As a man I like the ad's.

One of many advantages that women have is their physical attributes.  Besides I am sure that those women made a mint to do the layouts and the video.

An ad has got to be pretty g*d* sexist to get rejected for the Superbowl. Nor is this the first time they've been criticized for sexist or racist advertising. In fact, up on their website right this minute is a quiz entitled "Learn your ABC's with PETA's sexy striptease," along with a woman in a schoolgirl uniform getting stripped down, or not.

http://www.peta.org/feat/abc-striptease/quiz.asp

This is the message you get if you get a question wrong:

"I'm disappointed in you. In fact, I have half a mind to start putting my clothes back on!"

The audio porn track is beyond me at this moment to describe.

They're an odiously crass organization who gleefully use highly sexualized images of conventionally attractive white women being abused to advance their cause. It's the main reason why no one who's serious about politics will have anything to do with them.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/28/those-maligned-peta-ads/ 

http://www.msmagazine.com/aug00/wildpussy.asp 

That ad made me laugh. It was very unexpected. 

Sorry for double post, but what about the commercial for the 100 Calorie Oreo Cakesters? I found that to be hilarious and the fact that they showed only women going berserk made me think that it was targetted for women mainly. Maybe this ad is also targetting women and make men laugh in the process?

I can understand why they produced this ad. They're attempting to compete with every other conventional commercial that uses women's bodies to sell their products. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," is their attitude, I'm assuming. I disagree with this approach but I'm not necessarily enraged about the ad. It wasn't as explicit as I expected it to be, and the "Vegetarians Have Better Sex" message is something I'd definitely wear on a T-shirt, haha. PETA could have employed that same message and simultaneously avoided using women the way they did, and that is what disappoints me the most. Also, the Superbowl has some serious b*lls rejecting this ad when we have all seen them air way worse. I believe they were quicker to reject this ad because it's PETA, not because it's sexist.

Here here!  It's not ok to exploit animals by reducing them to their body parts but it's ok for women?  As a progressive group, I expect more from PETA than the Budweisereque crap that we see every Superbowl.  I beleive you're more creative than that.

Haha, I'm with Jae, it's actually more funny than it is seductive. Obviously it got rejected for its explicity.
But-yeah, it's ironic how they are using "meat" to sell vegetables.
If this wasn't their intention, all they have to do is add a man into the ad. Then it'd be apealing to all sexes :).

jen, as a guy who is not an asshole, it’s good have this opportunity to discuss this intersection of two causes i believe deeply in.

1) “please, it is time to stop selling women's bodies in order to sell your message.” 

in your grammatical objectification of “women’s bodies”, there is an implication of a prostitute-like victimhood, which i think is inaccurate. women partake in peta's sex-appeal outreach not because they need the money, but because they really care about animal rights, and they believe that ads like this are a reliable way to shine light on disturbing and inconvenient truths regarding the way we treat animals.

female activists would embrace sex-appeal outreach with or without peta’s involvement. in fact i can attest to this from personal experience: one day when i was demonstrating in support of california's proposition 2 at a busy intersection, a woman who i'd never met came up to me, took off her shirt, and said "this should help!" (lamentable or not, more people did see my sign during the half hour she was with me.) it was a hot day anyway, so she didn’t really seem out of place. but this raises an important point: correct me if i'm wrong, but you would think nothing of this woman’s sports bra if she were merely out jogging.

then exposure itself is not the problem, but intention. by capitalizing on her physical attractiveness to help animals, was my partner-in-activism dehumanizing herself and her fellow women? i think that’s a questionable claim to make, because

A) obviously, the fact that an attractive woman gets a man’s attention doesn’t necessarily make the man a sexist.

B) if a man does look at her as a “piece of meat,” he’ll look at her this way anytime she’s exposing her body, pretty much regardless of her intention. when she’s out jogging she’s just as likely to cross the gaze of such a person.

and it is these genuine sexists who bother me, not the pragmatic animal rights activists who speaks to them in the only language they understand.

given the statistical overlap between people who are violent towards women and people who are violent towards animals (http://www.peta.org.uk/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=172), it seems to me that women’s rights and animal rights activists have uniquely concordant goals.  


2) “they also exploited the vulnerabilities of homeless people to make a statement at this year's inaugural events.” 

how was that exploitative? they provided warm clothing to homeless people on a cold day, while raising awareness about the extremely cruel practices of the fur industry. you know, if peta had instead discarded the fur coats and argued that it’s wrong for any human to benefit from the genital electrocution of a mink, i suspect that you’d make just the same criticism: that they are anti-homeless misanthropes.  

i actually think their efforts on inauguration day exemplify the sort of trans-cause thinking we need more of nowadays.

I thought the ad was somewhat humerous in its intent. Its a shame Peta has to lower itself to those levels to get a point across, but then again media these days is like that, that's one of the only ways people pay attention to ads, so I can understand why they would do that. Still doesn't make it right. It confuses me that NBC would reject it because i see ads selling sex on their channel all the time...

As an animal liberation activist myself, I find it annoying how much PETA objectifies women for their cause. My main issue is that it makes it seem like the cause can't sell itself so they have to use sex to do it. It makes the cause look weak, which it most definitely is not.

I am not really against sex, I am definitely against censorship, but PETA is always objectifying women. If there were an image of two healthy good looking people, one man and one woman, standing together naked to promote veganism, I would not think twice about supporting it. But, there is so much objectification of women in PETA's campaigns that it makes me wonder if they are even thinking about all of the other human rights issues in the world that are directly connected to other animal rights issues.
If we don't include all of them, things won't work. So now you can all be assured that most often, animal rights activists are not PETA activists. We are different.

Animal Liberation=Human Liberation.

Just to point out that PETA is not always objectifying women.

Take a look at this ad
http://www.furisdead.com/pdfs/ad-davidcross.pdf

or this one
http://www.peta.org/feat/pinup/page/boss-big.jpg

I am against governmental censorship of sex, but that still doesn't make it all right in my book. Indran, your argument is interesting, but I still don't agree. Men need to find something better to do with their time than drool over women's breasts. Seriously. Condoning any kind of compulsive behavior like that cannot help the cause because compulsive behaviors, I find, are mutually reinforcing... eating is a compulsive behavior for so many people. So if they want to get people to stop mindlessly eating their fellow animals, this is not the way to do it. I also think that the Superbowl might be as unhealthy of a family activity as the occasional observance of objectified sex, but that's another story.

Though vegan and a major support of animal liberation, I do not really support PETA. I hate seeing all the sexed up women on their front page. "Are you the sexiest vegetarian next door? Ladies, send us your photograph!" Ugh. Among other things. Loredana, the picture of that "furry" guy somehow doesn't look half as sexualized as the photos of their women usually are. He's just there showing his own "fur," which I actually find compelling. But those women are... sucking on things and looking deliberately seductive.

I really wish PETA would disappear to be replaced by something better, but that's no more likely than the replacement of animal slavery with something better.

From someone whose been a feminist for over 7 years...

While I absolutely agree with the general sentiment here regarding PETA, these ads do more harm than good--to women and animals-- I would like to point out that I feel the reason attention is being brought to this particular ad (or any ads by PETA) has more to do with the general negative attitude (and defensiveness) of non-AR folks towards the AR movement than the content of the ad. If not, where is the scathing attack on Hardee's and 75% of the other ads on TV or in print that use scantily clad women to sell? (Just to be clear, there is no science behind my 75% citation, just atmospherically derived, but I can't imagine anyone will argue.)

It's unfortunate that ads like this only give defensive meat eaters more ammunition to paint the AR movement with broad "fanatic" strokes.

However, to play devil's advocate, sans the stunts, PETA can be an effective organization when they set their sites on a designer with a propensity for fur, etc. How many eyes have been opened by their undercover investigations in slaughterhouses? Would these activities be possible without the funds generated by being such a well known organization? And I'm pretty certain without these stunts, they wouldn't be such a well know organization.  How many people outside of the movement has hear of FARM?

Hopefully, a day will come when newbies to the movement or vegetarianism will turn to say, the animal rights blog at Change.org, rather than PETA or HSUS to begin their journey (to full fledged fanaticism-ha).

PETA also recently tried to exploit autistic people: http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=35

Well, I'm just swinging by quickly, but was interested in the autism thing.  I'm not going to make a judgement on the ad, since PETA's ads seem to raise ire among various groups.  But I Googled to see if there is any connection between milk & autism since I know so little about autism.  Here are a couple of things that I found:

http://www.autismweb.com/diet.htm

http://www.autismtoday.com/node/127

"Just like the animals you want to protect, we are more than just a piece of 'meat.'"

Great sentiment and great post! In general, I find PETA to be fanatical to the point of ignoring the greater good. They readily exploit women, pets, the homeless, etc. for an extreme goal. I'm a vegetarian and an immense animal lover, I agree with their basic mission, but I often feel their tactics are in poor taste.

And if fellow activists feel this way, how do you think that ad would have gone over with the Super Bowl crowd?

Quote: "as someone who was vegetarian for 7 years"

Jen, you have NOTHING to say as someone who perpetuates animal suffering.

I would love to be in a SEXY Peta Ad. Lighten up folks, sexy is fun.

Thanks for the clarification Stephanie. Anyone here interested in this topic should definitely check out Stephanie's blog about Anima Rights - http://animalrights.change.org/ - she does great work there and has amazing insights.
Additionally for your clarification, the straw that broke the camel's back for me as a vegetarian was living in South America. While Bolivia was surprisingly friendly to vegetarians, the rest of the continent is pretty much certain about their commitment to meat. 
I also don't find DC or the East Coast vegetarian friendly at all, but that's probably because I was spoiled after living in California for most of my life.
Still, I will always be a champion of eating vegetables and continue to piss off friends who have the strangest obsession with bacon :)

I have to admit, I find this more disturbing because of PETA's involvement. If it had been a better animal rights organization, one that actually walks the walk, I may have been more forgiving of the exploitation. But I cannot support any non-profit that works towards animal rights and has the resources for national no-kill facilities yet still euthanizes 85% of the animals it takes in. That is ethical rescue? That is aninaml rights? I may believe in the cause they put on paper, but I do not agree with their actions.

However, what I find extremely disturbing about this ad is that it ties eliminating certain foods to having a sexy body. I am a vegetarian for moral reasons, but as a recovering anorexic I have to admit it's not necessarily a healthy lifestyle for me. It allows me to restrict my diet even when I try to eat normally. But I find the eating meat so disgusting that I will push aside my mental and physical health concerns to stand by that principle.

Still, what does this ad say about people who are vegeatrians? They are skinny and sexy. And that is enough of a seed for young girls starting to struggle with their body image. This ad in no way relates vegetarianism to animal rights, but it does relate a specific diet to the thin ideal. If those struggling girls, or even grown women, turn to vegetarianism because of this ad, it won't be out of moral obligation. It will be to look like a lingerie model. And if even one person takes this as a jumping off point or encouragement on her path to an eating disorder, I think it would be a true tragedy.

well, we've fallen into Peta's trap.  They now get to run this salacious, unfeminist ad for free.   It should have been allowed to run on the Superbowl because that would have bankrupted them in 30 seconds and proven to women everywhere that they need to be anorexic and naked to be valued by Peta.  
To me it's Peta versus women's dignity.They obviously value their bunnies more than their women.  

"It is still unknown whether PETA actually has the funds to pay for a Superbowl spot and in labeling their ad as "banned" it seems that they are only trying to garner more publicity."

Bingo! And it's all free.

PETA's calling one right outta the Crispin Porter & Bogusky playbook of elevating a brand to rock star/celebrity status. Look at us all talking about this ad, and blogging about it and visiting their web site. PETA, PETA, PETA. How many times can we all say it??

It'll be interesting to see next year how many ad agencies use this tactic and *try* to have ads rejected. I'd expect to be seeing more of this type of imagery, not less.

I agree that this ad is sexist and disgusting. I am appauled that PETA would produce the ads exposed here. I see no value in an organization that exploits people to protect animals. Thats crazy.

PETA is apparently going after the testosterone market for the SB. Are they expecting fans to contribute to PETA because of their sexy ads?   Some pipedream.

Change also means retraining men to reject sexist conditioning.

I've been in advertising and communications for 25 years... a number of years ago PETA ran an add showcasing a slinky long haired feline temptress making woopie all day long while her unsuspecting owner was out at work.

I LOVED IT!!!!!!!!! classic example of "sex sells" and in the right context gets the point across - without offending the more senstive amongst us. The push of the add was to get people to spay and neuter... were that add in one of the design competitions I've judged I would have fought tooth and nail to get it to the top. I was *good* advertising in every sense of the word.

As a communicator I look at this add and have to think to draw the connection, not just a little... but a lot. I went in knowing it was a PETA commercial and saw nothing that would bring the two together until such time as they displayed their logo.

Laughably in the straight line world of advertising communications any viewer would trundle along thinking it was a sexy add for vegetarianizm... then for 2 seconds have to injest the PETA logo then make the connection between the ad content and PETA... all the while being distracted by the next commercial or the SuperBowl.

I like to see consumers of advertising being treated intelligently and encourage that they be positively encourage to think. But this commercial *SO* missed the mark on so many levels I'd be pounding the keyboard for hours.

It's a bad concept.

Now having said that it's caused a real stink with feminists and vegetarians. I'm neither and it's advisable not to bring the either topic up around me with the idea that I might change my ways... but I digress because ladies and gentlemen:

In causing a stink PETA has us talking and thinking about exactly what they want: to get us to spay and neuter our animals.

So it's an ugly win but PETA has accomplished what they set out to do they have done it very successfully indeed by irritating a sometimes hyper-reactive and hyper-vigilent faction of society.

Do I approve. No not really. But I commend them for getting straight to the goal of getting us talking.

To me, it is disgusting that you would run a commercial that was rejected, correctly, by a national tv network.  What makes you think that it was proper to show it in this veneue?  I'm disgusted.  As far as PETA, they are a bunch of semi-intelligent people who do idiotic things such as setting minks free (a violation of law) who set off and broke into a chicken coop and ate or destroyed each and every chicken.   I've tried to be a vegetarian; I've even tried to be a vegan.  At a hospital at which I told them I was a vegetarian, they brought me TURKEY.  I was told that "some vegetarians eat turkey."  If a hospital can't get it right...
I'm 68 and am disgusted by seeing sexy women selling everything from cars to games to this crap.  I EAT meat, I am NOT meat.

