it's great that kfc is selling faux chicken but i would still not want to buy from a company that slaughters chicken, especially in such in humane ways. I don't even like buying salads from mc donalds because of the amount of cows that get slaughtered an hour. Does this make sense?

Posted by: jaime ghorieshi | August 4, 2008 09:06 PM

I just think that she is amazing with PETA.
people think that she only cares for the fame and camera.
but she dosent
she dosent want to be seen like that and thats what everyone thinks. but she has kids that are amazing and beautiful and are growing in her vegan ways. she loves animals. and i appreciate that.
loveya Pam
-AlexNicole

Posted by: Alexandra Nicole Romo | August 4, 2008 10:23 PM

good on peta and pamela. good pre-emptive strike on the comments you know are going to come in to. keep going and all these small victories add up... we are making progress

Posted by: nicole | August 5, 2008 03:00 AM

It strikes me that PETA and Pam are in bed with the enemy. As a lifelong vegetarian and decade-long vegan, my views are entrenched enough to understand that no amount of faux-chicken sandwiches and 'improved' slaughtering practices would make up for the utter brutality that this company has enacted in their long history. It looks like KFC has a sly business representative who is positioning KFC to neutralize the PETA boycott in Canada, and simply enhance their brand at the expense of thinking and feeling people. Would The Lung Association endorse herbal cigarettes made by Phillip Morris? I sure hope not. This is no different. This smells of more than just crispy batter. I wonder how many figures it took for Ms. Anderson to wane so thoroughly from her former position.

Posted by: david | August 5, 2008 03:52 AM

If KFC stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken, then why is there a vegi menu? Sort of defeats the whole Fried Chicken purpose.

Posted by: Ben | August 5, 2008 05:52 AM

Large scale change happens progressively and not instantly. It's a step forward but definitely not the final destination.

Good on Pamela and PeTA, though! These changes will do some good for animals who need it the most.

Posted by: Brian | August 5, 2008 08:45 AM

I an imperfect world, any step towards improvement is welcome. Kudos to Pam and the positive PR image she represents.

Posted by: prince albert | August 5, 2008 11:40 AM

This is a fantastic idea well done again PAM you NEVER EVER fail to stop campaiging for animals and using your celebrtity status to help raise their profile. THANK YOU

Posted by: John Carmody | August 5, 2008 11:54 AM

Hey Pamela you and other animal activistsare my Idols of who I wish to be like

Posted by: Sophie Cooke | August 5, 2008 03:31 PM

These faux sandwiches are fried in the same oil as the meat, so I would not eat the meat-soaked veggie sandwiches.

Posted by: Derek, MD | August 5, 2008 03:55 PM

I think its great that there trying to make a difference, but I still would not buy a veggie burger from KFC. There Macaroni salad is the best I ever had before my sister told me what they do to those innocent animals. Ever since then I won't touch anything from there. Why would I support a company that treats animals like that, sure I'm not eating the chicken, but I'm not contributing to that. Like david already said "Would The Lung Association endorse herbal cigarettes made by Phillip Morris? I sure hope not. This is no different." It just doesn't make sense to me. If only people saw what was going into these burgers, they wouldn't eat it ever again. If you can't kill the animal yourself you shouldn't be able to eat it. Lets see how that goes.

Posted by: Michie Herr | August 5, 2008 05:08 PM

David,

I'm sure most of us here would be ecstatic if ALL animal abuse ended at midnight tonight—but it's never going to happen that way. Progress can sometimes, but not always, only be made incrementally. Wholesale victories are great when they occur.

Even a meat-eater seeing the word "vegetarian" on a KFC menu-board makes an animal-free diet seem that much more mainstream, and thus more acceptable to people who may never have entertained the idea of going veg before, but might give it a try now.

Your shot at Pam Anderson is also a cheap one. Very few people have stepped out for animals as Pam has.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 5, 2008 06:32 PM

david

Thanks for your comments; I agree. Chickens are still being slaughtered in the most horrible, violent ways so I won't be visiting KFC in the USA even if they served faux Chicken sandwiches. Chickens aren't even recognized as sentient beings by the USDA.

I will only go to vegan establishments and keep them in business. They also smell nice not like KFC that smells of death.

www.thehumanemyth.org

Posted by: Ana | August 5, 2008 06:46 PM

Yum!

