PR’s ethical dilemma: When should the chicken die?

As the old saying goes, if you want to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs. But as it turns out, if you want those eggs at a reasonable price, you also gotta kill millions of baby chicks. It’s not a pretty sight, as this graphic video shows the world.

(Warning: Run time is 3:44, but you’ll probably get grossed out and quit early.)

That clip from Mercy for Animals caused quite a stir — at least among city folk. If you skipped it or bailed early, the clip shows hatchery workers known as “sexers” flipping male chicks into a grinder where they meet an ugly but instant death. It’s part of the process of making that omelet, we’re told. Since the cockerels won’t ever lay eggs, they have no value to egg farmers. The cost of raising them for meat is prohibitive, the industry says.

Cruel and inhumane? Think about it in practical terms. Whether we A) euthanize the chicks early on or B) raise them to maturity for their meat, the result is the same: They die. But if they die early on, the egg farm makes a profit and you get your omelet for $4.95 at IHOP.

Is Option A really more cruel than Option B? You may be inclined to think so after the video. It stirs the emotions and maybe has you gagging on your Egg McMuffin. That was the intent.

chokeWhat’s the egg industry to do? PR professionals don’t set policies for the hatchery. They may not even have input at the “table.”  But as paid advocates, they must defend those policies in a public forum. So what would you do in this case? Lobby for change? Resign your job? Or tell your company’s story?

A few days after the video went viral, Paul Lasley, a rural sociologist from Iowa State University, tried to show us the flip side of this issue with his comments in this story. Lasley, who grew up on a farm, knows how the “sausage” is made.

”Part of that I think is the disconnect that many consumers have with agriculture,” Lasley said. ”Fewer people actually grow up on a farm and kill animals.”

It’s not the first time agriculture has been scrutinized for inhumane practices, the AP story tell us:

Last year, California voters approved a measure that bars farmers from confining veal calves, pregnant pigs and egg-laying hens in spaces so small that they can’t turn around, lie down or extend their limbs. The major elements of the law will take effect in 2015 over the objections of farmers, who worry it will be costly to expand henhouses and buy more land.

No moral person defends animal cruelty, but how far must agricultural industries go to implement reforms? And who pays for them? Before you answer, understand that each time you add to animal comfort (or in this case, lifespan), you add cost to the final product, and you make your client less competitive in the marketplace.

Sorry, but that’s the way it works.

Videos like “Hatchery Horrors,” one-sided though they are, provide a useful lesson for PR students and professionals — and everyone concerned about business ethics. Now that you’ve seen it, I’m guessing you’d rather not defend these chick killers. But I suspect most of you would gladly accept a fee to promote a new deluxe omelet breakfast at IHOP.

Like Lasley says, there’s a big disconnect.

As PR counselors, we can and should encourage humane practices in agriculture. But we can’t change the economics of the business, and we surely can’t make roosters lay eggs.

Animals die, and then we eat them. It’s been that way since cavemen sharpened their first spears. And since most of us aren’t interested in joining the vegan movement, we choose not to think about it. As PR professionals and paid advocates for industries and products, we do the best we can to reconcile our clients’ behaviors with our own personal ethics and the realities of the marketplace.

Here’s what I really think

Everyone who eats meat should witness the process from death to packaging. Go ahead, cringe. But your supermarket steak doesn’t miraculously appear in its shrink wrapping. It’s a bloody event.

HunterA hunter since age 12, I’ve been part of killing animals and processing their meat for over 40 years. The hunting I love. The killing and the butchering I do not. But it comes with the territory.

It comforts me to know that the steaks in my freezer were free-range critters until they wandered into my rifle sights. But in the end, how different are they from those baby chicks? And who will be the judge?

35 Responses to PR’s ethical dilemma: When should the chicken die?

  1. Susan says:

    And speaking of food and communication, here’s a great commentary that p.r. folks should also read: “Losing the War on Words” http://bit.ly/8wqz9

  2. Well, you’ve wandered into an area I’m quite interested in–food politics.

    It’s interesting from a PR perspective, and I completely agree with you that the entire process should be understood by consumers. I think there’s a general disconnect with just about everything–people just don’t seem to follow the train of logic back to the originating station on most issues. Is it a time thing? Or an inability (or unwillingness) to invest the energy and thought necessary to understand the whole picture? The role of a PR practitioner should be to examine a client’s entire ‘world,’ warts and all. Only then can they be prepared when something like this video comes out.