I see that a lot of the "dudes" are weighing in to express their support for the ad.   Two things:

1.  Many have made the blanket claim that "sex sells".  I suppose that is true if you think "sex" = "women performing for straight males."   And that is the very definition of privilege.  If you have a more inclusive and expansive definition of sex, then it's easy to see how narrow and one-sided the constant use of women's bodies as sexual symbols is. 

2.  Many of you are claiming the ad is effective, because of it's edginess and shock value.  Really?  PETA has been doing these sexist stunts for years and yet I hadn't noticed an uptick in veganism, particularly not among straight men. 

But then I don't think PETA really concerns itself with an effective message.  It's pretty obvious that they are not concerned in the least with the fact that they are alienating feminists, who otherwise might be natural allies in their cause.  No, Ingrid Newkirk will continue to take money from PETA members and spend millions on offensive crap like this. 

If there was a sexy man or two in the ad, you'd all be singing a different tune.  But I agree, PETA does go too far with the objectification of women and use of shock value. 
As to Beverly who wrote: " I EAT meat, I am NOT meat.", yes you are.  You are exactly the same as those animals you eat.  Just because you can overpower or outsmart a weaker animal, doesn't mean you are not an animal yourself.  Think about it.

Stephanie Ernst makes a good point above: Why is it that good, wholesome vegan education and animal rights consciousness-raising mostly gets ignored, but as soon as sexist trash is promoted, everyone notices?Personally, I despise PETA’s sexist tactics, but I equally despise the stonewalling and opposition that the veganism and animal rights gets from the same exact people who speak out against sexism.  NEWS FLASH:  They are merely different forms of THE SAME PROBLEM, people!  We exploit, torture, and kill animals because they taste good.  Men exploit, oppress, and abuse women because it gives them pleasure or satisfies their feelings of inadequacy.  Both are wrong.PETA needs to cut out the sexist crap and feminists need to cut out the speciesist crap and go vegan.  The underlying substance of both is an innocent “Other” who is exploited in a might-makes-right mentality.The following are two essays I wrote that are germane to this topic:On trivializing the causes of others:http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007/10/on-trivializing-causes-of-other-groups.htmlOn the strengths and limitations of alliance politics:http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-strengths-and-limitations-of.html 

This again proves my theory that for all its openness, America is one of the most puritanical nations on earth.  I don't think the protests against PETA's use of sex in ads have as much to do with outraged feminism as with a general discomfort about sex. IMO (and although I have other problems with this group), PETA is doing things exactly right as far as its sexy ads and protests go:  it's drawing attention to issues that would ordinarily be ignored.  And hey, PETA has also used sexy male bodies in its ads.  So what?  We're sexual creatures.  It's nothing for feminists to be ashamed of!

Ardeth,

It has nothing to do with sex, per se, or ‘purity’.  It has everything to do with exploitation and oppression.  Both women and nonhuman beings are looked upon as objects – purely as means to others’ ends.  It is the same mentality that leads to abuse and disrespect of the ‘object’ in question.  Women are regularly beaten and abused as a result of this mentality.  Nonhuman beings (chickens, cows, pigs, and others) are exploited, tortured, and killed by the billions because of this mentality.

We need to wake up and notice the consequences of our attitudes, beliefs, and actions and stop the prejudice and abuse against both women and nonhumans.

As a compassionate carnivore and advocate of womens rights all I have to say is when food gets real scarce it will be the vegetarians I will eat first. As far as PETA is concerned they do more harm than good. They need to tone down the rhetoric, their opinions are no more valid than those of us who eat meat and are vigorous and healthy.Besides who is speaking out for the plants and their horrific genetic manipulations and mechanical death on food factory farms?
Women, keep your eye on the prize, an equal chance at opportunity and success. This bit of PETA manipulation is as blindly superficial as PETA itself. The ads were NOT sexy, in fact I found it rediculous.
JF

James,

Are you also a "compassionate woman beater"?

Some qualifiers and adjectives simply make no sense.  "Compassionate carnivore" is one that doesn't make sense.  Here is more on that:

http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/06/compassionate-carnivore.html

They shoulda put hot fuckin dudes in the ads with the women. Sex is fun. Vegans are fun.

But they DIDN'T put dudes in the ad with the women.   Women are still the official sex class.  The fact that people are continuing to equate "that which arouses straight men" with "sex" proves my point.  To go through life, as most straight guys do, with the entire establishment set up to cater to your sexual desires is pretty much the definition of privilege.  And when you accuse people of being puritans because they object to the current hetero male-centric definition of "sex", what you are really doing is upholding the status quo.  You're actually being the conservative one. 

These women are not being used to sell something specifically to men. They are not draped over a pickup truck. They are not clinging to beers, or rifles.
They do not appear to be waiting for a man to appear to make them fulfilled or validated. In fact, they appear to be the opposite.
 
If I fantasize about some physically attractive person, does that mean I'm exploiting that person? Poor Casey Affleck. I've exploited the heck outta him.

Of course women are treated poorly by the hundreds of thousands, most of them oppressed and kept from expressing their sexuality in a natural or healthy way, whether forced to cover their bodies, or through mutilation, etc. When women are denied their humanity, it is an awful thing. Usually, the men who treat women cruelly and unfairly are men who want to control the sexuality of the woman. 
 
Vegetarians are sexy. Puritannical America teaches us that it's okay to kill and eat dead animals, and that a woman should behave herself, or she'll be punished.
I say nuts to that.

Donna - you are so right. it would be so much better if we sexualized each other equally. i know all women are nuns and shit rose petals because i'm an ex-catholic and no woman in her right mind would ever sexualize a man. i just personally want more men sexualized as a general rule for the world - Also if PETA had used men as well in their ads the price of cucumbers and zucchini would skyrocket creating more jobs and fixing this darned economy.

There are 3 things that make sense about this ad:
1. Men are the primary sex watching the superbowl 
2. Men are statistically less likely to be a vegetarian and what better way to get them to eat more vegetables and less meat 3. Those models had a choice not to do the commercial.

the video is ridiculous xD  ...it's not "sexy"!!

well, there's a lot of ways to get attention...but everything you do is not alright because you get attention from it :/ 

...I would suggest something; why not have guys "dressed as girls", just look at visual kei videos on YouTube and see the response, that would be shocking! :P  ...it could be some exploitation of the guys though =/

btw. I been vegetarian for more than 11 years and we don't have(what I know) Peta in Sweden :)  I was actually seriously shocked when I got to know about their sexist tactics =O

As a very sexual woman, I do not and have never objected to sexual images of women in the media. I just think it's disappointing how male-gaze it all is, how hetero-centric it all is - what about intergendered people, men, lesbians? Don't they get to be sexy on television too?

And this is hardly the only reason out there to be uncomfortable with PETA.

I will leave the question of whether or not these ads are sexist for women to debate.  I haven't seen any men in any of these campaigns.  However, it is clear that People Exploiting Titilating Animals are far more in the business of selling sex these days than serving the causes they claim to support.  They use their $30M annual budget for titillation and shock value to raise more funds to do more of the same.
I just wish people would save their charitable dollars for animal welfare organizations that do actual work for animals.

"James,

Carnivores kill their prey with their own teeth and claws.  You are too slow, weak, and dull to kill the way a carnivore does.  You are much closer to an herbivore than even an omnivore and light-years away from a being carnivore.

Your dramatic 'offense' to my rhetorical question of whether you're a compassionate woman beater shows that your speciesism (which is merely a different form of the same prejudice as sexism) is looming large.  Also, why so defensive, do you beat women?

Compassion is not a word with which I would describe your intentional killing of the innocent, James.  "Indifferent" fits pretty well."

Ignorance becomes you! As well as winning the darwin award for lacking survival traits! Again you show how little you know assuming I kill with weapons larger than a knife or kill while inflicting pain. The last large animal I killed was an elk which was crippled by a foot wound I ran it down and ended it's pain with a quick slit to the throat. I snare rabbits and cruely hook fish. No my ignorant urbanite I can and have run my prey down and killed it with my own hands I assure you I am fully a carnivore. I also am among the lone voices advocating for the forest animals who ARE being hunted with cruelty.Not by those relying on the food but by timber corporations which poison horribly thousands of rodents and deer every year on private timber land. I doubt someone as ignorant of rural living would have even heard of the situation. And I am not speciesist about it they are killing us forest dwellers also. Come out where death is everyday if your delicate sensibilities can stomach it and I will give you a hard lesson in the reality of just where the true cruelty lies as you watch a hairless and poisoned deer stagger to water and die. Then talk about cruelty to me.
JF
PS we have contacted PETA about what is happening in the forests of the PNW for their help in raising awareness but it would conflict with some of their big donations.Bunch of media whores is all they are followed by sheeple. It is genocide in the forests but who cares except those of us who live it?
JF

Sex sells. PETA has taken a lot of flack from feminists from within the animal rights movement for some of its tactics, like its use of supermodels and the "We'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign. However, most of what PETA does (protecting and rescuing animals; sending letters and petitions to the heads of corporations; promoting veganism as a crucial part of a nonviolent philosophy, i.e., a cruelty-free lifestyle, etc.) wouldn't get attention. The media thrives on sex and sensationalism--not balanced debate on serious moral issues.

In her 1991 book, The Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol J. Adams notes that throughout human history, beginning with the hunter-gatherer tribes, meat has been associated with male violence and masculinity, people with power, the aristocracy, etc.

Meat is associated with male virility, whereas vegetable and nonmeat foods are viewed as women’s food. "Meat is a symbol of patriarchy" writes Adams bluntly. She cites a fictional illustration from Mary McCarthy’s Birds of America. Miss Scott, a vegetarian, is invited to a NATO general’s house for Thanksgiving. Her refusal of turkey angers the general.

According to Adams, "Male belligerence in this area is not limited to fictional military men. Men who batter women have often used the absence of meat as a pretext for violence against women."

Adams compares "The Rape of Animals" to "the Butchering of Women," as well as "Sexual Violence and Meat Eating." She quotes the organizer of a "Bunny Bop" in which rabbits are killed by clubs, feet, stones, etc. as saying, "What would all these rabbit hunters be doing if they weren’t letting off all this steam? I’ll tell you what they'd be doing. They’d be drinking and carousing and beating their wives."

The Feminists for Animal Rights newsletter (Vol. VI, Nos. 1-2, 1991) cites EarthSave as stating that taxpayer subsidies to the livestock industry in California for 1991 totaled $24 million, while the yearly budget for child welfare was only $125,000.

The ad got them exactly what they wanted; free media attention.  peta never would have paid the million dollar fee to actually air the ad during the Superbowl.

peta (people killing treatable animals)

peta doesn't give a rip about animals.  That is called animal welfare and is not what peta does.  What peta does is kill animals; they kill over 90% of the animals unfortunate enough to end up in their "care".  They killed 97% in 2006.  This is FACT.  The goal of peta and their less kooky but equally radical twin HSUS (humane society of the united state, which is not affiliated with any local Humane Society) is to end all purposeful use and breeding of animals.  No meat, milk, eggs, wool or leather.  No service dogs.  No search and rescue dogs.  No bomb sniffing, drug sniffing, cadaver sniffing dogs.  No family pets.  They want to break the human/animal bond.  They want to force American to be vegan.  peta is not about animal welfare.  peta is about power.

peta quote: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy".   peta compares the mental competence of animals to that of a retarded human.  peta president Ingrid Newkirk is against all animal research, yet takes insulin.  Where does she think insulin comes from?  Google her name plus "will" and see for yourself how bizarre she is.  

And you're shocked at this ad? 

Disclaimer: I am a man.

I thought feminism was for equality between the sexes. Instead I find this article of Catholic Chuch-style anti-sex propaganda. Unless you have some proof that the women in the adds were forced to do something they were uncomfortable with I do not see a problem with sexual images.

Sex is natural. Men sexualize the female image and (to a lesser degree) women sexualize the male image. See advertisment, movies, music, television, comics, sports, literature, and art to name a few sorces.

I am all for the branch of feminism that works to ensure equality between men and women. I am so happy that Obama signed in the Ledbetter Fair Pay law. However, I detest the strand of feminism that looks at a female showing off her female parts of her own free will and claims that it is sexist "sexualizing of women." (Although I am against magazines photoshoping the covers to give unrealistic portrails of women.)

Women are naturally sexualized. That is the difference between women and girls much as it is the difference between boys and men. Puberty = sexualization. I see sex as one of the most natural and basic of all urges and I see freedom of expression as one of the most essential American rights. Go against either and you lose my support.

I agree with the sentiment of Jen's letter and as a pretty hard-core animal rights advocate AND feminist, I have always been uncomfortable with PETA's use of women as sex objects to further the liberation of animals. It would be interesting to know where the animal rights movement would be without media sensationalism and in particular the use of sexuality and objectification to 'sell' their ideas. I'm sure there are other members who'd have more information on that than I do. Regardless, as movements grow and evolve, I think it's really important to hold ourselves to the same standards we'd hold other movements. If feminists were abusing animals to get their point across, I'm sure animal rights activists would have an issue with that. And if PETA were using pornographic images of children to promote vegetarianism, I think EVERYONE would have issues with that. Whether a child, a grown woman, a black person, a baboon, or a cow, I believe we all have intrinsic value and the right to be respected and free of exploitation and suffering. One could argue that the women in these ads have a voice and a choice, unlike the millions of animals who may be spared a lifetime of extreme suffering if PETA 'stoops' to the level of using 'sex' (or rather, using 'women') to sell vegetarianism and it works. I can see some validity in that argument. I can also see validity in the argument that the means by which we strive to achieve goals of liberation, non-violence, compassion and justice should themselves be based on principles of compassion and justice. How can the exploitation of a few women be justified as a means to liberating millions of animals without the very same type of utilitarian argument that is used to justify (usually falsely, but nonetheless) animal experimentation?

