Did KFC's name change because it no longer uses real chicken?

I’m a new Doper, so forgive me if this subject has been broached before. Several months ago I read an e-mail from a coworker that said KFC can’t legally be called Kentucky Fried Chicken because the meat is no longer considered chicken.

In fact, goes this theory, KFC is using meat from genetically altered chickens, which don’t quite look like your normal clucker.

Now, I don’t believe this, nor do I believe any wild tale unless it’s proved to me or trusted individuals tell me it’s true. Has anybody here heard this urban legend? Who started it? Popeye’s? Hardee’s? A genetically altered chicken?

KFC hopes to avoid the negative connotations of the word “fried”, given 70% or so of the calories of KFC come from fat. I am sure whoever stared this rumour meant it as a joke. I am saddened by the fact I know so many people who take this sort of thing at face value. You would have heard about it by now if the rumour was true; look at Taco Bell. Besides, if it was true the pieces they gave you would be a lot bigger, no?

Get to know your Snopes. :slight_smile:

In a word: NO.

Touché, Duckie :smiley:

Actually, the real reason is because they don’t want to pay the state of Kentucky to use its name.

Check out http://www.snopes.com

Or do a Cecil Search. He has addressed this before.

Welcome to the Straight Dope!

C’mon guys, I can’t type any faster. Damn.
::stomps off::

Funny: here in Florida there is another franchise restaurant called “Maryland Fried Chicken”. “Fried” is in big letters and evidently the state of Maryland does not have a copyright on its name.
Just sharing.

I didn’t know about Snopes. Great site. Thanks.

By the by, I didn’t see anything in the Snopes Web site to indicate the KFC name change was due to the state of Kentucky’s claim on its name. So, I don’t know where that explanation came from.

Just for the record, if KFC were chemically altering their food, they did it right! I’m a big fan of their original recipe chicken.

Man, I just reread the snopes article and they make no mention of the commonwealth of Kentucky copyright thing.

I know I didn’t (up the butt, Bob) imagine reading it. Am I mixing up my UL’s?

Somebody help me. I need caffeine.

the kentucky copyright thing on snopes was a joke, nothing more.



A joke? From the snopes page you linked to:

“. . . but the real reason behind the shift to KFC had nothing to do with healthy food or finicky consumers: it was about money – money that Kentucky Fried Chicken would have had to pay to continue using their original name. In 1990, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, mired in debt, took the unusual step of trademarking their name. Henceforth, anyone using the word “Kentucky” for business reasons – inside or outside of the state – would have to obtain permission and pay licensing fees to the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”

It seems Snopes has two links with different answers to the reasons KFC changed its name. One doesn’t refer to Kentucky’s copyright, and the other says that’s the very reason for KFC’s name change. Interesting.

And in the Bronx there is at least one “Kennedy Fried Chicken”, as if you won’t notice the difference. :slight_smile: Not sure if the Kennedy family is reading any benefits.

Sorry, reaping. Preview doesn’t actually fix the mistakes for you, g.

a joke.


note the title. the return of the lost legend.


An esteemed radical feminist (whose name, I unfortunately do not remember) appeared on the ever-insightful “Roseanne” program a year or so ago, and she said that in the near-future, chickens would indeed be “raised” at “pharms,” places where headless “chickenoids” (my word) would be maintained on life-support systems (sorta like in The Matrix).

also note at the bottom

‘this page is a parody’

hmmmmm…whatever could it mean scooby?

another clue, as it might be necessary. from the bottom of the page:

Note: This page is a parody.