    (Sidebar: I’m also in the minority who believe that our food should be raised humanely, and quite frankly should be more expensive. Americans eat wwwaaaayyyy too much meat, and having it more expensive but of higher quality could have a number of benefits, from lower obesity rates to better overall health. I understand that this raises other issues, such as lower income people not being able to afford meat, etc.)

    I haven’t watched the video, because I just can’t. I’d be upset, and I need to be productive while I’m at work.

    An interesting post, Bill…

    Jen

  3. I imagine that 500 years into the future, we’ll loathe our current selves for having consumed animal proteins. Maybe all organic matter will be off that proverbial “table” as you put it and we’ll relegate ourselves to faux foie gras in pill form.

    Or maybe pigs will fly. Or cars. Or pigs flying cars…

    Personally, I find these drive-by PSAs to be truly enlightening. They are necessary part of the conversation whether I like it or not. So long as I can engage in said conversation at a reputable steakhouse over cattle medium rare, I don’t mind a bit.

    Professionally, it’s a valuable lesson in “can’t win” PR. Some audiences, you can’t win over, so don’t try. DO dive into the discussion. Diplomacy isn’t remotely sexy, but it beats war any day.

  4. Bill,
    This disconnect applies to many industries, the energy industry for one. Most consumers don’t realize the process behind bringing electricity into their homes, either. Maybe it’s part of our increasing reliance on technology and automation, but I agree with you – consumers should understand, but more often than not don’t, these processes from beginning to end. As for PR’s role, PR practitioners should understand these processes for certain – and the ethical issues involved – before they begin rolling out a campaign.

  5. Bill Sledzik says:

    Great points all around so far…

    Susan…Thanks for a useful link that further frames this story. I have subscribed to the newsletter, “Truth in Food.”

    Jen, agree with you. Our food should be raised humanely and if that means a higher price, I’m OK with that. But I don’t know that most folks would be. It would have to involve more government regulation of farms. Otherwise, the cheaters would gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

    If the prices go up, we probably would eat less meat, and we’d probably be better off for it. But that’s gonna be a tough sell to our carnivorous society. No easy answer.

    Dino, you nailed it. A great example of “can’t win” PR in a world that is sadly disconnected from the realities of the products it consumes. When you get back to Kent, let’s sit down and talk about it over my venison pepper steak and a fine Cabernet!

    Linda — more on the disconnect. Thanks. I wonder how many Subaru-driving, bicycle-riding, trail-hinking environment-loving people ever stop to think about toxic chemicals that go into making their non-polluting bicycles. And let’s not forget the working conditions in the Chinese factory from which their bikes and hiking shoes emerge.

    We all seem to be happily ignorant of such things. And too often it becomes part of PR’s job to keep it that way. Raising ethical issues in the C-suites isn’t easy, but it’s part of the job of public relations — and one of the jobs I don’t hear mentioned much in the marketing circles.

  6. kamichat says:

    So strange, my husband and I were talking about this very thing last night, but it was framed by electric cars. My husband said, “What do you think would happen if everyone in our neighborhood bought an electric car, like the Volt, and plugged it in every night. The answer, more brownouts. And where does the electricity come from, coal plants, nuclear power, etc. – not exactly clean energy. But many people, if you ask them where the electricity comes from would say, “my power outlet.”

    I think it is the same with food. Modern grocery stores are wonderful, but they have disconnected us from our agrarian roots. When my grandmother was young she would wring a chickens neck by hand, boil it and pluck the feathers before the family had a chicken dinner. Today I can’t even imagine doing that. I also come from a family of hunters, though I don’t hunt myself. When I was young we would go fishing in a Colorado stream and as kids would fight over who got to gut the fish. In my older age I have grown squeamish.

    This all to say that as a PR practitioner we can’t afford to ignore all of the “inconvenient” truths that underpin the business of our employers and clients. You can only deal with the outcry when you fully understand the issue. At least one part of the job is education. Something that isn’t always easy but critical nonetheless.

  7. Karthik says:

    That was an incredibly gruesome video, Bill! You did warn me, but you know the human mind…voyeuristic to the core!

    Without trivializing the focus of this post, how would you address a young PR rep who finds it against his/ her conscience in endorsing a brand that he/ she does not believe is really worth the hype he’s asked to…well, hype about?

    Do PR folks need to believe in – from their heart – that their client brand is the best, when they say it is? The other end of this discussion spectrum is doing PR for tobacco/ liquor/ chemical brands – does the conscience of a PR rep matter?