The over sexualization of women in our culture is a deeply rooted issue that effects men and women alike. I don't really have any stats to back this up, and I'm not saying this applies to the models in this proposed Superbowl add, but I believe it's true that there is a very HIGH incidence of a history of sexual abuse/trauma amongst women in the business of selling their bodies. And I truly believe that growing up in a culture which does objectify women and teaches girls that their bodies are commodities (you're a prude if you DON'T give it up and a whore if you DO), is a subtle and covert form of massive sexual violation of women. And this is NOT to say that men aren't sucked into this dysfunctional system in another, equally abusive way, but women just happen to be the topic of this post. So in a way the claim that these women 'had a choice to do this add,' although in this particular case that may be true and all of these women may have had an extremely healthy, nurturing childhood and an opportunity to develop their own ideas about their bodies and their sexuality based on love and respect for themselves (unlikely, but possible) . . . the claim is, in my view, a reflection of the widespread attitude that women who treat themselves or present themselves as commodities are doing so by choice. Some are, and I'm not trying to criticize sexual freedom . . . I'm just trying to bring up the link between sexual abuse and a proclivity towards 'promiscuity,' 'self-objectification,' and selling one's body. We are a 'sexually liberated,' society, but there is an immense undercurrent of extremely abusive and unhealthy sexuality in our culture as well, and perhaps the 'accepted' pornographic tide on the surface, which surrounds us in the media, is connected to that. And not to mention, what do ads like this one do for the body image and self esteem of the millions of young girls who will see them while they sit next to their Dads and brothers and watch them drool over the women in this add and then the burgers in the next add.

I think we need to think about future generations when we're having these discussions. Bottom line, this is A LOT more complicated than a lot of people make it out to be. It's not black and white, it's not us versus them. We have to get out of that simplistic paradigm. The exploitation of children, animals, women, people of color, and ALL minorities is intimately and dangerously connected. I hope that animal rights activists and feminists will start to work together more and more and see how interdependent their movements are, rather than working against each other. On that note I have to mention that my one opposition to Jen's letter is the rhetoric of "you have to stop using sex to sell your vegetables." Just as PETA's add debases and minimizes women's rights, I feel that this language (and as all of us should know by now, language is a HUGE deal) debases and minimizes the goal of the animal rights movement (or movements). NO, PETA does not represent MANY animal rights activists (including myself), but MANY anti or non animal rights activists do associate the movement with PETA. The message of this add is to 'go veg.' As I've already made clear I do not agree that objectifying and exploiting one group to protect and defend another group is ethical, and that is exactly what this add does, but I do believe very strongly in the message 'go veg,' and I think that to ask PETA to stop using sex (aren't we really asking them to stop using women?) to "sell vegetables," is offensive to serious animal rights activists who do promote the 'go veg' message, but perhaps not in the same way that PETA does. Promoting vegetarianism or veganism is not about selling vegetables, it's about promoting a non-violent, compassionate way of life which includes animals in our ethical consideration as beings who have an intrinsic right to be free of brutality, torture and oppression. It's about a lot more than selling veggies. That's like saying 'stop using sex to sell women's business suits,' as if the fight for equal pay for women in the workplace is about selling a product. And granted, PETA's add ITSELF minimizes vegetarianism in this add by saying 'vegetarians have better sex' and featuring women in lingerie draping themselves with asparagus and broccoli. But I think that as serious activists we should be about rising above that which takes away from our cause or any other cause, not feeding right into it.

This issue of 'do the means justify the ends' is really an age-old ethical argument that I'm touching on I guess. I support non-violent civil disobedience and direct action completely. I support protest. I also think that it's important for me personally to not lose sight of my own values when I take action for animals. Do I think that animals are happy to be spared torture and suffering, yes. Do I think they'd hope we'd do it be hurting each other, no. Do I think that objectifying women hurts them, yes I do. Really, the point is that this stuff isn't simple! I really hope that we can all start seeing how complex all of these issues are, and keep working together towards justice rather than fighting amongst ourselves while people and animals alike suffer and die. And just a quick side note, vegetarianism/veganism is a human rights issue even if you don't believe that animal liberation and human liberation go hand in hand, as I do . . . it's about the right of human beings to a future in which our environment can sustain life (animal agriculture - global warming, resource depletion connection). And for PETA activists and animal rights activists who perhaps realistically believe that we can't achieve anything in the fight for animals WITHOUT using women and sex in the media, perhaps it has worked, but it's time to imagine a future where we can reach people without sacrificing our values and ourselves (because to exploit one woman is to exploit all women). Thanks for listening. :)

Clearly you and I are not watching the same ad. Ok, you see "sexism" and women being "exploited". I see an ad full of women in charge of their own sexuality (all the scenes show women preparing for "self-love", not male-female intercourse). I see an ad that does not linger on the women's bodies, thereby not presenting us "pieces of meat". I see an ad that knows SuperBowl viewers are mostly men, whose primal instinct is more and better sex. You are simply contributing to the problem in this country that allows movies and video games to show graphic violence but to clamp down on anything sexual as though this were the Victorian era. If you suppress sexuality, where do you think those energies go except to violence, both against animals and women.

On what basis have we arbitrarily decreed that only humans can have rights and other animals cannot? Is it because most members of the human species possess a higher level of intelligence than most animals? Then why do we protect mentally defective humans? Isn’t this a personal, or rather, an anthropomorphic prejudice?

In his book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, writes:

"It does seem somewhat disingenuous for Christians to speak so solidly for human rights and then query the appropriateness of rights language when it comes to animals. The most consistent position is that of Raymond Frey, who opposes all claims for rights from a philosophical perspective, or that of Christians who consistently refrain from all such language."

According to Reverend Linzey:

"Raymond Frey, that dedicated opponent of rights theory, has sadly to conclude that ‘we cannot, without the appeal to benefit, justify (painful) animal experiments without justifying (painful) human experiments.’

"Frey accepts this even though he justifies experimentation on animals. Again, ‘The case for anti-vivisectionism, I think, is far stronger than most people allow,’ he writes. Alas, Frey does not seem to regard it as sufficiently strong to oppose experiments on animals or humans."

"Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles," writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, "there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to ‘Get a life!’

"Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience and, in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and non-violence."

Kathleen Marquardt, founded Putting People First, an anti-animal rights group.  In her 1993 book, Animal Scam:  The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, she says:

"The real agenda of this movement is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people—to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, and whether we will discover new medications or die." Identical assertions could have been made about the abolition of human slavery, the crusade to end child labor, the liberation of concentration camp prisoners from Nazi physicians or an end to the experimentation upon black humans by white humans.

Marquardt writes that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) "now encourages vegetarianism, the banning of fur, and the eventual end to all animal research, not just ‘cruel’ animal research." Marquardt writes that the Humane Society now supports vegetarianism.

According to Marquardt, "The typical animal rights activist is a white woman making about $30,000 a year. She is most likely a schoolteacher, nurse, or government worker. She usually has a college degree or even an advanced degree, is in her thirties or forties, and lives in a city."

Marquardt cites studies indicating that animal rights activists tend to identify with liberal causes such as feminism and environmentalism. "Every year," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so." It is not surprising, therefore, that Marquardt reports that "Most activists share a bias against Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundations."

According to Marquardt, the "political clout" of the animal rights movement "is surprisingly bipartisan. But most of the leading politicians working with the animal rights movement are liberal Democrats." Marquardt makes mention of Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Nevada Congressman Jim Bilbray, Charlie Rose of North Carolina, Tom Lantos and Gerry Studds.

Marquardt admits, however, that "some Republicans are animal rightists, too. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas often supports animal rights causes—except, of course, those pertaining to cattle, a major business in Kansas. Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire was a founder of the Congressional Friends of Animals. Bob Dornan of California, one of the most conservative House members, is an animal rights advocate—he cosponsored legislation banning the use of animals in testing cosmetics and received a PETA award. And Manhattan Congressman Bill Green promoted legislation that would have shut down over 90 million acres of federal land to hunting, fishing, and trapping."

Marquardt states further that "Although he’s not an elected official, a conservative political figure who, surprisingly, is on the other side is G. Gordon Liddy, author Will and a key figure in the 1972 Watergate uproar. When I went on Liddy’s radio show, he and PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk greeted each other with hugs and kisses and lots of warm words.

"With allies in both political parties and across the ideological spectrum," concludes Marquardt, "the animal rights movement has been able to score some great successes, regardless of which party controls the White House or Capitol Hill."

According to Kathleen Marquardt, "We value the life of any human being—let alone that of a loved one—more than that of a dog, pig, or baboon." Isn’t this merely an anthropomorphic prejudice? Membership in the human species as a criterion for personhood is comparable to racism or sexism—discrimination.

Kathleen Marquardt unsuccessfully tries to equate animal rights with Nazism in Animal Scam. She claims that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, and that he suffered from depression, mood swings, irritability, and agitation, all of which are symptoms of a vitamin B-12 deficiency, and that animal products are the only dietary source of vitamin B-12.

According to Carol Orsag, in Irving Wallace and David Wallechinsky’s The People’s Almanac (1975), however, Adolf Hitler consumed animal products in the form of eggs and dairy products, and enjoyed eggs "prepared 101 different ways by the best chef in Germany." He "became vegetarian because of stomach problems" rather than out of compassion for animals, and "was criticized for eating pig’s knuckles."

In a 1996 article, "Nazis and Animals: Debunking the Myths," Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights states that Hitler "had a special fondness for sausages and caviar, and sometimes ham," as well as "liver dumplings." Kalechofsky states further that the Nazis experimented on animals as well as humans in the concentration camps:

"The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In The Dark Face of Science, author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly: ‘The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of, or complementary to, experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme.’"

According to Marquardt: "Having equated animals with man, the Nazis proceeded to treat men as animals." Marquardt wants to have it both ways. She wants to show that the Nazis’ "respect for life" somehow led to a devaluation of human life. But would not a genuine reverence for life—elevating animal rights to the level of human rights—have had the opposite effect? Compassion for every living creature? There is no evidence that vegetarianism (for health or ethics) will make people saints or give them Gandhian compassion, but neither is there any evidence that it will make people Nazis.

Isaac Bashevis Singer, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature, became a vegetarian in 1962. He once asked, "How can we pray to God for mercy if we ourselves have no mercy? How can we speak of rights and justice if we take an innocent creature and shed its blood?"

Hitler’s so-called "vegetarianism" did not prevent Isaac Bashevis Singer from comparing humanity’s mass killing of 50 billion animals every year to the Nazi Holocaust. In 1987 he wrote, "This is my protest against the conduct of the world. To be a vegetarian is to disagree—to disagree with the course of things today. Nuclear power, starvation, cruelty—we must make a statement against these things. Vegetarianism is my statement. And I think it’s a strong one."

Isaac Bashevis Singer has also expressed the view that unnecessary violence against animals by human beings will only lead to further violence in human society: "I personally believe that as long as human beings will go on shedding the blood of animals, there will never be any peace. There is only one little step from killing animals to creating gas chambers a’ la Hitler and concentration camps a’ la Stalin—all such deeds are done in the name of ‘social justice.’ There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is."

Professor Henry Bigelow observed: "There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion."

Harming or killing other animals for food, "sport," or clothing, or even owning other animals as property must become as unthinkable to us humans as owning other human beings as property, regardless of one’s religion or belief in a god or gods. The animal rights movement is not a "front" for a religious minority attempting to impose its "dietary laws" upon the rest of secular American society. Is the right-to-life movement, however, a "front" for Catholic, Fundamentalist, or "born-again" Christianity?

Animal rights, as a secular, moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with traditional religious thinking (e.g., human "dominion" over other animals), but this is equally true of democracy and representative government in place of the divine right of kings, the separation of church and state, the abolition of human slavery, the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution, lesbian and gay rights, and perhaps every kind of social progress since the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.

Some of the greatest figures in human history have been in favor of ethical vegetarianism and animal rights. These include: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Walker, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Browning, Percy Shelley, Voltaire, Thomas Hardy, Rachel Carson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pythagoras, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Francis Bacon, William Wordsworth, the Buddha, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau.

Although I am a male, and have been known to find young, scantly clad women enticing, I just think this ad is silly.  I have been a vegetarian for nearly 40 years, but I certainly didn't do it because it was sexy.  Personal health, ecological soundness, sense that one's actions have consequences, and desire to avoid harming one's fellow beings can all be compelling reasons to consider eliminating meat from one's diet.  But sexy?  Hard to imagine anyone actually responding to this ad, unless the intention was just to get the organization noticed.  Ms. Nedeau's legitimate concerns about sexism aside for the moment, I don't believe that people even unconsciously weigh in such superficial images to make really fundamental life choices.  Now if they had some research showing vegetarians had higher sperm counts or something, THAT might get results.  As ads go, this one's a bit of a bomb.

Anyone who believes PETA is out to protect animals ("Just like the animals you want to protect, we are more than just a piece of 'meat.'" ) hasn't been paying attention.

Speaking as a vegetarian, I'm outraged. It's unbelievable that in this day and age there are still people who can publicly degrade broccoli that way and then laugh about it. And there at the end, when all that asparagus went flying through the air... sickening.

Don't they realize there are children watching? It's hard enough keeping my four-year-old from playing with her food. What kind of example does that provide?

As a male I feel excluded.  Both genders should have been portrayed together in the ad.  Concentrating on the female is sexist, unless the ad is geared only to female self-pleasure.

Hey, what the heck is wrong with cute puppies?  Assuming a few more males than females follow the SuperBowl, puppies are also guy-things, as well as quite universal in appeal in this culture.

Why is there any question that this ad is stupid? ...demeaning? ...degrading?
I have not followed PETA's ads much, but from what others are saying, they should be ashamed.

On the other hand, PETA is not noted for intelligent choices. 

PETA cries the "Bambi" bit when urban deer are starving and causing havoc and death on hignways.  But PETA must of course protect the white-tail deer's right to starve on Japanese azaleas after ravaging the native flora of woodlands.

