Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
Are people so angry that they are willfully ignoring the information readily available in the quotes provided?
Earls worked with AB beef suppliers but were not able to meet the demands for humane beef. They chose to use a single supplier that could meet all their needs. They have now caved, but will continue to use that hip title on their menus. The decision to drop AB beef was so obviously about using a single supplier of humane beef it takes some serious willful ignorance to not see it. They did not anticipate backlash. They will now, probably at a higher cost and more complicated logistics, use humane AB beef in Alberta (or Canada).
I'm not sure how they will meet their beef demands if it wasn't possible before.
This would be really easy if it turned out that Earls never pursued humane beef in alberta, but they did, or if they went back to non-humane AB beef, but they didn't.
|
Earls' concern wasn't the inability to find enough producers that could provide "humane beef". Their excuse was that they couldn't find a producer that could provide "Certified Humane®" beef. Much like Polak did yesterday, you are making an incredibly questionable assertion that the American lobby's paid trademark inherently makes something better or more humane.
They should meet their demands pretty easily, because they now realize that the "Certified Humane®" trademark is meaningless. All they need to do is
claim that the Canadian farms they source from are responsible and meet Earls' corporate beliefs for ethical treatment. In short, the same thing they could have done originally.