Since we launched the campaign three weeks ago to get KFC to cut deforestation out of its supply chain, there is little evidence that the Colonel is serious about cleaning up his act. The company continues to deny it has a problem, so we think the time has come to show you just how misleading KFC’s public statement is.
On KFC UK’s Facebook page, it has repeatedly stated the following:
“As we have said all along to anyone voicing the same concerns as you about KFC packaging, here in the UK and Ireland, 100% is either recycled or from certified sustainable sources.”
All well and good in theory, but it doesn’t explain how independent fibre testing of KFC packaging in 2011 and 2012 repeatedly found the presence of mixed tropical hardwood (MTH), a technical term for trees grown in tropical rainforests. Ten out of 13 boxes tested contained MTH. Here’s a copy of the test results for KFC’s Steetwise Lunch Box:
You can clearly see that 62% of the hardwood component of the packaging was MTH. Also note the high levels of acacia – it's one of the main trees that APP grows on land once it has been cleared of natural forest. KFC still havsn’t been able to explain how its packaging can be sustainable when it contains rainforest fibre.
KFC also claimed that:
“None of our suppliers source from APP, the company mentioned by Greenpeace”.
This statement is simply untrue. Greenpeace’s investigation has shown that KFC and one of its suppliers have been using APP paper. The KFC packaging is supplied by St Neots Packaging in Cambridgeshire, and is sourced via APP’s UK sales office, Calington. The paper is actually manufactured at APP’s Indah Kiat Serang mill in Indonesia, which uses pulp made from Indonesian rainforests.
KFC is either not aware of where its suppliers are buying their paper from, or simply doesn’t have the systems in place to check what is really going on. So, which is it KFC and what are you going to do about it?
And finally:
“From a global perspective, 60% of the paper products that Yum! (our parent company) sources are from sustainable sources. Our suppliers are working towards making it 100%.”
Well, there are two major problems here. Firstly, Yum doesn’t make any attempt to define sustainable and seem to be expecting you to take its word for it. Secondly, this statement does beg a rather obvious question. If 60% is sustainable, what does that say about the other 40%?
So these are the reasons why KFC’s response is really not worth the paper it’s written on.
KFC, isn’t it time to be a little more honest about what’s really happening? Isn't it time to tell the public whether you will cut APP and deforestation out of your supply chain once and for all?