Where was PETA when the native predators of deer were killed or run off by setlers?  Where is PETA's introduction program to restore natural predators that would keep the deer populations in balance?

PETA "protected" the feral pigs/warthogs that had been introduced in Hawaii -- protected the invaders, though the State was attempting to salvage the NATIVE FAUNA & FLORA that was being devastated by the pigs running loose.

Those are examples of disgusting, warped "protection" of animals by PETA.

What should be an outstanding organization is seriously sullied by that type of crap.

I agree with those who see this ad as silly. It's also, IMHO, totally tasteless. Yuk!
Oh, yeah, badmouth CJ . . . I imagine that even your tune would be different if male pecs and private parts were bouncing around in suggestive scenes.

As a man and vegatarian, I agree this is an incredibly stupid ad and a stupid thing to do.

You definitely won't advance your cause if you piss-off another group of people in the process.

Poor Jen N. doesn't get it. First of all the ads aren't sexist- Jen is just seeing it through American eyes (Europeans are a lot more mature about such things and aren't rattled over nudes, sensuality or sexuality as much as we are).  Females are more likely to go veg than males (sad but true) and these ads suggest to the female demographic that if you lay off the meat you can probably knock a few pounds off.  And they also get the attention of males.  PETA creates saucey ads and "tries" to get them in the superbowl ad lineup.  They've been doing this since the 90's. This gets them way bang for their buck than if the ads were ever accepted.  And every year, somebody like Jen comes along, utterly clueless as to the history, or the clever tactic that expect corporate censorship (and makes the most of it) and outrage (from a small demographic) in order to get more viewings of the ad.Some years the ads that were accepted were racier than the PETA ads that were rejected, suggesting that the rejection was based on other factors- namely, the animal rights message.What i want to know is, does Jen use any animal products? If so, i'm calling hypocrite.Some people are always looking for something to piss and moan about.  This ad is aimed at the People Magazine, Glamour, Cosmo reader types.  If you keep that in mind, you'll realize it's a clever way to get into the skulls of the average person.  Because you know they're never going to let those graphic videos on as an ad.  

Much adieu about nothing?

Far as this ad goes, it's a pretty standard super bowl ad.  Far as PETA goes I think they'd do better pushing delicious vegetable recipes than linking hot women to vegetarianism. 

To very well sell the hot women vegetarian line, regular hot women would have to seriously in wide swaths prefer vegetarian men.  That's not the case by my observation.  I've been vegetarian coming up on 3 years now.  I had 1 girlfriend in all that time and she broke up with me after a day.  There was about 10 years of my life during which I was with more than 30 women and I was daily chewing on carcasses.  So what they're trying to sell is wholly bogus. 

Another thing is men don't care about good sex.  To men, sex is good and good sex is unnecessary.  Good sex is something that's important and desireable to women as in so many relationships they're not getting it.  If a guy cares about giving his woman good sex, he's more likely to buy viagra from a canadian pharmacy than go vege.  Perhaps the ad is aimed at women, and appealing to their sense of self image to inspire their connecting sexyness with vegetarianism.  But I'd guess that's not the case as they show all these women with falic vegetables, which is hardly a womans fantasy.  Were they trying to bring women to vegetarianism they'd do an ad with sexy vegetarian men during Oprah, not sexy women during the super bowl. 

Returning to what they'd best do to promote vegetarianism, in my opinion they'd push nutritional understanding, as vege nutrition is a bit more complex than eating meat.  So it takes a bit of study to really know what you need by way of amino acids vitamins minerals and phytochemicals...  If they promote senseless vegetarianism they're doing masses a disservice.  Which is what really it seems they're doing, they're appealing to very base emotions to draw people to vegetarianism which ultimately, I feel is a disservice.  If they really wanted to promote vegetarianism strengthily and soundly, they'd push vege nutrition facts, understanding of the animal abuse inherent in for food consuming animals and the realization that people are meant to be vege eaters, as evidenced by our round jaw, long intestinal tract and every close relative, primates, all being vegetarians except in very rare circumstances which are usually precipitated by territoriality.  Which incidentally is a feeling that is best evolved beyond, toward embrace of sharing.  Surely human intelligence allows us to share toward best benefit.

Other sales points of vegetarianism are that vege production is sustainable, meat eating, especially herd animals, is not.  We've already passed the degree by which we can abuse the planet with herding, which causes desertification, without humanity suffering by wider starvation for the abuse of the land.

Vegetarianism is also greatly conservative of fresh water in comparison with animal agriculture.  To produce 1 pound of beef requires as much as 5000 gallons of fresh water.  Animal agriculture is also hugely wasteful for the fact that production of 1 pound of beef requires 16 pounds of wheat be wasted as cattle feed.  We could have just ate the 16 pounds of wheat. 

So, conversion to vegetarianism is a matter of reducing abuse of animals, but more importantly maintaining growable soil and maximizing food production, without which masses will starve and we near a time when even Americans lives will be egregiously harshed for the abuse of the planet this corporate, industrial, pollutive, wasteful animal agriculture factory farmed society is now in ankle deep upside down.

So the sex sells gig, yeah, always has, always will... But it seems to me PETA's ad is not very realisitic and lacks the depth of analysis and understanding of the issues that surround vegetarianism and conversely factory farming. 

PETA might have put together an ad with a set like Mad Max beyond thunderdome with the tribe of children living in the desert and put them all in beat up abercrombie and fitch and gap clothes.  It's not far from the reality this place is going to suffer if people insist on torturing and eating food as wasteful of water and food and land as cows.  They might have done an ad like that and wrapped it with a cow smiling beside it's calf, then the cow worried then agonizing as it's slaughtered by a man who then eats it fresh, to drive home the reality that cows are emotional beings and not deservant of the abuse, then questioning "What do you deserve for doing this every day while ignoring their suffering?"  Then "Guess what doing this sets up this." Cut back to desert scene.

I figure my ad would be rejected from the super bowl too.  I guess what I'm saying is, though, there's a lot more that needs to be driven into the general conscience regarding animal abuse and the abuse it sets people up to be totally deservant of and the abuse of the environment that is inherent in animal agriculture.  PETA's ad seems to flow forth from their own ego and seems as though it would be minimally effective toward promoting vegetarianism which would be far better accomplished by geek talk delivering understanding of the reality of the matter is unless we go vege, we'll be struck from the face of the planet and deserve it and as horribly many people are setting their children up to the same egregious suffering.  Which if they knew it was all this, obviously they'd choose better.

I think it was a brilliant ad.  I think the people who honestly believe it devalues women should look at their own motivations in projecting such sexism into the world.

this is just one more reason i dont support PETA. i'm vegan, but i dont support dehumanizing a woman into a sexual object for the team. its gross and offensive. people are smart enough that PETA doesn't have to resort to sex. i mean really, go veg and you'll get to sex up some hot women? what kinda of message does that send? i dont see that as positive for the woman's rights movement, let alone effective enough for any animal rights movements.
Peta owns stock in Tyson foods. they're an embarrassment to every vegetarian and vegan i know.

Please to respect women.We no need to sell a women body to advocate vegetarianism.

Using visual stimulus, especially the most base biological ones, like survival[food] and procreation[sexual compulsion] for merchandising is nearly universal. Not surprising nor unintentional, I'm sure. A general sampling of young adult females' seemingly uninhibited mores toward reproduction might support such a marketing campaign. Frankly, I think all humans have far more pressing issues, than marketing ploys, to be concerned with..... like how our civilization's byproducts are destroying the entire ecosystem and what the f*** we can do to stop it!

I agree with you Jen.  A major problem I have with PETA (and Greenpeace for that matter) is the often angry, unprofessional, militant manner in which they use to convey their messages.  If an organization is looking to have laws changed, they should spend most of their time educating people on the laws as they stand and why they need attention and change - using goal-related images works.  I prefer to eat vegan, and was very turned off by this ad.  It in no way gets to the ideology behind vegan / vegetarianism.

If you thought about the systematic rape and repeated artificial insemination of animals that sustains the meat and dairy industries then, as a supporter of women's rights, you would have no choice but to choose a vegan diet. Eating vegetables (and not eating meat) is a great way to support women's rights!

The ad is ridiculous, and I say that as a single man who is vegan. Did PETA really believe it would be run? I agree that they are probably seeking free publicity. I also believe that feminists could make more productive use of their time than criticizing PETA, no matter how much they deserve it. There are things much worse to get worked up over, unless you get equally worked up over everything. We should pick our battles more wisely.

Ingrid Newkirk of PETA has stated that she wants her corpse to be barbecued and eaten when she dies. Last time I checked, that's cannibalism. She has publicly stated that humans are a blight to the Earth. She's also now selling coffins with PETA slogans. Listen, we are confusing animal rights with the behavior of a sociopathic personality. PETA the organization has accomplished a lot, however any one with any sensibility realizes Ingrid and her "press sluts" (that's what *she*calls them) exploit young beautiful women. Just try and find a PETA ad with a gorgeous young male -- nude. If someone can produce such an ads then and only then can anyone rightfully defend such advertising. To the woman who authored this article and those who support her: I stand up and applaud your courage. You are absolutely correct, even if others do not see the truth.

There's too many comments here for me to read through them all, so I apologize if I repeat anything said before.

The PETA ad was no more or less sexy than a Victoria's Secret ad or "televised fashion show".  It's what's being sold that is the problem.  Take away the veggies and this becomes an ad for bra & panty sets:  no problem for the audience.

Well the ad certainly has run and gotten a lot of play. Since I don't watch TV or the SB, I would never have seen this incredibly sensual ad - but let's get serious about the real problems in the world - like rape and genocide in Darfur - or Gaza, or Iraq, for that matter and just a few examples -or doesn't that matter? It does to me.

Yikes! This is change.org. I had no idea the level of understanding of feminism could be so low around here.

Yep, sex is great. Nope, showing skinny white women on tv as if that's what sexy were about is not great. (So what, they consented?! Does that mean the millions of kids watching the tv channel their parents chose consented to see this ad?)

Disclaimer: I have not watched the ad. I am responding only to the slew of comments I just read here.

Real change requires that we all respect each other. Sometimes it's hard to be respectful when your ideas of right and wrong are very different. Here's an example...

If you think abortion kills a baby, how can you show respect to someone who supports abortion? If you think women should have the right to decide what happens in our own bodies, how can you respect people who try to take that right away? Well, when I was teaching Women's Studies in Michigan, I made my views clear, and allowed my students to make their views clear. But our discussion was centered on story-telling: "How has this issue played out in your life?" No judgment of others' stories or opinions allowed. Let's just listen to each other.

May we all grow in our understanding.

Warmly, Sue

I think that ad was less sexist and more just stupid.  I'm glad it won't be airing, I despise PETA.

In my opinion, Jen is rationalizing when explaining her reversion to eating meat. She was never really a vegetarian, as it as much of a mind set as it is not consuming animal protein. She was indulging an affectation for 7 years. The idea of eating meat is inconceivable to me. Your statement about the East Coast, especially a large urban area being unfriendly to vegetarians is not true. It is not as convenient as being a vegetarian in CA. I lived in CA for several years, and I live in a small city in upstate NY now. Other than the lack of year long farmer's markets, and a slightly smaller variety of fresh produce I find it as easy to be vegan here as I did there. As a man who calls himself a feminist I agree that the ad is dumb. As a vegan, I cannot respect someone who eats dead animals while implying care about animals.

I'm shocked at the outrage over this ad.  Where was the outrage when Paris Hilton slithered around, scantily clad, seducing a hamburger?  How about the sexist Carls Jr. ads across the board -- the one where it was okay for the young guy to have 3 girlfriends until they discovered each other.  The one where two peeing tom's eye the beauty slobbering ketchup (a visceral reminder of bloodshed -- a terribly sexy image for some) all over her virginal white blouse while eating a burger? 

I'm in advertising, and I think PETA's tactic is right on the nose here.  The meat industry has forever used machismo and the objectification of women for its sales, yet there's been very little outcry over that.  Ironic, considering animal welfare and women's issues are part and parcel of the same issue -- domination over those deemed weaker or lesser. 

Part of Sarah Palin's repulsive rise to fame came from her gloating over being an avid hunter -- "Look, I'm a pretty girl who can field dress a moose."  Libido of the average Joe-the-plumber-accountant-lawyer-car-dealer, etc., went threw the roof over that one.  Here's a REAL woman -- a woman who understands the need to take charge over nature a la "Drill, baby, drill" (a mantra in itself wrought with innuendo).

Sarah wants us to remove protection for polar bears.  Sarah wants to destory one of the few remaining refuges in our country to feed our nasty oil habit.

Grunt-and-hate conservatives, long known for their lust to dominate women, couldn't get enough of their ignorant, flirty poster child for "harnessing" nature.  Not to mention, this chick has 5 kids (whom she ignored in favor of feeding her own media lust, but never mind that -- at least she reproduces to beat the band!)

It is worth mentioning that the meat industry far exceeds anything pumping out of a factory or from car emissions in the damage caused to the environment.  PETA is known for controversy, perhaps out of the anger of its primary members, and/or perhaps to get dialogue going.  Either way, I applaud their courage in empowering stunning women and throwing sensuality back in the faces of those who long for the better-old-days when women shut up, cow-towed to men and couldn't serve up enough cow -- regardless of the savage cruelty of factory farming.

To those offended by this ad, I suggest you begin reading Nicholas Kristof's fine exposes in the New York Times about REAL women's issues -- the sex trade industry, the rape-as-weaponry practices throughout Africa, the abject horror faced by women in Afghanistan.

None of us are worse for the wear from the PETA ad that won't air.  We are, however, shameful and petty for sputtering about it when we could be helping women who are genuinely suffering.

I am sick of women ranting about the sanctity of their bodies while they wear fur and eat the flesh of others.  The ad gets attention.  The video exposing the cruelty of the meat industry that follows is even better.  Few would watch that without being drawn to the first.  Those who choose to wallow in their cruel ignorance won't change, but it's stunning how hidden America's cruelty is.  A few eyes will be opened.  I am proud to be a donating member of PETA.