    We’ve seen films taking an ethical stand, at least on a populist level – Jerry Maguire…Michael Clayton; shouldn’t those simplistic solutions to ethical dilemmas be considered as real world solutions at all?

    • Bill Sledzik says:

      Funny you should ask, Karthik. We discussed these issues just this morning in class. Two important elements of that conversation:

      1) Have you examined all sides of the dilemma? Is your client acting within the law? Does its conduct fall within the standards and guidelines set for the industry? Has the client examined and/or tested alternatives to the behavior in question?

      What you must determine is whether the conduct violates your personal ethical code, or is it, in fact, in violation of the morality and norms of society as whole. My bet is that the chicken euthanasia you witnessed is standard procedure, and gruesome as it may seem, it’s standard practice. I have not done that research.

      2) Can you reasonably advocate for the client’s position based on your own ethical threshold? If not, you may have to consider alternative employment. For students, this is a useful discussion, as it forces them to assess their personal ethical principles, while it also demonstrates the importance of choosing an employer whose policies you can support with enthusiasm.

      I know many, many of my students (suburban kids, mostly) who would never promote a sport like hunting. I can do so with zeal, believing that my sport is not only ethical, but necessary to the maintenance of the ecosystem. I base this on my life experience, but also on fairly in-depth knowledge of wildlife management issues. Those who oppose my sport tend to appeal to more emotional arguments.

      Former students call me regularly for advice on these questions, and I dispense it free of charge. Another benefit of coming to Kent State!

  8. CJE says:

    The ultimate cost of every consumer product must include both upstream and downstream costs, from the initial impacts of production (child labor) to the long-term usage costs (cheap meat leading to obesity). But the even more difficult part is assigning a value to the benefits of each product and each step in that product’s lifecycle, and then comparing it to the cost to determine the product’s net value to society. Are your $100 child-made Nike shoes benefitting society enough to offset the real costs?

    Even more interesting than that is to consider historical means and compare them to modern means — was horse manure in every street and the accompanying stench, flies and disease more or less burdensome to society than the production, refining, distribution and burning of fossil fuels? What was the benefit of smoke-belching factories during the industrial revolution? What did it gain us to be early adopters of mass production, and at what real, long-term cost?

    Trying to frame issues in that sort of context, using soundbytes that average audience members can consume, is often simply not possible.

    • Bill Sledzik says:

      A thoughtful comment, and I would expect no less from my learned colleague (and former student) who has faced his fair share of publics who can’t see both sides of an issue.

      I am old enough to recall an era when we used far less water in our homes, because I’m old enough to remember the working outhouse at Grandma’s. It was a 2-holer.

      I’m also old enough to recall when we heated our house with coal and spewed the ash directly up the flue and onto the community (and the neighbor’s laundry that hung on the line). I have to say our power plants are a tad bit cleaner these days. And life is better as a result.

      Getting old may be a pain in the ass, but it sure does give one perspective!

  9. Bill Huey says:

    I really feel for those helpless baby chicks, but that’s pretty much what has happened in the PR business: males get fed to the grinder, while females are kept on for economic reasons.
    As for you, you bloodthirsty beast, we all know you’re a gun-toting murderous fiend, but you have an interesting blog so we keep reading.

    • Bill Sledzik says:

      Do you always insult people with guns? Big talk for a man who lives 700 miles away! Nice to have you back in the discussion, Bill. And maybe sometime soon we can meet up in Bar Harbor.

  10. God gives us many thing in the world to eat. Animals, fruits, and many more. So, Thanks to God.

  11. I love that you fly into the belly of the beast like this … and emerge in your hunting cap : )

    Great post, Bill. I started in PR and miss the days of debating stuff like this!

  12. […] more discussion on this topic, please go read Bill Sledzik’s post on the matter — and his readers’ comments. Bill is a PR professor at Kent State in […]

  13. Andrea MtPleasant says:

    I could easily jump into this discussion with my argument for vegetarianism. I grew up on a farm and went to the butcher shop with my grandmother on Wednesdays to buy meat, but that is not the avenue I wish to pursue. A recent guest speaker in our PR Case Studies class said character and integrity are your most important life lessons not taught in a class room. The hatchery clip provides a base for discussion on a bigger issue concerning roles and ethics in PR.
    I recognize an “ignorance is bliss” effect among consumers. I understand my PR role as an educator for the consumers. My character and integrity influence me to use the tools and skills I have been taught to communicate an awareness of how products are realized into our daily lives. I am a consumer too and want to make informed decisions.
    PR professionals must have complete knowledge and support of their client in order to conduct a successful campaign that can successfully change the behaviors of key publics. I would be doing my client a disservice if I went t into a campaign half hearted.
    Bottom line, I personally could not conduct a successful campaign for the hatchery. I could however be beneficial for the local food co-op.

