Yummr

By veggr on April 8, 2008 at 01:47:28 PM

I will NOT be participating (surprise).  I feel like this is a really gray area-- the 'Beef Ambassadors' have as much right as anyone to advertise their product and try to sell more of it.  But at the same time, when you realize that the 'product' ultimately involves killing animals...well, things aren't so clear, so black and white anymore.  There are many people out there who have absolutely no problem with meat-- it's just food, nothing more-- and there are others view it differently.

I agree, though-- I'm interested to see if/how PETA will respond. 

By LordoftheFoodies on April 8, 2008 at 04:04:58 PM

This reminds me of the BEEF ITS WHATS FOR DINNER campaign.  I luv beef and would consider participating in the contest.  The itouch is a sweet little gadget!

 PETA needs to clean up its act towards household pets before it can save agricultural animals.  As recent as 2006 the organization euthanized 97% of the pets under its care.

By tommy_t on April 8, 2008 at 04:19:21 PM

You should be able to eat whatever you want.  PETA and anyone who tries to force people into eating a specific diet are nothing but hypocrites.

By veggr on April 9, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM

I agree that people should be able to eat whatever they want, but there's nothing wrong with knowing where--and how--your food is made.  It's not just that PETA enjoys the power of "forcing people into eating a special diet," but that the organization is concerned with the consequences of eating meat; I think we can all agree that eating a piece of steak ultimately causes substantially more impact than eating a carrot.  It's this simple issue that makes campaigns such as this so provocative. 

Oh and I just saw the title of the post.  Very clever. 

By tommy_t on April 9, 2008 at 03:35:18 PM

I think PETA definately enjoys that power; they're mostly a bunch of holier-than-thou radicals who had a good cause but ran it into the ground through their extreme means.  If they were a legitimate organization, they would single out the specific industries that perform extreme abuses, and take them down one by one through legal actions.  Instead they make propaganda videos and give the impression that all meat is raised bad.  It's not a "simple provocative issue"; it's an easy bandwagon to hop on because, come on, animals are cute and how could you eat such a beautiful creature?

Also, do not try to compare a carrot to a steak.  If someone wants to bring up animal abuses with meat, then I should be able to bring to the table the use of pesticides, deforestation and the destruction of natural land, the depletion of soil nutrients through over-farming, and so on.

There are two sides to every coin, and there is no moral highground "silver bullet" solution to anything.

By LordoftheFoodies on April 10, 2008 at 11:51:01 AM

The Raise the Steaks campaign has a link to an information page about the beef production process.  http://beeffrompasturetoplate.org/stagesinbeefproductionprocess.aspx

 Millions of people eat beef every day, I don't even understand why they think they need this campaign?  Beef IS whats for dinner in many many many households!

Tommy, the PETA campaign never started with a good cause.  "Total Animal Liberation" has serious consequences, to everyday people and true animal lovers alike.   

“The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.” -Ingrid Newkirk

Under a PETA regime, animals would not be domesticated.  Animal lovers would have to observe even kittens and puppies from the wild.   

 Lets not forget this gem:
“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” -Ingrid Newkirk

 This is radicalism.  From a group of hypocrites who finds it more convenient to euthanize healthy animals than to care for them.  WHY?   Because actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them.

PETA is a NON ISSUE.  No one should even be talking about them.  They are media whores who rob attention from true animal lovers and marginalist, moderate animal rights groups.

 Whatever "impact" to consider caused by eating different foods is extremely complex and not clearly defined here.  Carrots and steaks? Substantially different inputs and nutritional outputs.

By tommy_t on April 10, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM

I DO think they started with a good cause, and that was the idea that animals and humans are equal.  That idea is fine with me; it's got a slight Buddhist ring to it.  I don't believe in it 100%, but I think its a nice peaceful idea to live by. 

PETA unfortunately tries to coerce that idea into people.

By sarahisafoodie on April 21, 2008 at 06:09:29 PM

This is really interesting. I am definitely pro-animals but don't think eating steak is anti-animal. I guess I see animal abuse, the preservation of extinct species, etc to be the real issues on the table with organizations like PETA but I know many people who do not agree and I respect their decisions/opinions.