Wow, if Peta are not trying to ban and/or kill 'pit bulls', then they are euthanizing dogs in their shelters, now they are dishing out dumb ads with women lusting over vegetables. I guess sex sells.
In the end, all that matters to Peta and their crazy founder is that Peta makes masses of money from ignorant people who actually think they care about animals. Put your time and money into organizations that are actually making a difference in the lives of animals.

Cry me a river!!!!
As a gay man myself it's nasty to think of the feminine form while in conjunction with food. (I want to give these girls hairnets.) I wouldn't want to eat a female of any species. However it's worse to think about what people actually do to the animals. While I'm a vegetarian myself, I'm a vegetarian because of what's injected into the animals and what I did digest once upon a time. Sadly I was like many Americans blindly unaware of what is being done in our livestock industry.
If a woman chooses to strip to the buff for a cause that she feels that strongly about, let her! How does this effect you? The real issue here is perhaps some personal homophobia on behalf of the author or some Puritanical / Catholic / sudo-American upbringing? After all boobs have been selling butter in France for years now w/ wonderful success. Nudity, specifically female nudity, is a marketing ploy. While the author might not strip for $500, there is always someone willing to take their cloths off for next to nothing. In other countries where nudity isn't as much of an issue as it is here, women's breasts sell everything under the sun, still out selling a nude man. Sadly the real heart of the matter is Americans like sex but we LOVE feeling bad about it. In other countries nudity is a very natural thing.
While the ad isn't falsifying anything... Vegetarians have fewer climax / erectile disfunction problems than meat eaters. Vegetarian Men also seem to enjoy higher sperm counts over the prevailing populous. Once the "normal" count was around 40,000 ppm that was considered "acceptable and normal" in a fertility clinic. Now the "normal" is at 10,000 ppm and they're considering dropping it. Educated people believe that it is because of all the excessive estrogen in our foods that's feminizing men in our society lowering sperm counts. A recent documentary from Canada, "The Disappearing Male" explains this relation to plastics. 
While we have yet to educate ourselves of the details of our food in this country, not to mention nutritional needs, our countries ever expanding waist line and longer wait times at the pharmaceutical counters. Perhaps we should question why people choose to be vegetarian instead of instantly dismissing it? For me it was because the average salmon steak can lower your iq because of the mercury in it, but then again so can the mercury that's injected into your local cow, chicken, pig, or turkey. Exposure over a lifetime builds up leading to Alzheimer's disease. Since you can't remove mercury from the brain, no one would want to take responsibility for it being there. But everyone plays to the notion that, "a little is ok", meanwhile no one has researched those arbitrary numbers to understand if that's truthfully the case or not. For me those facts sealed the deal on me being vegetarian.
Once I started the lifestyle it wasn't until about 30 days into it that I began to notice that I had more sustained energy, I could focus better, I had a longer attention span, I slept better, I could taste more lightly seasoned foods. To this day my Dr. tells me I eat better than he does. Yet my levels in my blood show I'm not dyeing of malnutrition in any way. Yes my protein levels are fine thanks. There are vegetarian sources of protein other than just beans and tofu. 
Sadly author, I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt because a woman took a stand on something she is passionate about in a way that wasn't in line with your views. Please realize that if the press finds out about the ad it could well be the fav ad of the year. Just like the banned ads of yesteryear. In fact that could be the entire point of the ad, to get it banned so the day after the super-bowl they'll be discussing the banned ads. They often get more attention IMHO than the real ads because they're just that far out there. Remember the gay snickers ad? I saw that played more by the news than the original time it was supposed to air during the game. After all what's more valuable to a marketer? One shot in prime time vs. every news anchor, talk show host in the country playing your ads on tv? So you can think how "horrible" they are, call your friends and then talk about how "horrible" they are & call your family and talk about how "horrible" they are. I'd be scared to know about how much Snickers sales went up that day alone because of the controversy. But either way, thank you for feeding the fire. If it wasn't for your article I'd never have seen the ad before the game. (That I'm not going to watch anyway.)
If I want 50 men to run from one side of my Tv to the other side I can get them to do that in my home for free & nude. :) 

The thoughts of a sexy vegan woman- I feel like it's all to easy to confuse sex with sexism these days.  When that happens it makes me feel like I'm living back in the Victorian era under a tyranny of the well-meaning, attempting to protect women from themselves.  Sexism is when someone is discrimated against based on their gender - I think.  This ad is sexy.  Those feel like inherently different concepts to me.  Does gender equality mean that I will never see the grandeur of a naked woman on screen again?  Many women in our world actually do look like the women in the ad (try visiting Los Angeles sometime) and they are beautiful and sexy. As a woman I don't feel offended by seeing them twine themselves sensuously around vegetables.  Not to mention the message visually is that women actually own in their own kitchens the tools of their sexual release...  Seems like that is actually giving women power over their own sexuality, rather than the opposite.  Seems like the offense taken by many revolves around the fact that the women look like Playboy bunnies rather than anything else.  Well, playboy bunnies are actually real women too.

I wouldn't call the ad sexist and I would bet that NBC didn't reject it because it was explicit.
I would though call the ad bizarre and confusing.. sexualized without actually being sexy. I admit, I don't really understand the point. My guess is PETA made it using half an idea.
As for the rejection, that probably has more to do with NBC's accounts with all the beef-friendly fast food advertisers than anything else.

My guess is that PETA never actually had the resources nor a plan to actually air the ad.  The strategist are smart enough to know how to get the maximum publicity through utube and internet bogs without spending a dime.  In that sense we are all victims of this strategy by participating in this blog.
Nevertheless this does not excuse using questionable images of women and vegetables in a manner that degrades both. I think the network was being somewhat inconsistent considering the beer commercials that use much of the same imagery for a product that is of questionable value. As for PETA, they get no respect (and therefore no contributions) form me for utilizing a strategy that continues the devaluation of women in our society. 

One last note: I'm a straight woman, and I found this ad sexy as hell.

What's your problem with beautiful women who own their sexuality? Jealous, maybe? ;) I'm sorry, but a woman's body is a million times more beautiful than a man's. It's not objectification. It's celebration.

Like so many other things that PETA does that are considered controversial, I'm thinking that if people really want to know what was behind PETA's intent in making the ad, they should ask PETA directly.

"Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles," writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, "there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement.

"Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to 'Get a Life!'

"Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence."

During 1986 - 1988, when I had access to USENET, a nationwide computer network linking corporations, military bases, think tanks, universities, etc., I paid close attention to the abortion debate. The subject of animal rights always came up, albeit indirectly.

The mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but rather some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.

When a pro-lifer discussed the potential humanity of the unborn, a pro-choicer replied, "MY CAT has more potential than that!"

One pro-choicer said sarcastically, "Maybe the kid (the fetus) should be raised as a vegetarian. After all, don't cows have the right to life?"

Another pro-choicer, Oleg Kiselev, upon hearing the pro-life argument that brain waves can be detected in the unborn as early as six weeks, pointed out that animals also have brain waves. He then added, "Excuse me, while I eat my veal stew."

In the spring of 1988, Stephen Carrier, a grad student in Mathematics at UC Berkeley, pointed out that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans, and so, to argue that species membership alone makes life worth protecting "is to fetishize DNA."

A pro-lifer responded: "If it'll please you, I will agree to protect anything that is 99 percent human."

To this, Stephen responded: "Okay. How about 50 percent? That would probably bring quite a few species into the net."

Stephen Carrier admitted, "I don't know what makes it acceptable to kill animals for meat. Some people think it's wrong, and I have no logical answer for them. But it's not murder, and I believe abortions are analogous. Yes, it's killing--but it's not murder."

Stephen admitted his argument was "not a mathematical proof, but there is no mathematical proof that will resolve the abortion debate."

In the fall of 1986, pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery: Roe v. Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans merely on account of their age and developmental status, just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin.

Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon responded: "Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"

"Not even close" has become a popular slogan with pro-choicers. It even appeared on the headlines of most San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.

"Not even close" is not a new slogan. Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."

Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too. And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation. Taylor called his parody, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes."

"Not even close" is the "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" of the late 20th and early 21st century, because it takes for granted the invincible prejudice that other animals couldn't possibly have rights.  It is this prejudice which we in the animal rights movement are struggling to overcome.

Again, the mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights. This led me to conclude that if there's any group out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights, it's pro-lifers.

I thought it was hot. Maybe it would get enough people's attention, pique their curiosity, and get on board with vegetarianism. And I don't care what someone's reason is for not eating meat. To each, her own. I'm certainly not going to tell someone who became a vegetarian, in order to gain a better sex life, to start eating meat again because his or her reason does not match MY standards of a vegetarian. And just because one's reason for not eating meat might start off as one thing doesn't mean s/he won't learn of many other reasons people choose to be a vegetarian and adopt them as his or her own. I say whatever works! 

I'm a woman, hetero and vegan.
Here are my points:

>> Women already won for their rights. Animals didn't.
>> Most of these women LIKE and are proud of posing for animal rights. Does PETA force them like slaves to do that?
>> Do magazines like Playboy make men hate women more??? Do normal men feel like beating up women after seeing them nude??
>> Are these sexy supermodels totally unguilty of their action? Do you REALLY think they have no conscience at all?
Reality says that most women would love to be in their place...
>> Until people start realizing about animal rights, PETA WILL try to call people's attention in all ways. They are experts in producing 'disturbing' advertising.
>> Seriously, there are A LOT more better things you could do to fight against sexism than writing to the People for the Ethical Treatment of A-N-I-M-A-L-S.

You could be making women feel more united, for example, something you couldn't seem to achieve here.
In fact, I guess your letter should not have been written to PETA... Instead, write to the sexy supermodels and try to convince them to stop posing for dollars and campaigns... Can't wait to see what they have to say.

 

Every ad like the PETA ad objectifies women and undermines women's rights. Thank you for posting what should be obvious. Even so most Superbowl ads are sexist -- both towards men and women. That's just the way they are. Probably because most  Americans love their sexist culture.
But the bottom line is, what does that have to do with vegetables? Well, maybe it's to remind men of all the porn they've seen online involving -- yes, women with vegetables, (and in particular, one or two fruits).  I think that is what this ad is supposed to appeal to, the most base gut feelings of people --  like other PETA ads are supposed to be revolting, disgusting, and shocking. Does that do the job of making people vegetarians?  I think PETA needs to do more marketing research.  Being revolted by an ad does not make me respect the maker of the ad.

Sex is such an essential and beautiful part of what makes us human - voluntarily exposing your body does not in itself equate to an abuse, and telling these models to put their clothes back on is not going to stop violence against women. It's hardly smut, the PETA ads are no more sexually explicit than a biology textbook. 
Modelling is a legitimate way for both men and women to earn a living, and in this case, to be part of an effective campaign to bring attention to the brutality inflicted upon animals. The models in the PETA campaign don't seem to have been exploited or mistreated - unlike millions of animals abused worldwide every day. 
The real problem with the PETA campaign, I think, is that their images have clearly been digitally altered, and like a lot of mainstream advertising involving models (with or without clothes), they present a body image which is unrealistic for many people. The representation of unblemished skin and a thin figure can lead to poor self-esteem, eating disorders and cosmetic obsessions, especially amongst children and teenagers. 
Sex isn't the only way to raise awareness about the abuse of animals, but it clearly works - and truly beautiful human bodies should be celebrated (warts and all)!

Dear ex-vegetarian feminists,

When people (including YOU) start talking about vegetarianism and veganism without needing provocation from PETA's sexy ads, then "it's time to stop using sex to sell vegetables." Until then, kindly stop your whining.

Sincerely,
Elaine
a vegan feminist

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

petakillsanimals.com is a web site run by a corporate lobbyist who started his career in the mid-'90s working for tobacco companies. It is called the Center For Consumer Freedom. Go to http://www.consumerdeception.org for a brief summary of the nature of the Center and several links for additional information. In the case of their paid advocacy against PETA, the Center cites numerous facts and statistics out of context to make PETA look bad. 

PETA is a wack job, skewed, ineffectual way for vegan fascists to feel good about them selves, while loaded with so much guilt because the world is a cruel place. An immature bunch of illogical self haters. The fact is we are not all that different than any other animal on this planet. We breed to survive, we eat to survive, we adapt to survive.
Ants cruely "farm" aphids, carnivores cruely kill herbivores ( watch a big cat strangle it's prey and tell me how "humane" it is) Pain and Death are as much part of life as whatever selfish selflessness PETA may drivel.
Do I think the factory farm cruel and unnecessary? of course I genuinely love animals and am sickened by intentional crulety. Do I abhor mistreatment of pet species? absolutely!
Does PETA do anything but polarize the issue to no benefit? without a doubt!
I use my dollar to support local ranchers who only raise organic animals in excellent conditions. Not some whack money grubbing media whores.
As far as vegetarianism or veganism I will support to the death your right to choose your own diet, Perhaps you could do the same for me by my standards, which you should honor as I honor yours, as an animal activist and meat eater.
JF

This is a women's rights forum, isn't it? So why are there so many people avoiding the actual topic?

A feminist is a person who believes in EQUAL rights -- not a man-basher or someone who believes women are better than men.

The fact is, single women earn .60 cents to every man's dollar. Is that equality?

If you are truly a feminist and pro-PETA, How exactly do you demonstrate that you are indeed a feminist?

Women & children make up the world's poor, so if you are arguing sexism doesn't exist, you're just not paying attention.

This rejected super bowl ad actually isn't offensive for its sexuality, however it's when we look at the whole picture with regard to how Ingrid and her "press sluts" (that's what Ingrid calls her volunteers/employees) purposely portray women as submissive, which in our patriarchical culture is true to a great extent, at least in economic terms -- though we are certainly moving toward true equality! But with no help from "feminists" at PETA.

So, if you truly love women and want to celebrate female sexuality in advertising and campaign for equal rights (again, that is the definition of feminism) why not campaign to make sure women are paid equally? That includes women in the sex industry -- prostitutes, strippers, those involved in pornorgraphy, who do you think is earning most of the $$$ -- it's not the women. Why are men enjoying most of the profit? that's exploitation.
 
So, all you self-proclaimed feminists at PETA  are only fooling yourselves, noone else.

