I am not a big fan of fast food restaurants. As a vegan, there really isn't anything for me to eat at most of them.
I heard this on the news the other night and couldn't believe it. Burger King has decided to use only cage free chicken and pork. They will make the change by 2017.
Burger King is a big corporation. I'm not sure how much influence they have. I can only hope that by changing how they buy their products they will encourage other companies to do the same.
Here's the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn...k/#.T6svNFJ9XTo
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
0
Burger King goes cage free
Started by FamilyTreeClimber, May 09 2012 07:04 PM
12 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:25 PM
It's a step, but I'm not sure I'm all that impressed. Yes, cage free is better than caged, but some cage-free barns aren't all that much better. And it's not like the chickens are free-range. But, I guess it takes baby steps. The thing is, as the article points out, Burger King buys tens of millions of pounds of pork per year. Think about how many pigs that is and how much space it takes to raise them and how much manure is produced. Combined with the obesity epidemic, people just need to stop eating at these huge fast food chains altogether. If you're really craving a burger, make it a treat and buy it from a local restaurant that sources its food locally.
#3
Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:31 PM
I know what you are saying. As a vegan, I'd prefer they didn't use animals at all. But, I'm a realist. I know that people aren't suddenly going to adapt to my way of life. I don't see people stopping to use fast food restaurants even though I really wouldn't eat anything they have to offer. Even the salads leave much to be desired.
It is baby steps, as you said. But, change usually comes in baby steps. It may not be as big a change as we would like, but I think it says something about how public opinion is shifting on how animals are treated and the way our food is produced. Their internal polling and focus groups must be telling them that people want changes.
It is baby steps, as you said. But, change usually comes in baby steps. It may not be as big a change as we would like, but I think it says something about how public opinion is shifting on how animals are treated and the way our food is produced. Their internal polling and focus groups must be telling them that people want changes.
#4
Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:50 PM
I agree. It's a good business move for them and acknowledges that the way people think is changing. I wish they'd change even faster, but I'm a realist too and know that change happens slowly. 
I'm not vegan, but grew up vegetarian and my son is vegetarian, but my daughter and I don't eat all that much meat and only buy locally and sustainably raised organic meat when we do. That's the healthiest way, for us and the planet, but getting a lot of people to stop thinking they need to eat meat with every or even most dinners is going to take a long time.
I'm not vegan, but grew up vegetarian and my son is vegetarian, but my daughter and I don't eat all that much meat and only buy locally and sustainably raised organic meat when we do. That's the healthiest way, for us and the planet, but getting a lot of people to stop thinking they need to eat meat with every or even most dinners is going to take a long time.
#5
Posted 10 May 2012 - 03:44 AM
One of the biggest things, imo, they all need to stop using is styrofoam.
Fast food joints and quickie marts-they both use it.
(I know it's off topic to this discussion- but it's such a horrible toxin-I had to add it)
Fast food joints and quickie marts-they both use it.
(I know it's off topic to this discussion- but it's such a horrible toxin-I had to add it)
#6
Posted 10 May 2012 - 07:51 AM
It was nice to read articles/news about certain companies that are trying to do at least something for the betterment of everyone. Hope they will really do that and not just to make their products looks/sounds healthier and earth friendlier.
And so right that the use of Styrofoam should be abolished and be replaced with better and safer types of food containers.
And so right that the use of Styrofoam should be abolished and be replaced with better and safer types of food containers.
#7
Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:04 PM
I am not a fan of fast food, but that is great that they are at least making an effort. Sure we won't know if these chickens are really coming from a better environment, but is is a step in the right direction. With any luck they will all start hopping onto the cage free chickens.
#8
Posted 11 May 2012 - 07:15 PM
Shortpoet, I agree on Styrofoam containers. In California, several cities are considering banning these containers or have already done so. It seems like there are enough cheap alternatives that it is not necessary to use Styrofoam. Chinese food restaurants come to mind. They serve hot meals and are able to put them in those cardboard take out containers. That wouldn't work for a sandwich or burger, but it would be perfect for spaghetti and other similar foods.
I think with all these investigations into living conditions of animals in agriculture, pink slime being used, and so forth, there is more awareness in the public. Companies must be picking up on the fact that the public does care where it's meat comes from.
