People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, was founded in 1980.’ Its slogan is ‘Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.”
Today it boasts one million members, including some major celebrities like Sir Paul McCartney, Montel Williams and Pamela Anderson.’ It has done great work in the past for its stated purpose, such as the 1981 undercover research and expos’eacute; on a Maryland primate laboratory (which led to the first ever Supreme Court animal rights case).’
Its powerful lobbyists and marketing experts have leveraged PETA’s formidable power to pressure significant changes in favor of animal rights from such mighty companies as McDonald’s, L’Oreal, Burger King, J. Crew, Polo Ralph Lauren, Welch’s ‘hellip; the list goes on.’
They have sued for custody of laboratory animals as if the owners were unfit parents of abused children, written in to Merriam-Webster demanding ludicrous changes in the definition of the word ‘circus’ and gone undercover in dozens and dozens of questionable companies.’
In its 26 years of operations, it has improved the lives of countless millions of animals all over the world and leveraged itself into the position of undisputed leader of radical animal-rights campaigns across the world.’
It is thus unfortunate that PETA crossed the line at some indeterminate time in the past.’ What was once crusading became oppression, and what was once single-minded interest in animal rights appears to have shifted to outright fanaticism, with little concern for human beings.
In 2000, PETA began running a new advertisement as part of their ‘Milk Sucks’ campaign which depicted New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani with a milk mustache with the header, ‘Got Prostate Cancer?”
This was a reference to Giuliani’s recent diagnosis of prostate cancer, as well as the long-running popular advertisement campaign by the California Milk Advisory Board.’
The advertisement alludes to some evidence that high amounts of dairy calcium intake can reduce the body’s concentration of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, a hormone which may protect against prostate cancer.’ The link is not a strong one; even the sources cited by PETA indicate that this is at worst a tertiary cause and that there are far more serious culprits for prostate cancer.’ The PETA advertisement was placed for shock value not educational content.
PSA Rising, a support group and activism center for prostate cancer survivors, described the advertisement as ‘payback,’ recounting an incident that took place a month before the advertisement began to run, in which PETA’s entry into the 2000 fiberglass cow sculpture event ‘CowParade’ was rejected as ‘profane’ and ‘graphic.”
PETA sued the city and the event organizers, only to lose in a decision in which the judge issued a damning opinion of PETA’s actions.’
The Giuliani advertisement was tasteless revenge on someone who had stood in PETA’s way.
PSA Rising also points out that the PETA ‘Milk Sucks’ campaign has run advertisements pointing out the potential links between milk and breast cancer as well, but did not select any of the numerous public figures who have endured breast cancer to be an unwilling model for that part of the campaign.’
It seems that it’s okay to pick out celebrity prostate cancer victims, to mock them with the knowledge that their own habits might have contributed to their cancer ‘hellip; but to do so with breast cancer victims is going too far.
This is not the only vulgar action by the organization.’ It wasn’t even the only vulgar action without the ‘Milk Sucks’ campaign.’
Another part of the campaign was a series of parallel ads which showed images of healthy young people and stated, ‘Got Beer?’ Better Than Milk!” These advertisements were run in college newspapers across the country.’ They were pulled after a short time due to an enormous public outcry.’
Many individuals saw them as encouraging the underage drinking problem which plagues college campuses.’ It was, at the very least, tactless.’ PETA now calls it ‘tongue-in-cheek.’
The founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, is perhaps the best representative of PETA: not only did she found the organization in her living room, but it is her guiding hand which has shaped it over the years with a firm touch.
‘We are press sluts,’ she said in a 2003 interview with Michael Specter of the New Yorker.’ ‘It is our obligation. We would be worthless if we were just polite and didn’t make any waves.” She related to Specter how she loves to say outrageous and controversial things to attract attention to the cause.
Newkirk never says how far she would go, but the answer seems clear from her actions.’ Under Newkirk, PETA supports the animal-rights terrorist groups ALF and ELF morally and financially, communicating for them and endorsing their firebombings, theft and vandalism.’ Newkirk, PETA and their allies are willing to do anything short of murder in order to better the lives of the world’s animals.’
That includes the most horrible quotes they can get into print, the most lurid campaigns (including nude calendars with the logo ‘I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur’) and direct aid to terrorists who aid their cause.
One of the most unusual things about PETA is their stance on euthanasia: they’re wild advocates of it.’
Every year they pay for reduced or free euthanasia for thousands of pets.’ They defend this policy by insisting that it would be impractical to try to care for the many unwanted animals they are given responsibility for, but it is a sour taste in the mouths of many who otherwise admire PETA.’
This euthanasia policy is, naturally, derived from Newkirk’s guidance.’ She began her career in animal rights in the D.C. area, where she ran the city animal shelter.’
She has recounted how, by the end of her time there, she was coming into work early every morning and killing dozens of animals.
Newkirk wanted to spare them suffering, she says.’ It’s an intriguing position, especially considering how earlier in the New Yorker interview she had tearfully recounted her feelings of betrayal when she first came to the shelter with a box of kittens. She had found them and brought them to the shelter to be care for, only to discover that the kittens were killed instead.’
It shocked her enough to start a lifetime of activism.’ She does not appear to see the irony.
The rationale for PETA’s attention-grabbing antics and astonishing absolutism is the belief that it can’t do any harm, even if it only does a little good each time.’ As Specter reasons, ‘a vegan isn’t going to start eating meat or wearing fur simply because she disapproves of a naked calendar.’
Like everyone else, PETA wants to maximize their impact per dollar, and the best way to do that is by being as vulgar possible.’ But ultimately this is a flawed reasoning and has led to PETA’s current position.’
They must continually top themselves with new outrageous stunts, lodged in a vicious cycle where expectations exceed the tastelessness they are able to provide without bringing disastrous lawsuits.
It can only lead to a breaking of the organization.’ It is up to PETA whether this will be through compromise (something to which they have always been averse) with their foes or with a descent into the depths of illegitimacy and ignominy.