the collective social consciousness, rather than a positive step BK is taking towards veganism (which is hard to even type, much less consider).

There are people in my own extended family who don't even have a concept of animal welfare - and they never equate the food they eat with the animal that "supplied" it. If they read that article and said "huh - I didn't know the animals were treated so poorly", it might start them on a journey towards "free range food", and who knows where from there. So I think that every little bit helps - not towards the BK's of the world becoming animal-friendly, but towards our society's awareness of these issues.

[Guest]

I think not recognizing this as progress would get them to do nothing. Sort of like ammendments being made on bills for the govt. You have to say thats better than nothing and accept it for now.

 

As for them saying it won't cost them it surely will. They are just saying that. The cost of non battery cage eggs and other forms of animal products is much more expensive. It may not cost them dearly in comparison to the amount of money they make but it will surely cost them.

 

As for this being a smart business move it surely is because it makes them look good to people that say they care about animals and eat cage free and things. But no matter if its a good move or not I'd rather be in an non battery cage than a battery cage so I think the money thing is even less important.