Posted by: Curtis | August 5, 2008 07:58 PM

Wow, that's great. Where can I get a Peta t-shirt like her?

Posted by: Nicole | August 5, 2008 08:38 PM

I think Pamala is doing a good thing. But I still will not spend any of my money at KFC.

Posted by: melody | August 5, 2008 09:31 PM

Tricky little move KFC. Nice way to 1. get off PETAs shit list (nice try) by adding a veggie friendly option 2. Turn ur bad publicity into good by having a celebrity & animal rights activist like Pam on ur side..i think its clear whats going on here..
A win/win proposition was made,but dispite the appreciated effort its simply not enough.

Posted by: Halley | August 5, 2008 10:31 PM

I think is great that Pam get some media attention and tried the veg sandwich.

But... don't you think they fry that veggie chicken patty in the same oil as the dead birds? sick.

Still- kudos to KFC for adding the veg sandwich... but they should have made it VEGAN

Posted by: Jennifer | August 6, 2008 01:35 AM

im just curious if this is still cooked with the chicken???

Posted by: jenaya | August 6, 2008 03:38 AM

Mike - in no way have I suggested that I expect a notoriously animal based menu to drop all cruelty in totality. That would be actually naive and borderline stupid. What I am saying is that this is a move on KFC's part to posture, manipulate, and position themselves as "better" generally in the pulic eye. Again, I credit Pam and PeTa with creating the change, but I take a hard stance on my beliefs. I believe that when you spend money at an establishment that was founded on cruelty and ruthless slaughter, in a way you are ignoring the CRUX of what they stand for, for the sake of the lone veggy option. This is not a victory in that sense - it is a means for them to market their products to EVERYONE at the expense of Vegans. Vegetarians. I don't know how much more clear I can make this. I already drew an anology to cigarettes, but how about this? If a leather and fur store such as Danier in Canada came out with ONE STYLE of pleather coat, would you rush in and praise them? Or - would you go to where they have always been friendlier to animals, where they have always had a number of choices? I don't think this is twisted logic at all, and I fail to see why you call my writing a cheap shot. Pam Anderson clearly gets paid for a promotional appearence. I was comenting that it must have taken some money, right?

I do NOT think that we can wave a magic wand, (again that would be naive and stupid) but as consumers, businesses need us more than we need them. WE can all become more responsible consumers, and have a duty to if we claim to have a political/spiritual/personal belief against animal abuse and consumption of animal products.

Halley has it right - this is a tricky little move. Peta themselves are dispaying a buy one get one free coupon on their website, replete with KFC's logo. I will re-iterate, it is still the same old logo, at the same old restaurant, just with ONE option only served at half of the franchises. This is not earth moving.

Posted by: david | August 6, 2008 10:30 AM

Halley, Right on!! But my most concern right now is not the faux chicken being served It's the way the birds are dying to fill the bellies of KFC customers'!! Did they switch to CAK?? Cause if not KFC does not deserve the attention they are getting up here in Canada!! Thanks Pam, but I think Peta it's time to do some of your wonderful undercover investigative work to find out or not. Untill then "Boycott" KFC cause they gave you their word to make the switch NOT just to serve the one sandwich.

Posted by: Carla | August 6, 2008 11:03 AM

For those saying you wouldnt buy a veggie sandwich from KFC - you're killing our campaigning! By not supporting the very thing we were fighting for, it will only show that there is no demand for the veggie items on their menu, and they will go away! Support the change, show them that there are veg's out there. Don't be so stuck up.

Posted by: Alicia | August 6, 2008 12:01 PM

PETA understands that consuming even trace amounts of animal products is distasteful, but are sure you will concur that even more upsetting is failing to help animals when we have the chance. In this case, PETA's focus is on preventing harm to animals. Eating a sandwich that has been cooked in the same oil in which chicken has also been cooked doesn't cause any harm to animals, but ordering the sandwich will spare suffering. Deciding not to get that sandwich won't prevent chicken from being ordered, cooked, and eaten, ordering the sandwich will keep it on the menu and let people who were about to order real chicken choose the faux.

