HSUS criticizes Burger King ads — but not Burger King
So now we hear the chief executive officer of the Humane Society of the U.S. objects to a commercial that purportedly condones cockfighting HSUS Criticizes Burger King Ads, Oct. 21 2004. Reacting to a couple of people dressed up in chicken suits, the Society’s CEO sees fit to publicly denounce “Burger King’s “chicken fight” commercial as an endorsement of “base and barbaric” chicken abuse.
And no, the CEO utters not one word about Burger King’s propensity to package and sell vast quantities of the very same animals. In fact, that’s what the commercial actually promotes. Not cockfighting, but chicken sandwiches.
It so happens that chickens raised to become sandwiches live in cramped conditions that cause outbreaks of fighting. If we know cockfighting as the “brutal and bloody business” that HSUS describes, then its results are right there on Burger King’s menu.
Those wishing to protest the needless suffering of chickens and other animals don’t have to go looking for cockfighting rings to do that. We can all prevent abuse by avoiding burger and chicken outlets completely, and committing ourselves to a non-violent diet.
On Sale Now:
“Slaughterhouse” by Gail Eisnetz
8 Comments
On October 26, 2004, Mary wrote:
Hi Daniel
We haven’t seen this ad over here, but wow, what an example of hypocrisy! Thanks for pointing out the flaw in HSUS’s logic. Hope enough people think about this issue to realise what is at stake here.
On October 28, 2004, Jeremy wrote:
Over all, you people aren’t getting the picture, The HSUS has helped millions of animals through their programs and advocacy efforts. A single mistake of not condemning Burger King is not a very important issue. Are any of you going out in the media to condemn BK? Are any of the other animal advocacy groups condemning them? I think you’ll find the answer to these questions is “no”! Burger King has at least offered the choice of eating the BK Veggie and their fries are now vegan, I don’t see any other fast-food chains offering vegetarian or vegan alternative foods other than a simple garden salad! But, I’m by no means saying that Burger King ads such as the one in question or the older “Angus Diet” commercials are a good thing, in fact they are VERY bad! And furthermore, I do not think that BK should be protected from scrutiny and opposition by animal advocates, indeed the chain, along with all other fast food chains should be protested, not protected or simply ignored! But to bash the HSUS is, in my opinion, the wrong thing to do.. they, like FoA deserve a great deal of respect and moral and financial support!!
On October 28, 2004, Daniel Hammer wrote:
Jeremy,
It is wrong to assume that Friends of Animals is not condemning Burger King. Friends of Animals has on several occasions spoken-out against Burger King. The article “Some Thoughts on Giving Burger King the Business” (ActionLine, Autumn 2002) addresses some of the issues you bring up. We agree that Burger King should not be protected from scrutiny and opposition, and we will continue to protest them and other fast-food chains where animals are deemed food.
You are correct when you say most of the animal protection organizations are not condemning Burger King. This is an unfortunate trend that is made worse by those organizations working to promote the so-called vegetarian and vegan alternatives at fast-food chains like Burger King. According to Burger King’s official website Note on BK VEGGIE®, “Burger King Corporation makes no claim that the BK VEGGIE® or any other of its products meets the requirements of a vegan or vegetarian diet.”
It is important that restaurants offering completely vegetarian menus be give our support — rather than applauding those profiting from the institutional exploitation of animals for adding a couple token “choices” to their menus.
On October 28, 2004, Daniel Hammer wrote:
PeTA is on the wrong track. According to The Boston Globe (“PETA promotes a former foe”, Oct. 27, 2004), PeTA protested Burger King in 2001 for their “treatment of animals killed to make hamburgers and other products,” and now they are promoting the corporation’s “veggie burger.”
The first mistake PeTA made was protesting the treatment of animals killed to make hamburgers, and not the actual killing of animals to make hamburgers. Then they followed this up by urging vegetarians to go out and buy the BK VEGGIE®.
A nutritionist working for Burger King told The Globe that the BK VEGGIE® is a vegetarian product, however, the “Burger King Corporation makes no claim that the BK VEGGIE® or any other of its products meets the requirements of a vegan or vegetarian diet.” If a product can’t meet the requirements of vegetarians, how can it be called a “vegetarian product?”
The contradiction shows a tendency by corporations that specialize in animal exploitation to promote a confusing “flexitarian” product. According to The Globe, Burger King’s nutritionist claims that the BK VEGGIE® is “an alternative for those who might eat a Chicken Whopper one day and then another time opt for a meatless option.”
On October 28, 2004, Ellie wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Some years back I was a member of HSUS but eventually I realized they are heading in the wrong direction, and I sure do wish they would change course.
Unfortunately, HSUS endorses the exploitation of animals by promoting so-called “humane” regulations, which totally miss respecting the animal’s rights. And they promote the illusion that these regulations can be enforced. Imo, that’s not fair to the animals, or to the activists, and it gives the public the wrong message.
On October 29, 2004, serenidad wrote:
Hi Daniel,
It’s been more than 100 years since Bergh, and exploitation is worse than ever, with the user industries becoming smarter and more efficient at their exploitive practices (the fast food veg burgers being a good example). If we’ve learned anything from the past dozen decades of welfarism, it should be what has NOT worked.
I think your following sentence pretty much sums up the problem I have with PETA, HSUS, and others: “The first mistake PeTA made was protesting the treatment of animals killed to make hamburgers, and not the actual killing of animals to make hamburgers.” IMO, these orgs actually help fast food places by sending the message that killing is acceptable when done IAW this or that standard. These industries know it, and they use welfare orgs to take the focus away from abolition and rights —their real fear.
Chris
On November 2, 2004, Ellie wrote:
Yes, and I think welfarist groups also benefit by appealing to the long held acceptance of animal exploitation. Animals should be the priority, not the groups. No wonder 150 years of welfarism has done nothing but increase the exploitation of animals.
On November 29, 2004, rent games wrote:
good post, i forwarded it to my friends