Some of the comments on here are brilliant -- including many from men!

I am Vegan, I am a Feminist-Equal Rights Supporter.

Humans are a vegetarian species.

The frugivores (gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates) have intestinal tracts twelve times the length of the body, clawless hands and alkaline urine and saliva. Their diet is mostly vegetarian, occasionally supplemented with carrion, insects, etc.

Flesh-eating animals lap water with their tongue, whereas vegetarian animals imbibe liquids by a suction process. Humans are classified as primates and are thus frugivores possessing a set of completely herbivorous teeth. Proponents of the theory that humans should be classified as omnivores note that human beings do, in fact, possess a modified form of canine teeth. However, these so-called "canine teeth" are much more prominent in animals that traditionally never eat flesh, such as apes, camels, and the male musk deer.

It must also be noted that the shape, length and hardness of these so-called "canine teeth" can hardly be compared to those of true carnivorous animals. A principle factor in determining the hardness of teeth is the phosphate of magnesia content. Human teeth usually contain 1.5 percent phosphate of magnesia, whereas the teeth of carnivores are composed of nearly 5 percent phosphate of magnesia. It is for this reason they are able to break through the bones of their prey, and reach the nutritious marrow.

Zoologist Desmond Morris makes a case for vegetarianism in his 1967 book, The Naked Ape: "It could be argued that, since our primate ancestors had to make do without a major meat component in their diets we should be able to do the same. We were driven to become flesh eaters only by environmental circumstances, and now that we have the environment under control, with elaborately cultivated crops at our disposal, we might be expected to return to our ancient feeding patterns."

In The Human Story, edited by Marie-Louise Makris (1985), we read: "...recent studies of their teeth reveal that the Australopithecines did not eat meat as a regular part of their diet, and were mainly peaceful vegetarians, rather like chimps or gorillas. The popular image of the murderous ape is now as extinct as the Australopithecines themselves."

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores "have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth--showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

"Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

"Man instinctively is not carnivorous," explains Dr. Latto. "...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do; people enjoy doing it; they don't feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

"I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening."

Author R.H. Weldon writes in No Animal Food:

"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."

As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions." More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."

Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:

"This is quite an admirable argument.  It explains practically everything; why we do not eat each other, except under conditions of unusual stress; why we may kill certain other animals (they are, in the order of nature, food for us); even why we should be kind to pets and try to help miscellaneous wildlife (they are not naturally our food).  There are some problems with the idea that an order of nature determines which species are food for us, but an examination of human history indicates the broad outlines of just such an order, though inhibitions against eating certain species may vary from culture to culture.

"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.

"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.

"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usually placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.

"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.

"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."

In his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes:

"Killing an animal is in itself a troubling act. It has been said that if we had to kill our own meat we would all be vegetarians. There may be exceptions to that general rule, but it is true that most people prefer not to inquire into the killing of the animals they eat.

"Very few people ever visit a slaughterhouse; and films of slaughterhouse operations are rarely shown on television...Yet those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from this or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy.

"If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?"

Peter Singer concludes in Animal Liberation that "by ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation, too."

Dr. Milton Mills' "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating,"

www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine,

www.pcrm.org ,

argue persuasively that the optimal diet for humanity is a vegan diet.  However, even if humans really are omnivores and not frugivores, my friend Mareechi Duvvuuri (another Hindu-American!) who once studied sports medicine, pointed out that the diet of natural omnivores is mostly (80 percent) plant food.

go veg(etari)an!
veganismoesjusticia.com

It's still only the 1st quarter of the superbowl, and so far I've seen a Doritos commercial where a man "blows" the clothing off a woman and where a couple of guys "put" Danika Patrick into a shower w/another woman. 

As I said before in my previous post, it's not the SEX itself that's offensive, it's what's being sold.

OK:
Junk Food
Internet Fantasies

BAD:
Veganism


I'm sure there will be plenty more commercials, as the game progresses, to continue to make my point for me.  Feel free to ad to this list...

The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources.  Our choices do matter:  What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

---John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year.  The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person.  This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day.  This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year.  Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total.  One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia.  Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution.  This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming.  Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect.  The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from 9 million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then.  By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."

---Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

Agricultural meat production generates air pollution.  As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health.  Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain.  Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia.  Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

The world Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted.  Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture.  While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it.  It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union.  That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals.  By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom.  Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock.  Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock.  The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs:  five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

33 percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter.  In a vegan economy, only 2 percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

---Jeremy Rifkin, author, Beyond Beef:  The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

"Global hunger could be directly attributed to meat-eating."  ---Chrissie Hynde

Half the world's population does not receive an adequate amount of food to eat.  Ten to twenty million die annually of hunger and its effects.  The Institute for Food and Development Policy reports that, "Forty thousand children starve to death on this planet every day," or one child every two seconds.

The livestock population of the United States today consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population of the country.   We feed these animals over 80% of the corn we grow, and over 95% of the oats.   Less than half the harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for people.  Most of it is used to grow livestock feed.

Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain-fed livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

The world's cattle alone, not to mention pigs and chickens, consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people.  It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.  According to Department of Agriculture statistics, one acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes.  That same acre of land, if used to grow cattlefeed, can produce less than 165 pounds of beef.

In his book, The Hungry Planet, Georg Bergstrom points out that protein-starved underdeveloped nations export more protein to wealthy nations than they receive.  He calls this "the protein swindle."  Ninety percent of the world's fish meal catch, for example, is exported to rich countries.  One-third of Africa's peanut crop winds up in the stomachs of European livestock.  Half the world's cereal crop is fed to livestock and the United States annually imports one million tons of vegetable protein from Third World nations--just to feed its farm animals.

Bergstrom writes: "Sometimes one wonders how many Americans and Western Europeans have grasped the fact that quite a few of their beef steaks, quarts of milk, dozens of eggs, and hundreds of broilers are the result, not of their agriculture, but of the approximately two million metric tons of protein, mostly of high quality, which astute Western businessmen channel away from the needy and hungry."

Jeremy Rifkin, author of a dozen influential books and President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, writes in his 1992 bestseller Beyond Beef:

"Cattle and other livestock are devouring much of the grain produced on the planet.  It need be emphasized that this is a new phenomenon, unlike anything ever experienced before.

"Contrary to popular belief, the poor are getting poorer each year...Increased poverty has meant increased malnutrition.  On the African continent, nearly one in every four human beings is malnourished.  In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night.  In Asia and the Pacific, 28 percent of the people border on starvation, experiencing the gnawing pain of a perpetual hunger."

"In the Near East, one in ten people is underfed.  Chronic hunger now affects upwards of 1.3 billion people, according to the world Health Organization--a statistic all the more striking in a world where one third of all the grain produced is being fed to cattle and other livestock.  Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species--nearly 25 percent--been malnourished.

"The transition of world agriculture from food grain to feed grains represents an...evil whose consequences may be far greater and longer lasting than any past examples of violence inflicted by men against their fellow human beings."

In the 1970s, the United Nations Secretary General said that the food consumption of the rich countries is the key cause of hunger around the world.  The United Nations has recommended that the wealthy nations cut down on their meat consumption.

The Worldwatch Institute has released a remarkable report entitled Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment, which lists nation after nation where food deprivation has followed the switch from a grain-based diet to a meat-based one.

Most of the nations that now import grain from the United States were once self-sufficient in grain.  The main reason they aren't is the rise in meat production and consumption.

In Taiwan, for example, per capita consumption of meat and eggs increased 600 percent from 1950 to 1990.  With this change, vastly increased amounts of grain have gone to livestock, raising the annual per capita grain use in the country from 375 pounds to 858 pounds.  In 1950, Taiwan was a grain exporter; in 1990 the nation imported, mostly for feed, 74 percent of the grain it used.

In mainland China, the situation is similar.  Increased meat consumption has meant less grain available to feed people.  Since 1978, meat consumption has more than doubled, to twenty-four kilograms.  The share of Chinese grain fed to livestock rose from 7 percent in 1960 to 20 percent in 1990.

Over half Of Latin America's beef production is exported, and the rest is too expensive for any but the wealthy to purchase.  From 1960 to 1980 beef exports from El Salvador increases over sixfold.  Meanwhile, increasing numbers of small farmers lost their livelihood and were pushed off their land. Today, 72 percent of all Salvadoran infants are underfed.

In Brazil, major portions of the Amazon tropical rain forests have been destroyed so that wealthy multinational corporations can produce beef for the wealthy.   Corporations such as Volkswagen, Nestle, Mitsubishi, Liquigas, King Ranch, and Swift-Eckrich have bulldozed and burned literally hundreds of millions of acres, replacing the world's oldest and richest ecosystems, home to two million or more species of plant and animal life with a single crop--pasture grass for cattle.  And here, the beef produced has not gone to feed hungry Brazilians; it has been primarily exported to Western Europe, the Middle East, and North America.  In 1987, the United States imported three hundred million pounds of meat from countries in Central and South America.

With the help of international lending institutions, Brazil has mounted an enormous effort to increase agricultural production, but this has been primarily meat-oriented production and for export.  In the late '60s, soybeans were almost nonexistent or Brazil.  Today, this crop is the nation's number one export--but almost all of it goes to feed Japanese and European livestock.  Twenty five years ago, one third of the Brazilian population suffered from malnutrition.  Today, the figure has risen to two thirds.

Oxfam, the international charity, reports that in Brazil huge cattle ranches take up some of the most fertile soil in the whole country, yet 60 percent of Brazilians are malnourished.  Oxfam estimates that in Mexico, 80 percent of the children in rural areas are undernourished, yet the livestock are fed more grain than the human population eats!  The livestock are exported of course, to satisfy the developed nations' craving for cheap hamburgers.

In the early '60s, sorghum was almost unknown in Mexico.  But by 1980, it covered literally twice the acreage of wheat.  Sorghum isn't grown for humans.   It is fed to livestock.  In the late '60s, livestock consumed only 6 percent of Mexico's grain.  Today, the figure is over 50 percent.  This is a trend throughout the Third World.  Copying the United States' meat-oriented diet, these poor countries devote increasing percentages of their resources to meat production.

In Guatemala, 75 percent of the children under five years of age are undernourished.  Yet, every year Guatemala exports 40 million pounds of meat to the United States. It borders on the criminal!

In Costa Rica, beef production quadrupled between 1960 and 1980, but almost all this beef is exported to the United States, and what does stay in the country is eaten by a tiny minority.  Though more and more Costa Rican land is being turned over to meat production, the population is not eating more meat for the change.  The average family in Costa Rica eats less meat than the average American housecat.

Throughout Latin America, land availability is a prominent social issue.   Revolutionaries as well as reform-minded moderates have made land reform a major issue.  Yet in many Latin American countries, forests are being leveled in order to create pastures for cattle grazing land.

In a region where land availability is a central social issue, existing land is being gobbled up by livestock agriculture.   The resulting social tensions have resulted in civil wars, repression and violence.

Hunger is really a social disease caused by the unjust, inefficient and wasteful control of food.  Our food security is not being threatened by the prolific, hungry masses, but by elites that profit by the concentration and internationalization of control of food resources.

In country after country the pattern is repeated.  Livestock industries are consuming feed to such an extent that now almost all Third World nations must import grain.  Seventy-five percent of Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals, not to people.  In country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is squeezing out staple production for the poor.

The same trend can be found in the Middle East and North Africa--increases in grain-fed livestock require more imported feed.  In the early '70s, Egypt was self-sufficient in grain.  Then, livestock ate only 10 percent of the nation's grain.  Today, livestock consume 36 percent of Egypt's grain.  As a result, Egypt must now import eight million tons of grain every year.

In the late '60s , Syria was a barley exporter.  But in the intervening years, livestock has consumed increasing amounts of the country's grain.   Now, despite a phenomenal 1,000 percent increase in the land area devoted to producing barley, Syria must import the cereal.

According to Buckminster Fuller, there are enough resources at present to feed, clothe, house and educate every human being on the planet at American middle class standards.  The Institute for Food and Development Policy has shown that there is no country in the world in which the people cannot feed themselves from their own resources.

Moreover, there is no correlation between land density and hunger.   China has twice as many people per cultivated acre as India, yet less of a hunger problem.  Bangladesh has just one-half the people per cultivated acre that Taiwan has, yet Taiwan has no starvation, while Bangladesh has one of the highest rates in the world.  The most densely populated countries in the world today are not India and Bangladesh, but Holland and Japan.

Many of us believe that hunger exists because there's not enough food to go around.  But as Frances Moore Lappe' and her anti-hunger organization Food First! have shown, the real cause of hunger is a scarcity of justice, not a scarcity of food.

I think you're making this seem much more important than it really is. The ad was a satirial take on some of the ads that have aired on NBC and during past superbowls, and I find it hard to imagine that PETA ever intended for this to air. I will continue to support PETA and their work in animal rights.

You're just going after PETA because they are an easy target. And quite frankly, I think that you are wrong.

The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

---Albert Einstein

"Each year, the meat industrial complex abuses and butchers nearly 9 billion cows, pigs, sheep, turkeys, chickens, and other innocent, feeling animals just for the enjoyment of consumers.  Each year, nearly 1.5 million of these consumers are crippled and killed prematurely by heart failure, cancer, stroke, and other chronic diseases that have been linked conclusively with the consumption of these animals.  Each year, millions of other animals are abused and sacrificed in a vain search for a 'magic pill' that would vanquish these largely self-inflicted diseases."

---Alex Hershaft, PhD, president, Farm Animal Reform Movement

When analyzing 8,300 deaths in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany among 76,000 men and women in five different, large studies, researchers concluded that vegetarians have a 24 percent reduction in death from heart disease.

Similarly, in the famous Oxford Vegetarian Study, where 6,000 vegetarians were compared with 5,000 meat-eaters over nearly two decades, scientists found that the rate of death from heart disease was 28 percent lower in vegetarians than in meat-eaters.

One study analyzed eighty scientific studies in leading medical journals.  The analysis found that vegetarians had lower blood pressure, and were less likely to suffer from stroke, heart attack, and kidney failure.