By boycotting the faux chicken sandwiches because they are "not 100% pure vegan," or insisting that they be cooked separately, we run the risk of making serving faux chicken too difficult, unpleasant, or outright annoying to bother with. That is likely to dissuade others from even considering adopting a plant-based diet - and that does harm animals.

It will also be harmful to birds if the new sandwich doesn't sell well. When a vegetarian/vegan product fails in the marketplace, it not only reduces the options available to vegetarians and vegans (making it harder—and therefore more unlikely—for people to adopt a cruelty-free diet) but also provides companies like KFC with an excuse to avoid adding such foods to their menus.

Of course, each of us must decide for ourselves what to do in a world full of difficult choices. We urge you to please think strategically, for the animals' sake, and to promote the faux chicken with all your might. For more thoughts on this subject, please see http://www.CaringConsumer.com/resources_ingredients.asp and http://www.GoVeg.com/effectiveAdvocacy_personal.asp.

Posted by: Joel Bartlett | August 6, 2008 03:02 PM

Great job, Pam! using your celebrity profile to raise awareness like Amanda Beard has is great! THANK YOU!

Posted by: Big Ray | August 6, 2008 05:08 PM

David,

Do you know for a fact that Pam got paid, or are you just speculating?

I think the more important victory here is the adoption of CAK in Canada (not the veg sandwich). This gives animal rights activists some leverage they can apply to hopefully persuade KFC USA to do the same. This will obviously be PETA's next step.

Adding or not adding a veg sandwich does very little, if anything, to improve the "image" of KFC to the average meat-eater. Most of them couldn't care less if it's an offering—they were going to KFC before and they will continue to go there even if the veg entree is disco'd. It's not a great PR coup.

To me any progress is good progress, and can snowball into more good things. An all-or-nothing approach to AR is more about philosophy, and less about actually helping animals. Abolition is not going to happen overnight.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 6, 2008 05:15 PM

Mike, Joel, Alicia:

I guess agree to disagree. I feel that a corporation founded on torture and death is not worthy of my dollars. Obviously there are others that are more liberal in this regard, and I make no personal objection to those who enact their free will.

Is this a great development? Absolutely. I have now conceded no less than three times that less cruelty is better than the old standard. Perhaps the language I used was not plain enough, so there it is. I laud PeTA for their incremental accomplishment. Kudos to Pam Anderson to generating publicity to the boycott.

Will you now concede that there would clearly be a benefit to KFC, - one that could reinforce consumer practices instead of forever changing them? Even if that benefit is free publicity across the board, will you at least admit that this could serve to even infinitessimally enhance their market share and their brand? I am not discussing only the average meat-eater, Mike. I am speaking of the general (and often mindless) consuming public. If it didn't do SOMETHING positive for the franchisee's business, then they would not have even entered into the agreement, that much I can assure you. It would seem that paid or not, the Pam Anderson appearence was a part of the deal.

Do you know for a fact she recieved no economic benefit to make a highly unusual appearence? I think she is great for the support she has shown to a number of causes - but you again would have to concede this was a sudden and somewhat intrigueing departure from her previous hard stance.

You yourself are speculative when you assert that people will accept vegetarianism as "more mainstream" simply because KFC introduced a new sandwich. However, when a company sees the times shifting more obviously to consumerism based on more universally veg-friendly companies, the worst of them will have no choice to act. Why can't we celebrate the ethics victory, but still choose not to consume their food because who they are EVERYWHERE else in the world, and who they have been?

I agree with you in theory, Mike, and I want to assure you that I am not attacking personally PeTA's goal, Pam Anderson - or anyone who posts here - but the fact is - THE UNDENIABLE FACT - a restaurant serving predominately carcass will not be motivated long-term to care about what vegetarians think.

Joel - the marketplace has a number of options already from any number of exclusively veg/veg-friendly establishments. Could we not just support them, instead of wavering by jumping over to whoever tries to lure us with faux whatever?

I am simply saying that as much as the new standards are a true foundation, we still must endeavour not to mindlessly consume a product from a company founded on the very thing we say we are against.

Posted by: david | August 6, 2008 05:41 PM

The faux chicken sandwich is not cooked in the same oil as the real chicken (I saw this with my own eyes), at least at one place I went.

Unfortunately, when I went to a different location near my work today, they wouldn't make it in a wrap, saying they were "not allowed to substitute" - so that location did lose my business, because the bun is not vegan.

