Originally appeared in meatingplace
American family farmers sometimes look to Europe to see what might be coming down the pipeline in terms of animal activism. The latest news is encouraging.
KFC, Popeyes, Nando’s, and other major brands in the UK have abandoned the so-called “Better Chicken Commitment,” a corporate campaign run by animal rights extremists. The campaign demanded restaurants pledge to stop serving conventionally raised poultry.
Instead, the campaign would require companies to serve poultry with completely different genetics that would result in the birds growing more slowly, along with changes to stocking density and other practices. The “Better Chicken” standards are closely aligned with standards required by the Whole Foods-linked certification system known as Global Animal Partnership.
Numerous food brands signed up, often pre-COVID, with implementation dates in 2026. By design, these corporate campaigns make it easy for companies to make a pledge. The harassing activists go away today, while the pledge won’t come due for years down the road.
With implementation dates coming up, the fact that companies are now ditching the “Better Chicken” campaign gives some important insights.
For one, alternative chicken costs significantly more. Moving to a Whole Foods-style production system means Whole Foods-level prices. Animal protein should be affordable, not elitist.
Second, companies have figured out that the animal rights extremists are not honest brokers. Several groups behind the Commitment reject raising poultry altogether: Mercy for Animals, Humane League, and the Humane Society of the United States (now Humane World). These vegans won’t endorse anyone eating “better chicken” — or any chicken.
This alternative poultry is also less sustainable from an environmental perspective. One analysis found that if just one-third of US producers changed to practices pushed by the animal activists, they would have to raise an additional 1.5 billion broilers every year to meet consumer demand. Those birds would in turn need huge amounts of water, feed, and land (to grow the feed), and would produce 29 billion pounds of additional manure.
Faced with that reality, those food companies have formed their own effort called the Sustainable Chicken Forum, which will not require slower-growing breeds.
This is the smart way to do it. Instead of letting the activists be in control with their own agenda (raising the cost of animal protein), companies can work with credible experts on improving operations.
Meanwhile, the animal activists appear to be left divided and exposed.
For years, HSUS/Humane World, the ASPCA, and Compassion in World Farming were on the board of Global Animal Partnership, which is closely aligned with the “Better Chicken” standards. However, all three groups abruptly dropped off the board of GAP last fall. Why? PETA had been protesting the three groups for being supportive of GAP. PETA rejects the notion that there is “humane” meat.
When faced with a choice between “Whole Foods chicken” and PETA, the groups all chose PETA.
While these animal rights groups may all fear PETA, the other major development in this story is that the UK companies no longer fear the activists. They’re dropping their involvement with the “Better Chicken” campaign, knowing full well that the activists will scream bloody murder. But food companies have figured out that the PETAs of the world don’t represent the average consumer. People want affordable animal protein, and the customer is always right.
Jack Hubbard is the executive director at the Center for the Environment and Welfare