A large German study of nearly 2,000 vegetarians found that deaths from heart disease were reduced by over one-third, and that heart disease itself was far less than that of the general population.

Another large study examined the coronary artery disease risk of young adults ages 18 to 30 and vegetarians were found to have much higher levels of cardiovascular fitness and a greatly reduced risk of heart disease.

"The process of gradual blocking of the coronary arteries begins not in adulthood but in childhood...and the main cause of this arteriosclerosis is the steadily increasing amount of fat in the American diet, particularly saturated animal fats such as those found in meat, chicken, milk and cheeses.  If there was another disease that caused half a million deaths a year, you can be sure that the public would be acutely aware of the danger, and that the cure or prevention would be universally practiced."

---Dr. Benjamin Spock, author, child expert

"I don't understand why asking people to eat a well-balanced vegetarian diet is considered drastic, while it is medically conservative to cut people open and put them on powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs for the rest of their lives."

---Dr. Dean Ornish, author, Reversing Heart Disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer.  Vegetarians have a 20 to 30 percent reduced risk of having a stroke.  Stroke, like heart disease, is associated with diets high in saturated fats, and the vegetarian diet is naturally low in these fats.

The Oxford Vegetarian Study found cancer mortality to be 39 percent lower among vegetarians when compared with meat-eaters.  The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer found vegetarians suffer 40 percent fewer cancers than the general population.

Studies have shown that decreasing a woman's animal fat intake can reduce the chances that she will die from breast cancer.  A large-scale, long-term study in the Netherlands found a powerful connection between  the amount of animal fat consumed and the rate of prostate cancer.  A review of a dozen studies found dietary fat strongly correlated with prostate cancer.

Ovarian, uterine, and endometrial cancers have all been shown to be strongly correlated to the amount of animal fat in one's diet, and vegetarian women have significantly lower rates of these cancers.

"The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wrs of this century, all the natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined."

---Dr. Neal Barnard, Executive Director, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

"Vegetarians have the best diet.  They have the lowest rate of coronary disease of any group in the country.  They have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40 percent of our cancer rate."

---William Castelli, MD, Director, Framingham Heart Study

"Human beings are not natural carnivores.  When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

---Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief, American Journal of Cardiology

We are not natural herbivores. The human body can't break down cellulose, the principle component of plant foods (though it does serve a purpose as dietary fiber). This is the reason we can't graze or live on grass. Anatomically, we resemble the other primates (frugivores), whose diet is mostly vegetarian. We're meant to live mostly, if not entirely, upon plant foods. Only vitamin B-12 cannot be obtained from plant foods.

Predators are found in nature, but so are cannibalism and rape. Killing other animals for food, in this sense, really is an ethical issue, not a "dietary" issue.

Keith Akers writes in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983): "There is no question that lacto-ovo-vegetarians easily obtain enough vitamin B-12; dairy products and eggs are generous suppliers of vitamin B-12. The controversy pertains only to those who live on plant foods and do not eat any animal foods at all--the 'total vegetarians' or 'vegans.'...The evidence shows, however, that there are numerous sources of vitamin B-12 other than animal foods, and that vitamin B-12 is not a particularly difficult vitamin to get. In short, the Great Vitamin B-12 Controversy, like the protein controversy, is largely generated by lack of information concerning already available research data.

"Only incredibly small quantities of vitamin B-12 are thought to be needed in the diet. According to the National Research Council, 3 micrograms daily will meet the body's requirements. but Victor Herbert, a noted authority on the subject, puts the requirement at 0.1 micrograms, making even the National Research Council's microscopic figure 30 times in excess of the actual need."

John Robbins, author of Diet for a New America (1987), says that vitamin B-12 is found naturally around us: on the dirt on a carrot pulled out of the ground, in rainwater, etc., but we live in a sanitized society, removed from nature.

Keith Akers similarly observes:

"Vitamin B-12 has been found in rainwater and in many plant foods. In small quantities, Vitamin B-12 has been found either in or on various foods such as the roots and stems of tomatoes, cabbage, celery, kale, broccoli, leeks, and the leaves of kohlrabi. An ounce of the roots of leeks, beets, and other vegetables will provide 0.1 to 0.3 micrograms of B-12, which is more than a day's requirement.

"There are other plant foods which provide 'massive' quantities of vitamin B-12--'massive,' that is, in relation to human requirements for the vitamin. These include nutritional yeast, tempeh, seaweed, algae, kelp, and fermented soy sauces. The human liver can store vitamin B-12 for years, so once it is ingested from one of these sources, one can go for long periods of time without having to worry about a source of B-12."

In his 1979 book, Vegetarianism: A Way of Life, Dudley Giehl writes that some ancient Egyptian priests were vegetarian to help them with their vows of celibacy and that they avoided eggs and milk, which they called "liquid flesh." Giehl writes that Leonardo da Vinci was a vegan, out of ethical concern for animals.

In his 1923 book, The Natural Diet of Man, Adventist physician Dr. John Harvey Kellogg writes: "The Ladrone Islands were discovered by the Spaniards around 1620. There were no animals on the islands except birds, which the natives did not eat. The natives had never seen fire, and they lived entirely on plant foods--fruits and roots in their natural state. They were found to be vigorous, active, and of good longevity."

The Garden of Eden was vegan, but veganism as an historical trend is a fairly recent phenomenon. The Vegan Society was formed in England in 1944.

The ethical, environmental, and nutritional arguments are compelling enough to encourage millions of Americans to reduce, if not eliminate entirely, their consumption of animal products.

Why did you bother with this?  Women have choices.  Animals don't.  You may not agree with how some women are presented or treated or how that reflects on you or whatever, but PETA is protesting torture.  Have a heart.  

According to the Bible, God intended the entire human race to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Paradise is vegetarian. Rashi (Rabbi Solomon von Isaac, 1030-1105), the famous Jewish Bible commentator, taught that "God did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its flesh. Only every green herb shall they all eat together." Ibn Ezra and other Jewish biblical commentators agree.

According to the Talmud, "Adam and many generations that followed him were strict flesh-abstainers; flesh-foods were rejected as repulsive for human consumption." Although man was made in God's image and given dominion over all creation (Genesis 1:26-28), these verses do not justify humans killing animals and devouring them, because God immediately proclaims He created the plants for human consumption. (Genesis 1:29)

In a letter to Pope John Paul II, challenging him on the issue of animal experimentation, Dr. Michael Fox of the Humane Society argued that the word "dominion" is derived from the original Hebrew word "rahe" which refers to compassionate stewardship, instead of power and control. Parents have dominion over their children; they do not have a license to kill, torment or abuse them. The Talmud (Shabbat 119; Sanhedrin 7) interprets "dominion" to mean animals may be used for labor.

Man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) and told to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29). "And God saw all that He had made and saw that it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) Complete and perfect harmony. Everything in the beginning was the way God wanted it. Vegetarianism was part of God's initial plan for the world.

"It appears that the first intention of the Maker was to have men live on a strictly vegetarian diet," writes Rabbi Simon Glazer, in his 1971 Guide to Judaism. "The very earliest periods of Jewish history are marked with humanitarian conduct towards the lower animal kingdom...It is clearly established that the ancient Hebrews knew, and perhaps were the first among men to know, that animals feel and suffer pain."

After the Flood, God revised His commandment against flesh-eating. Human beings, since eating of the forbidden fruit, seemed incapable of obedience on this issue. One Jewish writer comments, "Only after man had proven unfit for the high moral standard given at the beginning, was meat made a part of the humans' diet."

A Jewish legend says Moses was found to be righteous by God through his shepherding. While Moses was tending his sheep of Jethro in the Midian wilderness, a young kid ran away from the flock. Moses ran after it until he found the kid drinking by a pool of water. Moses approached the kid and said, "I did not know that you ran away because you were thirsty; now, you must be tired." So Moses placed the animal on his shoulders and carried him back to the flock. God said, "Because thou has shown mercy in leading the flock, thou will surely tend My flock, Israel."

In their book, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, Dennis Prager and Rabbi Telushkin explain:  "Keeping kosher is Judaism's compromise with its ideal vegetarianism.  Ideally, according to Judaism, man would confine his eating to fruits and vegetables and not kill animals for food."

In his excellent A Guide to the Misled, Rabbi Shmuel Golding explains the orthodox Jewish position concerning animal sacrifices:  "When G-d gave our ancestors permission to make sacrifices to Him, it was a concession, just as when He allowed us to have a king (I Samuel 8), but He gave us a whole set of rules and regulations concerning sacrifice that, when followed, would be superior to and distinct from the sacrificial system of the heathens."

Some biblical passages denounce animal sacrifice (Isaiah 1:11,15; Amos 5:21-25).  Other passages state that animal sacrifices, not necessarily incurring God's wrath, are unnecessary (I Kings 15:22; Jeremiah 7:21-22; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 8:13; Micah 6:6-8; Psalm 50:1-14; Psalm 40:6; Proverbs 21:3; Ecclesiastes 5:1).

Sometimes Christians cite Isaiah 1:11, where God says, "I am full of the burnt offerings..."  They say the word "full" implies God accepted the sacrifices.  However, in Isaiah 43:23-24, God says:  "You have not honored Me with your sacrifices...rather you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities."  This suggests, as Moses Maimonides taught and Rabbi Shmuel Golding confirms above, that "the sacrifices were a concession to barbarism."

Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the coming of God's kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10), the kingdom of peace, in which the entire world is restored to a vegetarian paradise (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9).  Recalling Psalm 37:11, he blessed the meek, saying they would inherit the earth.  (Matthew 5:5)  The kingdom of God belongs to the gentle and kind (Matthew 5:7-9)  Christians are to "Be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful."  (Luke 6:36)  Those who take up the sword must perish by the sword.  (Matthew 26:52)

Jesus repeatedly spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28).   Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice."  (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32)  The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (which Paul, and not Jesus, regarded as "so much garbage"), but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple.  (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals.

When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years.  He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath.  "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked.  (Luke 13:10-16)

On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath.  "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?"  (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep.  He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock.

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.  What do you think?  Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

"And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.  And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."  (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

Jesus insisted upon the moral standards given by God in the beginning (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and this did not go  unnoticed by early church fathers such as St. Jerome.

From history, too, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists.  For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.

Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have been vegetarian.  A partial list includes:  St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Benedict, Aegidius, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Columba, St. Filipo Neri, John Wray, Thomas Tryon, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.

Reverend Marc Wessels of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) writes:

"The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves.  Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea.  By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals.  There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis.  An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

According to contemporary Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast:

"...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging---to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets, to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."

In a sermon preached in York Minster, September 28, 1986, John Austin Baker, the Bishop of Salisbury, England, attacked the overcrowded confinement methods of raising and killing animals for food ("factory farming"), choosing as his example, the treatment of chickens:

"Is there any credit balance for the battery hen, denied almost all natural functioning, all normal environment, lapsing steadily into deformity and disease, for the whole of her existence?" he asked.  "It is in the battery shed and the broiler house, not in the wild, that we find the true parallel to Auschwitz.  Auschwitz is a purely human invention."

Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church says:

"The Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights.  We who are Christians should be treating the animal creation now as it will be treated then, at Christ's second coming. It will not now be perfect, but it must be substantial, otherwise we have missed our calling, and we grieve the One we call 'Lord,' who was born in a stable surrounded by animals simply because He chose it that way."

Rose Evans, editor and publisher of Harmony:  Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious Left, says there are more Christian vegetarians than Jewish vegetarians.  Yet some people still react to the idea of Christian vegetarianism as though it were an oxymoron.

"Every year," says Reverend Andrew Linzey, author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so...The time is long overdue to take the issue of animal rights to the churches...

"I derive hope from the Gospel preaching that the same God who draws us to such affinity and intimacy with suffering creatures declared that reality on a Cross in Calvary.  Unless all Christian preaching has been utterly mistaken, the God who becomes incarnate and crucified is the one who has taken the side of the oppressed and the suffering of the world--however the churches may actually behave."

lol idk..i have nothing wrong with the add i am pro womens rights and pro animal rights. i think its geard towards men who probably eat meat and think of women as pieces of meat lol so its perfect for actually getting them to watch and might get there drunken heads to pay atention.

A 1980 United Nations report states that women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, yet receive one-tenth of the world’s income and own less than one-hundredth of the world’s property.

The impact of the women’s movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God." The words of Scripture—perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul—on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration." (I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)

Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity. If churches, Scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do the same towards animals.

The International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) was founded in 1985 by Virginia Bouraquardez. Its educational and religious programs are meant to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity’s attitude towards the treatment of our animal kin...and, through leadership, materials, and programs, to successfully interact with clergy and laity from many religious traditions."

According to INRA:

"Religion counsels the powerful to be merciful and kind to those weaker than themselves, and most of humankind is at least nominally religious. But there is a ghastly paradox. Far from showing mercy, humanity uses its dominion over other animal species to pen them in cruel close confinement; to trap, club, and harpoon them; to poison, mutilate, and shock them in the name of science; to kill them by the billions; and even to blind them in excruciating pain to test cosmetics.

"Some of these abuses are due to mistaken understandings of religious principles; others, to a failure to apply those principles. Scriptures need to be fully researched concerning the relationship of humans to nonhuman animals, and to the entire ecological structure of Nature. Misinterpretations of scripture taken out of context, or based upon questionable theological assumptions need to be re-examined."

In the winter of 1990, INRA’s Executive Director, the Reverend Dr. Marc A. Wessels wrote: "As a Christian clergyman who speaks of having compassion for other creatures and who actively declares the need for humans to develop an ethic that gives reverence for all of life, I hope that others will open their eyes, hearts and minds to the responsibility of loving care for God’s creatures."

In a pamphlet entitled "The Spiritual Link Between Humans and Animals," Reverend Wessels writes: "We recognize that many animal rights activists and ecologists are highly critical of Christians because of our relative failure thus far adequately to defend animals and to preserve the natural environment. Yet there are positive signs of a growing movement of Christian activists and theologians who are committed to the process of ecological stewardship and animal liberation.