At least 2 other locations had no problem doing it in the wrap, and a co-worker went to yet another location, also with no problem having it in the wrap.

Posted by: Michele | August 6, 2008 06:31 PM

Bad press happens everyday, this is good press and a step in the right direction. i think that having the option is important, otherwise most propagandized and obediently brainwashed "happy go lucky" consmumers would never give it a second thought. And let's face it... anybody who would eat fast food, and call it a religion is crazy or extremely uninformed anyway. How unfortunate.

Posted by: vegancoin | August 6, 2008 06:36 PM

guess where the money to purchase that vegi sandwich is going?? To slaughter more chickens! Why support them, period?

Posted by: braxton | August 6, 2008 06:42 PM

i am one of those that would never buy a faux chicken sandwich from any fast food joint. i shy away from those corrupt and evil places, i am not a consumerist flunky nor do i plan to become one anytime soon. Ultimately it's a matter of good taste, commonsense, morals and having a conscience. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Posted by: vegancoin | August 6, 2008 06:47 PM

I dont think thats a good idea to give KFC any money AT ALL! Im happy that theres a vegetarian sandwich but im not happy that the abuse continues from KFCs factory farms wheather in Canada or not!! Go pamela for eating vegetarian options, but i dont think they should be supported in anyway!!!

Posted by: Lisa Buchman | August 6, 2008 07:37 PM

Is the glass half empty? or is the glass half full. It seems you can't please everyone, no matter what you do...

Is Pamela paid to bring attention to a positive effort? Does it matter?? She is bringing attention to moving in a positive direction.

Perhaps KFC adding a veg item to their menu will not cause KFC clients to have a great revelation that they should be eating veg. However, by adding a veg item it does offer those looking for non- meat alternatives convenient access to a more healthy options (not that anything deep fried is good for you, but you see can the point).

So if any of the other restaurants that happen to serve non-veg food to the majority of the population that consumes meat, decide to serve a veg friendly menu, will you all choose to boycott their efforts because they also serve meat? These brilliant boycott tactics really will prove your point.. that making any effort to please the veg crowd will be spat upon by those crying for a more ethical and humane menu.

Why should they bother if any positive action will be dismissed due to the fact that they are in the business of selling food to the masses, which includes a whole lot of meat eaters. By having a large corporation such as KFC champion a veg friendly menu item, they are sending a message that the veg community is a significant enough market that it warrants recognition. Yes, they are a business, and if this item is successful, it will incite others food service businesses to move in a similar direction. Shunning their efforts will do little more than kill any further initiative.

Posted by: Fred Lawrence | August 7, 2008 02:15 AM

"Joel - the marketplace has a number of options already from any number of exclusively veg/veg-friendly establishments. Could we not just support them, instead of wavering by jumping over to whoever tries to lure us with faux whatever?"

KFC will not go out of business tomorrow if they don't sell any faux chicken sandwiches. It doesn't really matter, so i don't see your point. Motivations begin on your dinner plate, just like peace begins in the home.

Posted by: vegancoin | August 7, 2008 12:57 PM

Baby steps! If people can see that even KFC is producing a tasty alternative to real chicken with the crunch and spice they enjoy in the food, they may decide to rethink some of their ideas about vegetarianism.

Posted by: Cindy | August 7, 2008 01:53 PM

Hi David,

From what I've read CAK is ultimately beneficial to a company's bottom line, as well as being, of course, more humane for animals and workers. So, apart from the aspect of appeasing AR people, it also makes good business sense on its own. From that standpoint, a company could adopt it solely to improve profits. Yes, it would be great if people would just stop eating dead animals, but I think that is still a way off.

I don't know for a fact if Pam was paid or not, but I didn't imply she was or wasn't.

Though PETA may appear to make concessions at times, their mandate is still pretty hardline—animals are not ours to eat. Since American per capita meat consumption has actually gone up 41% since the '50s, we have to build on small gains wherever we can find them.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 7, 2008 02:17 PM

vegan coin: if you read the context of what I wrote, I said exactly what you just said.

as far as Mike, Joel, Alicia, and everyone else goes - I really only ever wanted to get this across:

I think being an obstinate vegan and skeptical consumer is the best course of action for myself. I would say risking that for the sake of a tiny development such as a faux-meat sandwich at a notorious, wasteful, cruel, and manipulative company would be a step backward in my own personal beliefs. You can provide all the rhetoric that there is, and I ONCE AGAIN concede that some ground has been made - but please- this is a transparent attempt to quiet a group of people who need to keep being vocal. This is the very nature of other morally misaligned businesses, and KFC is not excepted.