I think with all these investigations into living conditions of animals in agriculture, pink slime being used, and so forth, there is more awareness in the public. Companies must be picking up on the fact that the public does care where it's meat comes from.
#9
Posted 12 May 2012 - 02:22 AM
I think the explosion of social media has a great influence on it too. When thousands of people focus on
whatever the cause is at the moment-pink slime, abuse of animals for the fast food industry-lead in makeup, etc.
corporations have to change because they know we'll stop buying their products.
With our "disgruntledness" (if that's a word) being heard-they're listening. And people are becoming more
verbal in all things, because we realize they are listening. Sponsors pulling away from limbaugh, sponsors
pulling away from ALEC, women's issues-etc.
We're found our voice-"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." is our mo now.
whatever the cause is at the moment-pink slime, abuse of animals for the fast food industry-lead in makeup, etc.
corporations have to change because they know we'll stop buying their products.
With our "disgruntledness" (if that's a word) being heard-they're listening. And people are becoming more
verbal in all things, because we realize they are listening. Sponsors pulling away from limbaugh, sponsors
pulling away from ALEC, women's issues-etc.
We're found our voice-"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." is our mo now.
#11
Posted 12 May 2012 - 06:45 PM
Shortpoet, you make a good point. Up until the last five years or so, industry has been able to control the message. What investigative reports that have been done are usually quickly forgotten.
Corporate media has aided industry. Why air a story about how one company has contaminated our water or how they treat animals when they are advertising on our network? They don't want to lose revenue over a negative story or article.
Today we have the citizen journalist. Bloggers, podcasters, and website owners who write about things that interest them and things that outrage them. They don't need the big TV or radio stations to be heard. They have social networks. They start a campaign on Facebook or Twitter and soon the idea starts to spread. Some of these people have large followings. Where once they needed the press to come down and cover their protest or event, they can now generate that buzz themselves. We even have individuals armed with cell phone video who can get a story out there just by uploading it to youtube or another website.
This is a different way of communication to the people than a decade ago. It's a way to get around the media and still be heard.
Corporate media has aided industry. Why air a story about how one company has contaminated our water or how they treat animals when they are advertising on our network? They don't want to lose revenue over a negative story or article.
Today we have the citizen journalist. Bloggers, podcasters, and website owners who write about things that interest them and things that outrage them. They don't need the big TV or radio stations to be heard. They have social networks. They start a campaign on Facebook or Twitter and soon the idea starts to spread. Some of these people have large followings. Where once they needed the press to come down and cover their protest or event, they can now generate that buzz themselves. We even have individuals armed with cell phone video who can get a story out there just by uploading it to youtube or another website.
This is a different way of communication to the people than a decade ago. It's a way to get around the media and still be heard.
#13
Posted 13 May 2012 - 02:35 AM
If they wanted to increase their business, why don't they sell vegan burgers? With that extra profit coming in
from the thousands of folks that want a non-meat choice, they could install solar panels on all of their roof's.
But, I also think that their "unhealthy" fare is a corporate mindset. When mc's for instance, rolled out their
so called healthy alternative to egg/bacon/sausage muffins and offered oatmeal instead-that &^%&^ing bowl
had enough sugar in it to power 18,998 homes.
Hardly healthier.
But it also plays into the fact that people don't read labels. The circle of life has been replaced with
the circle of stupidity.
Because of the demand, there is no way, fast food joints could ever offer free range beef/pork. The entire
country would be trampled over with cattle and pigs.
from the thousands of folks that want a non-meat choice, they could install solar panels on all of their roof's.
But, I also think that their "unhealthy" fare is a corporate mindset. When mc's for instance, rolled out their
so called healthy alternative to egg/bacon/sausage muffins and offered oatmeal instead-that &^%&^ing bowl
had enough sugar in it to power 18,998 homes.
Hardly healthier.
But it also plays into the fact that people don't read labels. The circle of life has been replaced with
the circle of stupidity.
Because of the demand, there is no way, fast food joints could ever offer free range beef/pork. The entire
country would be trampled over with cattle and pigs.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users