Burger King tests trans-fat free cooking, cruelty-free killing?

Two major news stories popped up this week, both concerning Burger King. The first might be laudable but the second seems to be a tempest contained in a very small teapot. Since neither of them signal an immediate change in the way his majesty will do things, we might consider them both to be press releases suggested by Sunday’s April Fool’s day holiday.

First, Reuters reported that Burger King Corp. has begun testing cooking oils free of trans-fats in its restaurants, with an eye toward a national roll-out by late 2008. (Editor’s note: I checked the calendar. The roll out date is a year-and-a-half away. Thanks for the advance warning.)

Bowing to the will of the Viceroys of New York City, the King said it will meet that cities’ more immediate July 1, 2007 requirement first before beginning the nation-wide roll out.
A recently passed New York City law requires restaurants to eliminate margarines and shortenings with more than trace amounts of trans fats by July 1. A year later, all menu items with more than a half-gram of trans fat per serving will become illegal (Editor’s note: also fattening and probably immoral, too).

Earlier this week, McDonald's said it had switched to frying oil free of trans-fats in more than 1,200 of its U.S. restaurants. (Editor’s note: Let’s play “Spit in the ocean.” McDonalds; has over 30,000 restaurants in 100 countries with almost half of them in North America.)

Last fall, Wendy's switched to an oil that gives its French fries and chicken less than a half-gram of trans fats, dropping from a range of 1.5 grams to 7 grams. Wendy's announced a long-term goal of zero grams.

John Schaufelberger, Burger KIng’s vice president of product marketing and innovation, said the chain has been working for more than two years to identify trans fat-free cooking oils. (Editor’s note: Slow research begets a slow roll out, I suppose.)

The second story – “Burger King Pledges Cage-Free Food” – was reported March 28 by the New York Times and quickly picked up by over 225 newspapers and magazines. NYT reporter Andrew Martin wrote “In what animal welfare advocates are describing as a ‘historic advance,’ Burger King, the world’s second-largest hamburger chain, said yesterday that it would begin buying eggs and pork from suppliers that did not confine their animals in cages and crates.”

Martin went on to say B.K. “would also favor suppliers of chickens that use gas, or ‘controlled-atmospheric stunning,’ rather than electric shocks to knock birds unconscious before slaughter.” It is considered a more humane method, though only a handful of slaughterhouses use it.

The announcement was made after considerable pressure was put on the company by the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA, in particular, had targeted BK with a controversial “Murder King” ad campaign that ended in 2001.

Burger King’s goal is for 2% of its eggs to be “cage free,” and 10% of its pork to come from farms that allow sows to move around inside pens, rather than being confined to crates. (Editor’s note: That’s good news for my friends at Smithfield who had previously announced they would phase out things like gestation crates for their hogs, a project they claimed would take a decade to complete.)

Temple Grandin, of Colorado State University and the leading expert on animal handling, said Smithfield’s decision had roiled the pork industry. Their decision, however, was a result of pressure from major customers like McDonald’s. Mickey D, of course, was reacting to pressure applied by animal welfare activists.

“When the big boys move, it makes the entire industry move,” said Grandin in the NYT article. She serves on the animal welfare task forces for several food companies, including McDonald’s and Burger King. She famously resigned from a KFC board a few years ago when she felt her suggestions for more humane handling of poultry were being ignored.

Bob Goldin, executive vice president of Technomic, a food industry research and consulting firm, explained the B.K. announcement was a result of a growing social consciousness among many consumers. “I think that the industry is going to see that it’s an increasing imperative to get on that (social consciousness) bandwagon.”

But Rosemary Mucklow, Director Emeritus of the National Meat Association, quickly pointed out that it’s a bandwagon that most meat processors were on long ago. “While Burger King’s move to support animal well being is undeniably laudable, it’s important to remember that standards for animal handling, housing and transportation are established as a matter of law in this country and the vast majority of meat companies are meeting or exceeding those laws.”

“This may not be the story of animal rights activists’ attack ads, but it is nevertheless the truth, verified by daily government inspection, as well as routine animal handling audits by customers. For both practical and ethical reasons, the meat industry is committed to the welfare of its livestock.”

After reading the NYT article, Janet Riley, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs and Professional Development for the American Meat Institute, said, “I’ve watched animal welfare for 16 years and seen it emerge and evolve. We are breaking an attendance record this year at our Animal Care and Handling Conference, which is testament to how big this issue has become for our industry.”

Riley, in fact, was in Kansas City preparing for the Annual Animal Care and Handling Conference when I reached her for comments on this story. A dozen trade associations covering food marketing, restaurants, beef, pork, and supermarkets co-sponsor this major event.

Trying to put some context to the complicated issue of animal welfare and its impact on the consumer, Riley said, “I’ve looked at a lot of polling data and what I see time and again is the animal welfare is not a purchasing driver for most consumers. But it is a potential derailer. Unaided, consumers generally don’t express concerns about welfare. But when the issue is raised, they do express concerns and say it is important to them.”

Suggesting that an important driver behind this and similar corporate decisions was brand development, she said, “As meat companies and others companies invest more in brands, they become increasingly concerned about things that can negatively impact the brand.”

And sounding a cautionary note about the agendas behind many animal welfare activists, she said, “Every company has the right to make decisions that they believe are best for their businesses and their customers. One thing I’ve learned, though, is when it comes to welfare, you can have various systems managed well or managed poorly. AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) recently looked at various pig production methods and concluded just that. Companies will make choices based upon what they believe is best. But animal welfare is not a black and white issue and I’m concerned that some activists want to make it so by seeking to cast various companies as either good or bad. It’s just not that simple.”

Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, perhaps underlining Riley’s concern about over simplifying the issue, said the Burger King announcement was “an important trigger for reform throughout the entire industry.”

The announcement is the latest in a series of successes for activists, allowing them to move away from the fringes of American politics and closer to the mainstream.