You are going to say that PeTA is vocal, and we can bandy about all the different angles, but my comfort level as a devout, staunch vegan is such that I feel like this is selling out a bit. Actually, a lot. Would you expect a non-profit to display the Nike swoosh on their site if Nike stopped using child labour on only ONE TYPE of shoe? Or would you expect that they push on, until those increments became extinct, and perpetuated a new industry standard? C'mon Mike - quit being so hardline!

Obviously this is a polarizing issue, and Mike- I agree with most of what you say in theory. I have ceded a number of your points, yet you won't acknowledge any of mine except with more rhetoric. You have said things like "yes, it would be great if people stopped eating animals," and "abolition will not happen overnight." - I HAVE NOT EVEN ONCE implied that is my expectation of PeTA. Again, I am not a fool. I know that success (or at least success that lasts) is incremental.

What I am saying - (to re-iterate it once more, whew...) is that any and every consumer dollar is a vote. Eat at KFC, and you are voting for turning a blind eye to a corporation FOUNDED AND PREDICATED on what we are against. Is it your stance I ought to now support this company, just because they agreed to do what they should have done all along? Should I eat there and beat the KFC drum because after five years of ignoring us, jeering us, - now they are making more money being less cruel? What kind of rational is that? WEAK.

I don't understand why my points have been SO polarizing. Displaying a KFC logo on a website on PeTA's site, arranging a publicity appearence from the biggest leader and "honorary director?" That is at best - highly unusual, and probably more than a little bit hypocritical.

PeTA would earn more respect by convincing them to kill humanely alone. It is abundantly clear that part of the deal was to use PeTA (and us, really) to help increase KFC's sales. And that (to me) is straight up pandering. This is what our donations and support have paid for - a bitter concession, and a request for us to go and eat there?

This is really the last I want to say. To everyone who is unwavering and not even the tiniest bit critical of PeTA - I feel you, I get it. PeTA has taken on the tough task of being a voice for a group that is often misunderstood and marginalized. Since we are able to clearly communicate with words to illustrate philosophies, and animals do not possess that same type of ability, I would expect that there would be differing opinions from those who speak for animals. Great for PeTA for doing what they do, great for you feeling what you feel. But they got this one wrong. If we are to speak for animals, and we feel like it is wrong to kill them, period - I straight up say it is wrong to eat the sandwich that is the sole exception in a menu full of processed carnage.

I drew a line in the sand, and I am not going to cross it. PeTA's line is highly situational it would seem.

Posted by: david | August 7, 2008 08:36 PM

Here's my analogy, and in turn, my stance on all of this;

Abusive father: "Hey kids, I know I've beaten the hell out of you for your entire lives thus far, and I know you've watched me brutally attack your mother several thousand times. I realize that all I have done is torture you for years, but HEY GUESS WHAT?! To distract your attention from this, I bought you a new shiny toy, AND to smooth over some of the years of damage I've caused you mentally and physically by my abusive nature, I'll EVEN let you play with it for a while!"

I'm sorry but despite the fact that this may seem like a step in the right direction, I still can not endorse the actions, past or present, of these people. KFC is KFC to me, I don't care what Country the particular outlet I pass by is located in. If I were to walk in there and order this new 'faux chicken' it would be like accepting what has been going on, and taking that 'new shiny toy' for a test drive. (SEE: Forgiveness)

No.

That's just my personal opinion and stance on it. Maybe it's a pessimistic one at best, but it's my truth, and so, I shall not be taking a bite out of these new 'sammiches' anytime soon.

(Disclaimer: I'm far far from perfect, I'm probably a hypocrite in a lot of my lifestyle choices, but I am working on changing myself to reflect my beliefs, and I have not spent a red cent at KFC since I was about 8 years old... and that wasn't even my red cent.)

Posted by: Sadie | August 7, 2008 08:37 PM

Fred - you said it just perfectly!

Posted by: Michele | August 7, 2008 11:32 PM

David,

Don't get me wrong—I do respect your opinions and beliefs, and I do think that "humane meat" is a total Orwellian farce.

As you can see from the "3 Lives For $2.99" blog just posted, PETA is far from finished with KFC.

I still feel the more important issue here is the adoption of CAK. As you stated, success that lasts is usually achieved incrementally.

KFC is a company that, like all others, is predicated on making profit. What a company actually sells is less important to them than the profit derived from those sales. If KFC could make a fortune by only selling veg sandwiches, they just might do that. So supporting just veg restaurants (which I certainly do), imo, doesn't get the word out.

The upcoming Proposition 2 referendum shows that awareness for animal rights is increasing. The more the public receives media imprints on a kinder veg diet, the more people will hopefully consider and adopt that diet.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 8, 2008 11:28 AM

Thank you very much Mike for reading through all of that. You seem intelligent and tactful, and I certainly agree with almost all factions and tangents of what you are saying. Really at the end of the day, we are all impassioned by and supportive of PeTA's missives. I am hesitant at best to go buy that sandwich, but Fred's comments made some sense as well.

I think really the best tool we have is that we are all motivated by the same thing - to end animal suffering (and in a perfect world, all consumption/exploitation) so anyone becoming too evangelical in either direction pro or for KFC- runs the risk of losing sight of the issue. the CAK is a great development, and I never intneded to downplay that. I was and still am a bit reactive to some of the finer details.

Great that we have this forum!

Good luck to all of you and Mike- great to comment with you!

David
mass undergoe

Posted by: david | August 9, 2008 03:32 PM

Considering it's cooked in the same oil as meat, it's not even CLOSE to being vegan. I'm vegetarian and sometimes I get sick if my food is cooked too close to meat on a grill or in the same deep fryer - my system just can't handle animal fat.

Posted by: monica | August 11, 2008 12:15 AM

Thanks David—the feeling is mutual.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 11, 2008 04:44 PM

I am a long time vegan and have hated KFC for years. I did however try the vegan sandwich here in Nanaimo,BC and it was amazing. It was not fried with the chicken by the way! It was prepared in a different area and did not come in contact with any of the chicken. I will admit it was hard going in there to purchase it as I do not want to support KFC. So I am very torn by wanting to promote the "Vegitarian Sandwich" as they call it, but still am disgusted they sell chicken.

Posted by: Carlinne | August 11, 2008 05:26 PM

Hey David : I supported you all the way in my previous comment. Take a look!

August 5, 2008.

Posted by: Ana | August 11, 2008 06:05 PM

yes, Ana, I saw that, and I thank you.

Posted by: david | August 12, 2008 11:57 PM

im only 15 and i know that this is wrong!!! how can the people that kill these inosent animals go 2 sleep at night? GOD IS WATCH.... IN THE END THEY WILL PAY THERE PRICE!!

Posted by: caleb | August 13, 2008 11:27 AM

I went to three different locations and asked if they cooked it in the same oil as chickens they all said yes , so I don't know which location cooks it seperatley

Posted by: Anthony | August 13, 2008 03:53 PM

david, you are quoting me out of context and making a bunch of non-issues seem highly relelvant. It's really a no-win situation, especially for the animals, but i think that we should accept any positive changes, no matter how small and no matter how incremental. The marketplace is an indecent place, especially for vegans, you shouldn't go out of your way to blame PETA for showing initiative and for the transparent wrongs and ills of the fast food society.

Posted by: vegancoin | August 13, 2008 06:57 PM

vegancoin - I had no idea I was even quoting you.

I still have a foggy idea at best what you have been driving at, - but you are a fellow vegan and what not, so great. So called Non - issues seem to be important, because many here have mentioned them. This is a discussion it would seem, and not a frank appraisal of things based solely on your opinion.

I am all finished. Just telling my fellow "consumers" some answers to other questions that were posed.

Good luck everyone!

Posted by: david | August 15, 2008 03:50 AM

"I had no idea I was even quoting you."

When you said that you were making the same point as me and/or vice versa, that was a convenient and incorrect distortion. The fact is i take exception to your rather loose and arbitrary statements and conclusions, which seem only to fault PETA and accuse them of complicity of some sort. i am not here to lampoon PETA or paint them as the bad guys. Sure the faux chicken sandwich is a small change, an incremental change, and one could argue that this is indeed a step in the right direction, but it is up to the individual whether or not to see this as a positive change.

Posted by: vegancoin | August 15, 2008 01:14 PM

again, Vegancoin - my original point is that there is a treasure trove of establishments that have been around longer, and haven't needed to posture themsleves with PeTA to get the maximum publicity from a change purported to even be vegan, when in fact it is not. If you read what I said, I have agreed repeatedly that the CAK is a great development, hooray for PeTA.

My "loose and arbitrary statements" are based on the fact that PETA THEMSELVES say. These are -in utterly transparent fact- complicit with a corprate statement or missive of KFC, not Veganism or Vegetarianism.

Say what you want about what I am saying, but this is a forum, and you are welcome to disagree. I won't take it as far by discounting all of what I am saying just because you have a different (is it actually?) perspective.

If you think that is arbitrary, fine. I am not here to lampoon PeTA either. I have (in many different ways) praised PeTA.

"but it is up to the individual whether or not to see this as a positive change."

Well, I am 50/50 I guess.

Posted by: david | August 16, 2008 09:42 AM

Peta, please try and carry the strong message of animal rights to the US. I think you could make this one step greater by persuading America to start selling this vegatarian sandwich.

Posted by: Jane | August 20, 2008 09:07 PM

doesn't all the money that is made from the vegeterian sandwich at kfc go towards their popularity therefore making the demand for chickens increase. and don't the profits for these sandwiches go towards funding the rarms which torture chickens?? this is not too cool, hey! we should completely boycott kfc alltogether!

Posted by: nicole | August 24, 2008 11:47 AM

Where exactly do I get this veggie sandwich at kfc in canada? I've only been able to get it once (Perth, Ontario). Every other place I've checked (4 places so far...all in Ottawa, ON) say they don't carry it anymore?

Posted by: melanie | September 24, 2008 11:05 PM

I am sickened by eating from a resturant that serves meat, but if you take the stand that you will not eat KFC and support the faux chicken sandwich than you can not eat at any resturant that is not veg/vegan. I will eat the sandwiches from KFC to support the fact they are selling vegan food. If enought poeple support this it will continue to grow and spread to other fast food chains. Eventually it may even become more popular to eat faux food than the real thing and help to end the slaughter of animals for food. We have to start somewhere and if the veg/vegans do not support this move of KFC than they many stop selling the faux chicken sandwich. where that leave the billions of chickens that die for that resturant?
Start thinking about the animals this will save not your silly vegan ideals. Vegans are suppose to save animals at any cost. Not be picky how they are saved.

Posted by: JulieAnn Zserdin | January 27, 2009 05:45 PM

After finding out about how horrible the chickens were treated, I wrote an email to KFC. I got one of their form letters back. Total denial and they referred to PETA as "a radical extremist group whose agenda is to promote a vegetarian lifestyle" & basically called PETA liars. I guess I'm not surprised at their response, but I won't eat at KFC until they follow Canada's example at least.

Also viewed Pamela's clip on YouTube. Disturbing how hateful some of the member's comments posted can be.
Hope some PETA supporters here will check out some of youtubes vids & add their own comments as well...

Posted by: Bobbie Murphy | February 9, 2009 12:35 PM

i really encourage this type of support, i try and convince as many people i can to do such great things for the environment but i dont have the resources pam has. although my motto is act locally think globally its really awesome when you see people with alot giving back.

Posted by: Kirsty Robson | May 20, 2009 08:04 PM

HI, WATCHED THE VIDEO OF PAM ANDERSON (kfc), holly mother of god, that was nasty stuff.TRIED KENTUCKY ONCE AND NEVER WENT BACK. BUT NOW WHAT IVE DONE IS INFORM AS MANY INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE AS I COULD AND SENT AN EMAIL TO kfc, NOTIFYING THEM OF THEIR CRUELTY AND THAT HOW DISGUSTED I WAS, AND THAT WE, A VERY LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE WILL NEVER EAT THERE AGAIN!!!!

Posted by: ROXANNE HONEY | September 4, 2009 11:52 PM