    • Kahley Colaluca says:

      Andrea,
      I agree completely with your comment “ignorance is bliss.” The first thing that came to my mind when watching the video was, “How can these peole not feel the least bit of shame?” It seems as though they know exactly what they’re doing– but then again, a job is a job, and obviously some people see it differently. It is the same idea as veterinarians who work at pounds and spend entire days euthanizing dog after dog. It’s hard to keep an open-mind about how somebody could be OK with having such a job.

    • Jenna Hedman says:

      I also agree with Andrea’s comment “ignorance is bliss.” Most people subscribe to the thought that what they don’t know can’t hurt them. If you don’t know how animals are treated in the industry, then you can’t feel bad about eating an Ihop omelet.

      However, it’s important for PR professionals NOT to think this way. As a PR professional, you must know all aspects of what your client does and use that information to decide if you can feel ethically sound representing them.

      I do not condone animal cruelty at all, but I feel that I would be able to represent Ihop or any other food institution that buys meat from hatcheries or other meat processing plants. However, I would not be able to campaign for the hatchery because I completely disagree with their methods.

  14. Nathan Christofaris says:

    The ethics of the agricultural industry are often under attack, with good reason. I believe that if we cannot treat these animals humanely and respectful of the food they provide us, then we should not have the honor of eating them. I would lobby for a major change in our operations if I were part of the company showed in the video. I will always be a supporter of eating eggs, but think that we must do so in a humane way. My grandfather owned a chicken hatchery and made his living that way. I’m sure he had to kill some animals but he did so in the proper way, not a conveyor belt of grinding death. These large agricultural slaughtering methods are employed by greedy businesses only looking to make a profit. If you care about the way chickens are treated for their eggs, I suggest you find local farm fresh eggs, which are a reasonable price and do not go through the same torture in the video.

  15. Olivia Arnette says:

    I do not agree with how the animals are treated, and I do believe that much better ways to “get the job done” are available. But, as you said, animals die and then we eat them. People can lobby for change and set guidelines for the treatment of animals on farms, but the farms that produce large quantities (of whatever it may be) will still have only one goal: To make money. We know the animals suffer and die before we feast, but hardly stop to think how. It’s ironic that videos like this strike a cord in humans. Just because we know something is horrible and wrong, doesn’t mean it’s going to change… unfortunately.

    • Jessica C. says:

      Olivia,

      I agree… It’s unfortunate that we might never see the “change” in the food industry. But one way to stand up to these “slaughter-houses” is to make sure you do know where your food is coming from. If you have hang ups about the treatment of the animals then go organic! It is sad when these farmers are really just out for the paycheck, but they have to be – the companies who pay them treat the farmers about as poorly as they do their chickens. Anyone ever watch FoodInc.?

  16. Katie Moore says:

    I have to admit that I am among the population that does not wish to know how my food goes from an animal to a package at the market. Everything dies eventually, including us, and the chicken industry is just another business trying to make their bottom-line dollar without charging the public too much, so consumers keep buying their product.
    I don’t think animals should suffer even if they are being raised to be food on our plate, but at what cost are we willing to pay for their comfort.
    I eat free-range eggs now, but I used to buy my eggs from Wal-Mart or any quick stop grocery store until I realized why they were so cheap.
    The truth of the situation is, as long as the economy suffers and puts restraints on the consumers’ income, the consumer will buy the food with the cheapest price on it.

  17. Kahley Colaluca says:

    This is a prime example of the moral dilemmas people face on a daily basis. It is questionable whether or not the people who work for the hatchery(or any similar factory) truly don’t feel guilt about what they are doing. Maybe they subconsciously brush it aside and don’t think anything of it– much like the consumers of eggs and meat do. A lot of people, like myself, choose not to research such subjects because they do not want to know the truth about the pain and torture innocent animals must endure for our own pleasure. It’s almost as if an emotional barrier is put up. The bottom line is that it is a company trying to make money. Somebody has to do the “dirty work,” but can’t there be a more humane, ethical way? I find it hard to believe that anybody who campaigns/represents/works for this company goes home at the end of the night without a feeling of shame.