"Individual Christians and groups on a variety of levels, including denominational, ecumenical, national and international, have begun the delayed process of seriously considering and practically addressing the question of Christian responsibility for animals. Because of the debate surrounding the ‘rights’ of animals, some Christians are considering the tenets of their faith in search for an appropriate ethical response."

According to Reverend Wessels, "The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

Reverend Wessels notes that: "In the Bible, which we understand as the divine revelation of God, there is ample evidence of the vastness and goodness of God toward animals. The Scriptures announce God as the creator of all life, the One responsible for calling life into being and placing it in an ordered fashion which reflects God’s glory. Humans and animals are a part of this arrangement. Humanity has a special relationship with particular duties to God’s created order, a connection to the animals by which they are morally bound by God’s covenant with them.

"According to the Scriptures, Christians are called to respect the life of animals and to be ethically engaged in protecting the life and liberty of all sentient creatures. As that is the case, human needs and rights do not usurp an animal’s intrinsic rights, nor should they deny the basic liberty of either individual animals or specific species. If the Christian call can be understood as being a command to be righteous, then Christians must have a higher regard for the lives of animals.

"Jesus’ life was one of compassion and liberation;" concludes Reverend Wessels, "his ministry was one which understood and expressed the needs of the oppressed. Especially in the past decade, Christians have been reminded that their faith requires them to take seriously the cries of the oppressed.

"Theologians such as Gutierrez, Miranda, and Hinkelammert have defined the Christian message as one which liberates lives and transforms social patterns of oppression. That concept of Christianity which sees God as the creator of the universe and the One who seeks justice is not exclusive; immunity from cruelty and injustice is not only a human desire or need—the animal kingdom also needs liberation."

A growing number of Christian theologians, clergy and activists are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights. In a pamphlet entitled "Christian Considerations on Laboratory Animals," Reverend Marc Wessels notes that in laboratories animals cease to be persons and become "tools of research." He cites William French of Loyala University as having made the same observation at a gathering of Christian ethicists at Duke University—a conference entitled "Good News for Animals?"

On Earth Day, 1990, Reverend Wessels observed: "It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women’s suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

"A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet," writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook.  "A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet.  A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet."

I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism...which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling.  Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today.  According to a recent United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined.  Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

A 2007 journal published by the American Dietetic Association found "meat protein production required 26 times more water than vegetable protein on rain-fed lands."  The journal further states that dieticians "can encourage eating that is both healthful and conserving of soil, water, and energy by emphasizing plant sources of protein and foods that have been produced with fewer agricultural inputs."

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems.  Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

---Union Nations' Food and Agriculture Association

A single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day, which is equivalent to that of 20 to 40 humans.

70% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry.  (Audubon Society)

On average 990 liters of water are required to produce one liter of milk.  (United Nations)

Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock.  (Greenpeace)

Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S.  Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in a PETA interview, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right.  Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

Back to the Super Bowl aftermath:
http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/sexism_and_speciesism_both_at_the_super_bowl

You realize this kind of thing is the reason so many people have trouble taking feminists seriously, right?

Beyond the fact that you compare women to animals

> Just like the animals you want to protect, we are
> more than just a piece of "meat."

you create a hostile metaphor which is not in the ad.  The models are not compared to meat in the ad, but only in your article.  One gets the impression, Ms. Nedaeu, that you harbor thinly-veiled hostility to women, if they have the audacity to look good in their undies.

Showing women slinking around in lingere is *not* the problem.  And this is not even gratiutous:  the argument is that vegitarians have better sex, and the visuals portray that argument to Super Bowl viewers.

Politically-correct prudery is just politically-correct prudery:  it is ideological criticism which has no true grounding in political effects or realities.

Hey, I'm vegan myself but can we please keep religion and nutrition out of it? I thought this forum was about PETA campaigns and whether or not they're sexist - it's not about the merits of veganism itself. 
But if we are going to talk about the ethics of how humans treat animals, it is absolutely pointless to quote the Bible (because Christians are a global minority, and many people don't believe in a 'god' at all) or to cite nutritional research (because the complexities of human nutrition remain largely unknown, as any honest health professional will admit). 
Instead, let's talk about the shared experiences of being a human being and living in a world we all can relate to. I think most of us can potentially empathise with pain and suffering, and feel sorry for animals subjected to cruelty. All of my friends and family eat meat and dairy, yet they are not sadistic nor are they idiotic. Although personally I choose to avoid animal products completely, I'd be glad if people just ate less meat and showed enough compassion to support humane policies of animal welfare (at this point in human history, I think animal welfare is a more productive discourse than animal rights). 

Humans are a vegetarian species, and it makes sense to eat lower on the food chain.

Significant environmental damage results from livestock agriculture, often driving many other species into extinction.  The existence of dodo birds was first recorded in the early 1500s by Portuguese Sailors.  The dodo, which weighed about 50 pounds, was incapable of defending itself and could not flee from its enemies, since it lacked the ability to fly.  Large numbers of these birds were killed by human beings for food.  Additionally, pigs that were brought to the islands destroyed a significant portion of the dodos' eggs, creating a severe decline in the dodo population.  The species became extinct by the 18th century.

The Steller's sea cow once inhabited the coastal waters of the Commander Islands in the Bering Sea.  Russian Sealers, who were the first to record the existence of these creatures in 1741, estimated the entire population to be about 5,000.  Their meat was considered a delicacy by Russian sealers, who decimated the entire species by 1768.

The Labrador duck has been extinct since 1875.  This species formerly inhabited the coastal regions of northeastern Canada.  The extinction of the passenger pigeon was caused by the American westward expansion in the second half of the 19th century.  As passenger pigeons became a popular food item, the numbers of this species rapidly diminished.  Millions were slaughtered each year and shipped by railway cars to be sold in city markets.  Another bird to become extinct because of its use as food was the heath hen, which became extinct about 1932.

The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California.  Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be "commercially extinct."  Another species classified as "commercially extinct" is the New England haddock.   Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

More than 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific.  Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.  Some animals are killed because, as carnivores, they compete with the human predator for the right to kill other animals for food, including wild game and domesticated species raised by livestock ranchers.  Alaskan hunters are eager to reduce the wolf population in their state because this animal is a predator of moose.

Cougars, coyotes and wolves are considered a menace to the cattle and sheep industries, and livestock ranchers have engaged in a large-scale campaign to exterminate them.  Two species of wolves are now endangered, and very few wolves can be found in the United States except in Alaska and northeastern Minnesota.  The relatively small number of eagles in the U.S. is largely due to the destruction of this species by livestock ranchers, particularly those in the sheep business.

Herbivorous animals that inhabit rangeland areas are also killed by the livestock industry because they compete with cattle arid sheep for food.  Large numbers of kangaroos are being exterminated in Australia, while in the United States livestock ranchers seek to destroy wild horses, wild burros, deer, elk, antelope and prairie dogs.

An ever-increasing amount of beef eaten in the United States is imported from Central and South America.  To provide pasture for cattle, these countries have been clearing their priceless tropical rainforests.  In 1960, when the U. S. first began to import beef, Central America was blessed with 130,000 square miles of rainforest.   But now, less than 80,000 square miles remain.  At this rate, the entire tropical rainforests of Central America will be gone in another forty years.

These tropical rainforests are among the world's most precious natural resources.   Amounting to only 30 percent of the world's forests, the rainforests contain 80 percent of the earth's land vegetation, and account for a substantial percentage of the earth's oxygen supplies.  These forests are the oldest ecosystems on earth and have developed extreme ecological richness.  Half of all species on earth live in the moist tropical rainforests.  But these jewels of nature are being rapidly destroyed to provide land on which cattle can be grazed for the American fast-food market.

The current rate of species extinction is 1,000 species a year, and most of that is due to the destruction of rainforests and related habitats in the tropics.

Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land into desert.  We lose four million acres of topsoil each year and eighty-five percent of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock.  To replace the soil we've lost, we're destroying our forests.  Since 1967, the rate of deforestation in the U. S. has been one acre every five seconds.  For each acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed.

According to the editors of World Watch, July/August 2004: “The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future—deforestization, topsoil erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease.”

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it!   Linda was right.  Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

The animal rights movement should be supported by all caring Americans.

Animal rights and vegetarianism are a progressive cause!

I've been vegetarian since 1982.  I attended my first anti-vivisection protest in the spring of 1985, as anti-apartheid demonstrations rocked the UC San Diego campus. I first got interested in promoting vegetarianism in mainstream society after reading John Robbins' Diet for a New America (1987).  Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, it makes veganism seem as reasonable and mainstream as recycling.

For example, half the water consumed in the U.S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock.  Huge amounts of water are also used to wash away their excrement.  U.S. livestock produce twenty times as much excrement as does the entire human population; creating sewage which is ten to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage.  Animal wastes cause ten times more water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes three times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined.  Meat producers are the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contributing to half the water pollution in the United States.

Joanna Macy, author of Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age, depicts the advantages of America moving towards a vegan diet in her foreword to Diet for a New America:

"The effects on our physical health are immediate.  The incidence of cancer and heart attack, the nation's biggest killers, drops precipitously.  So do many other diseases now demonstrably and causally linked to consumption of animal proteins and fats, such as osteoporosis...

"The social, ecological, and economic consequences, as we Americans turn away from animal food products, are equally remarkable.  We find that the grain we previously fed to fatten livestock can now feed five times the U.S. population; so we have become able to alleviate malnutrition and hunger on a worldwide scale...

"The great forests of the world, that we had been decimating for grazing purposes, begin to grow again.  Oxygen-producing trees are no longer sacrificed for cholesterol-producing steaks.

"The water crisis eases.  As we stop raising and grinding up cattle for hamburgers, we discover that ranching and farm factories had been the major drain on our water resources.  The amount now available for irrigation and hydroelectric power doubles.  Meanwhile, the change in diet frees over 90% of the fossil fuel previously used to produce food.  With this liberation of water energy and fossil fuel energy, our reliance on oil imports declines, as does the rationale for building nuclear power plants..."

Joanna Macy admits, "This scenario is wildly, absurdly utopian.  It is also clearly the way we are meant to live, built to live."  What could possibly make it a reality?  "It is this very book!"

Paul McCartney also says, "If anyone wants to save the planet, all they have to do is stop eating meat.  That's the single most important thing you could do.  It's staggering when you think about it.  Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot:  ecology, famine, cruelty.  Let's do it!  Linda was right.  Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century."

Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights similarly says:

"Merely by ceasing to eat meat
 Merely by practicing restraint
 We have the power to end a painful industry

"We do not have to bear arms to end this evil
 We do not have to contribute money
 We do not have to sit in jail or go to
 meetings or demonstrations or
 engage in acts of civil disobedience

"Most often, the act of repairing the world,
 of healing mortal wounds,
 is left to heroes and tzaddikim (holy people)
 Saints and people of unusual discipline

"But here is an action every mortal can
 perform--surely it is not too difficult!"

When I first read Diet for a New America, I thought it could have the same kind of impact on mainstream American society that Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet had in the '70s.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in pounds.  A fellow animal activist in San Diego, Tricia Fernatt, felt as I did:  since the vast majority of animals are being killed for food, why are we wasting our time on peripheral issues?  Shouldn't veganism be the main focus of our movement?  And Diet for a New America tied it all together.  If Americans reduced their meat consumption by just 10 percent, it would release enough grain and soybeans to feed over 60 million people.

In writing his expose on the meat industry, John Robbins has been compared to Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader and other whistleblowers.  In Diet for a New America, he demonstrates how all the various causes that concern the left: healthcare, a sustainable energy policy, hunger, malnutrition, etc. are all taken care of in one fell swoop by a vegan diet.  I had the opportunity to meet John Robbins, in September 1988.  It was one of the most inspirational moments of my life!

He was heir to the Baskin-Robbins fortune.  He renounced it at a young age.  He traveled to India, opened a yoga ashram in Canada, etc.  He spoke of Gandhi and nonviolence.  His son Ocean Robbins founded Youth for Environmental Sanity (YES!) and is also dedicated to promoting veganism.  I asked John if he would try and get the American Left to support animal rights.  He told me that he had sent a copy of his book to Mother Jones, a left-liberal periodical published in San Francisco.

Many on the Left are beginning to take a stand in favor of animal rights.  Joanna Macy spoke at the San Francisco Green Festival, in November 2005.  In his 1990 updated and revised edition of Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes that many of the political parties leaning towards the "Green" end of the political spectrum in Europe were beginning to oppose animal experimentation.

John Robbins elaborated further on the economic waste of raising animals for food in May All Be Fed, which my brother gave me for Christmas in 1992.  Oxfam, the international charity, reports that in Mexico, 80 percent of the children in rural areas are undernourished, yet the livestock are fed more grain than the human population eats!  Meat consumption in Taiwan increased 600 percent between 1950 and 1990.  In 1950, Taiwan was a grain exporter; in 1990 the nation imported, mostly for feed, 74 percent of the grain it used.  Twenty-five years ago, Syria was a barley exporter.  But in the intervening years, livestock have consumed increasing amounts of the country's grain.  Now, despite a phenomenal 1000 percent increase in the land area devoted to producing barley, Syria must import the cereal.

John Robbins spoke before the United Nations in 1994, where he received a standing ovation.

I had the opportunity to hear John Robbins speak at a Unitarian church here in Oakland, CA several years ago.  The church was PACKED!  John writes in The Food Revolution (2001):

"The revolution sweeping our relationship to our food and our world, I believe, is part of an historical imperative.  This is what happens when the human spirit is activated.  One hundred and fifty years ago, slavery was legal in the United States.  One hundred years ago, women could not vote in most states.  Eighty years ago, there were no laws in the United States against any form of child abuse.  Fifty years ago, we had no Civil Rights Act, no Clean Air or Clean Water legislation, no Endangered Species Act.  Today, millions of people are refusing to buy clothes and shoes made in sweatshops and are seeking to live healthier and more Earth-friendly lifestyles.  In the last fifteen years alone, as people in the United States have realized how cruelly veal calves are treated, veal consumption has dropped 62 percent."

Thanks for the thoughtful comments everyone - I've closed the thread to further discussion, but I hope you continue to share your thoughts on Change.org.