  18. Nicole Delsanter says:

    As you said, animals have been killed and eaten for years and will be for years to come. I have personally watched as my dad, who enjoys hunting as well, butchered a deer, then ate that same deer for weeks after, and honestly thought nothing of it. While I do have to say that this video makes me cringe,and I do not agree with the inhumane treatment of animals, I’m honestly not going to change my egg buying habits, and I am in the majority.
    To so many people eggs are eggs, why would they pay 3x the amount for what is essentially the same thing? We choose to ignore and eat for cheap rather than pay the fine for acknowledging.

  19. Tommy Grasso says:

    Humans question the morals and ethics of the agriculture industry. The problem is people will always have a demand for meat and eggs, and to supply this enormous market, mass killing of animals is done. People question the ethics of how their food appears on their plate, but the economics of the issue speak for themselves. People are drawn to low prices and don’t want to think of the “hatchery horrors.”

    That being said, I do believe the treatment of these animals is inhumane, but I still am going to eat chicken and choose not think of how grotesque their final moments were. This is an issue that many people are going to ignore because of the need people have for food. As Kahley and Andrea said, “ignorance is bliss” and people are going to overlook the matter, including myself. I would rather leave this issue for the activist groups to fight.

    • Olivia Arnette says:

      Tommy,
      I agree with you completely. There’s no doubt that this is inhumane, but people are never going choose higher food prices. It’s just not something that goes through a consumer’s mind when purchasing a carton of eggs (or anything else).

  20. Matt North says:

    From a PR perspective, it’s important to recognize the all the issues the industry faces, because as Jen brought up earlier, it helps us prepare for a response when a video as damaging as this comes to the surface.

    From an ethical standpoint, either way the chicken dies. The dilemma remains as to whether its better for the chicken to die right out of the egg or to mature in stressful conditions only to have its neck rung in the future. If you ask me, I’d rather be put out of my misery.

    No matter what way you look at it, the farming industry will always be under scrutiny for its practices and videos like this will always make you think twice before you buy a carton of eggs at the grocery store. Fortunately for companies like this, the average consumer is content which the price and quality of these foods. The images of these chickens untimely death will become nothing but an afterthought the next time they order a 10 piece McNugget.

  21. Jessica C. says:

    People gotta eat. In a perfect world, every animal would be raised in an ethical, humane manner for the consumption of humans. However, as our nation grows the demand for food is at an all time high and people don’t want to pay the high cost associated with organic and grass fed beef/chicken/etc. That’s just the reality of the situation – food companies and farmers are doing what they have to do to meet their margins and get paid. With that being said, we still need people out there to lobby for more human tactics in the food industry. I don’t agree with the grinding method and how these companies choose to do business. I think I could represent a company like the one in the video, if some changes were made internally. As long as they are taking a humane route, then I see it as a part of life. We have animals to raise them and to eat them. But, we don’t have to purposely inflict pain and basically torture them. As a representative for this company, I would make it my mission to make sure the public is aware of where their food comes from start to finish and how – after I lobby for change, of course.

  22. Talissa says:

    This is a very controversial situations seeing that there are so many ways to look at it and so many sides to take. I do agree with Andrea with the “ignorance is bliss” aspect because as a consumer of meat myself, I did not want to watch the whole video because there was a part of me that just did not want to know the truth. Although this is a part of life and has been the “way of life” for so long, it does not justify the slaughtering process.

    Coming from a PR perspective, I definately think this is a tough situation to be put in. Honestly, I would not know where to start if I had to make some decisions about this issue. I would start by doing extensive research, seeing that I try to be ignore the fact of the matter, which I beleive most people that eat meat do.

    There will always be a debate about this industry and the way it works, but “it works” and it has been working for a long time. Like i said before it’s the “way of life”.

  23. Susan says:

    Off p.r. topic, but wanted commenters to know Ohio is leading nation in efforts to create livestock care standards (if you’re an Ohioan, you voted to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board in 2009). Once approved, each of these standards — which also include rules on euthanasia and killing of livestock — will be the law in the Buckeye State. We’ve written a great deal about the board and its progress, and would be happy to discuss this or other farm-related topics backchannel: editor@farmanddairy.com. (And if anyone’s interested in visiting a farm, I could probably arrange that, too.)

  24. Khalil Dixon says:

    The chicks were cute and the process was disgusting; however, I did not find the video to be cruel. In fact, a quick death in a grinder seems more humane than the thought of the animals’ long-term suffering. To offer a humane slaughter is an empty promise.

    People do not want to think about or admit to themselves the process of slaughter while they are enjoying their Chicken Parmesan or morning omelet. As a vegetarian, I often ask why meat-eater’s ethics about how animals are treated stop at the point of slaughter. If the slaughter video were of dogs instead of baby chicks, would people be more outraged? Baby chicks are just as sensitive to pain as a canine; therefore, I do not see the morally significant difference.

    If you had to grow, catch, and slaughter your own food, how humane would you be? Is the baby chick slaughter any less humane than catching fish from a nearby river, chopping off its head, scaling it, and preparing it for consumption?

  25. Brian T says:

    The mass killings of the male chicks were shocking, but I do not believe that was wrong. They were provided a quick death. The chicks that were left to die a slow death on the floor was the most disturbing part of the video. As Khalil said, if the video had dogs instead of chicks there would be massive outrage, which is just the price of chickens being thought of as food.

    I have hunted deer, and see nothing wrong with eating meat, but I have always made an attempt to not cause the animal to suffer unduly. From this video I will not change my egg eating habits, and so will the majority of consumers. My mother always said about the deer meat we brought back, “I don’t wanna know anything about it.”

    But she still always ate the venison. People don’t “wanna know” how the meat got to their plate, but they will keep on eating it without a second thought.

  26. Daniel Staimpel says:

    The industry should have a different way of disposing the male chicks, because even though it seems a quick death, it looks grotesque. The image speaks for itself. But like a few of you have said, it is part of the industry. All food industries have problems, and if people knew about all the things that they did, people would have problems with all of them.
    But what else could the industry do? Is there a way they could humanely kill the males, which by itself seems like an oxymoron, because they are trying to humanely kill for profit. But if they let the males grow up, and the farmers didn’t make money, we would have a serious issue. Eggs are in what seems every product on the shelves. The price of everything would go up, and then people would have problems eating.
    The problem is do you treat chicks humanely, or make it harder for people to eat. It’s not a choice I want to make.

  27. Abigail Boyer says:

    I am so glad you gave us the chance to speak out on a controversial (and potentially emotional) issue, Professor Sledzik. Animal cruelty, especially in the meat industry, is a favorite issue of mine to debate. After subjecting myself to several dozen videos like this one, I made the decision to become a vegetarian when I was 14-years-old. I made it my duty to spread the word of the meat industry’s inhumanity, grossing out anyone who would listen. My stint lasted until my sophomore year in college, when a little too much Three Olives vodka led me to the worst craving for a Wendy’s chicken sandwich I’ve ever experienced. I found it a lot more difficult to stop eating meat the second time around, so I didn’t. I haven’t forgotten the horrors I saw though. Cheeseburgers still make me cringe on occasion, and I wish I had the will power to put down the McNuggets.

    You’re absolutely right when you say that no moral person defends animal cruelty, but the fact of the matter is that people define animal cruelty differently. As Andrea noted in her comment, a recent speaker in your class noted the importance of character and integrity in the field of public relations. If your character allows you to ignore the atrocities of an industrial slaughterhouse (or hatchery, in this case) and promote the company, then more power to you. But mine will not. Would I resign my job if I was I worked for a company that allowed those acts of animal cruelty to take place? I wouldn’t have a job to resign in the first place, because part of having integrity is not getting paid to stand up for things you don’t agree with.

    I understand that business is business, and I don’t expect hatcheries or slaughterhouses to change their practices anytime soon. It’s up to each and every PR professional to determine their own morals and decide whether they’ve got what it takes to advocate an atrocity for a paycheck.

  28. Michelle Warner says:

    I have seen other videos like this before when my vegetarian best friend tried to persuade me to become one. The issue is that people are in denial about how poorly animals are treated and where their meat comes from. I know this because I used to be in denial about it. I feel there are more humane ways to go about this process, even though it would increase food prices even more. Prices are already going up because of the middle east and I don’t think majority of the public would be too thrilled to see it go up even more. If more people started buying organic and cared about where their food came from, it may make a point to the slaughterhouses and hatcheries.

    The companies need to come up with better ways to dispose the male chicks. Khalil makes a great point questioning if society would be more infuriated if the chicks had been puppies. The public would definitely be more sensitive if they had been puppies.

    There are going to be things that the company you work for does that you don’t agree with. As Abigail said, I would have integrity and would not get paid to stand up for things I do not agree with. As Abigail also said, I don’t think hatcheries or slaughterhouses will change their inhumane ways anytime soon.

    Until people actually care about how their food gets on their plate, the industry will keep its process the same.

%d bloggers like this: