H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
A visit to America’s Dairyland, home of all things meaty, must have been somewhat daunting for the folks at PETA.
PETA Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Bruce Friedrich visited the University of Wisconsin this past Thursday to hold a forum with students on the merits of a plant-based, vegan diet. The theme of the talk was the proposition that veganism can help end world hunger.
PETA’s reputation has not always held steady, even among liberal college students. While stunts like suggesting Ben & Jerry’s use breast milk instead of cow’s milk in their ice cream are meant more to create attention than be taken literally, they can often rub people the wrong way. I imagine PETA doesn’t mind — and may even like — being labeled as a bunch of nut jobs, but it may have inadvertently been chasing away otherwise interested people. Not everyone is comfortable dousing people in pig’s blood, you know.
Of course, PETA’s extreme campaigns are extreme for a reason — they get noticed. Started in 1980, the non-profit organization has grown to 187 employees, running on a budget funded almost entirely by its league of viciously loyal members. Its first major case, the discovery that a primate research facility in Silver Springs, Md. was severely mistreating its animals, put them on the map and transformed them from what co-founder Ingrid Newkirk called “five people in a basement” to a very influential national organization.
PETA has made other huge advances in the way of animal rights, but not without the cost of a heavy dose of criticism. While helping pass and modify countless animal rights laws, bringing light to cruel and illegal practices and turning attention to vegetarianism and veganism when little was known about either, PETA has been criticized for allegedly improperly euthanizing animals, as well as standing in the way of important medical research.
While Friedrich’s talk on Thursday did include discussion of animal welfare, its main focus was on how a vegan or vegetarian diet can improve the environment as well as stop millions from going hungry. The vice president of policy for PETA discussed how the Western diet’s food production requires six to twenty times the resources a plant-based diet would require, including excessive fossil fuels.
I must admit, although I am a big supporter of PETA, I too have been turned off by some of their campaign strategies. While I think getting the public’s attention with dramatic advertisements and demonstrations is one good way to get the message out, it should not be the only way. PETA’s finger-wagging-mother strategy can alienate and patronize, and often does not explain better alternatives without a holier-than-thou attitude.
This attitude, however, could be counteracted if PETA keeps up what they are doing here at UW. Coming down to the students’ level, explaining why a vegan diet is positive instead of simply preaching the sins of sirloin in a fire-and-brimstone-type sermon is what is going to open people’s minds to a new way of eating. You can’t take away a dog’s bone and tell him it’s because it’s the right thing to do — he could care less, he just wants his bone back. While I don’t associate human meat-eaters with dogs, it works in the same way. While their flashy scare tactics may turn some minds around, it certainly doesn’t work for everyone.
PETA’s strategy of speaking to college students in an intimate, accessible setting is an excellent move, and will certainly work in their favor if they keep up the positive, less condemning attitude. And while I am all for flour-bombing Lindsay Lohan (fur coat or not), I think it might be a good idea to cool it on the vandalism for a bit.
Laura Brennan ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in communicative disorders
IP hash: 9c771276
I’m a memebr of a different PETA.
People Eating Tasty Animals
IP hash: 8854d708
Wait, what did you say in this column?
IP hash: f13f4493
Laura,
A herbivore diet is a personal choice, nothing more.
Not eating meat will not end hunger on the planet, contrary to the baseless opinions of PETA and Mr Friedrice. Mr. Friedrice makes the assertion that “a tremendous waste of grain and energy is required to feed animals for people to eat. Extra stages of production are required, such as shipping the food, using fossil fuels and growing the crops that people could eat directly.” These “extra stages of production required” apply equally well to move bulk grains from areas of surplus to other areas of need.
First, consider the logical fallicy contained in Mr. Friedrice’s statement. Transportation of ANY food source from an area of surplus to an area of need requires additional processing steps and expenditure of energy. After all, if you are experiencing famine, you clearly have neither grain nor meat, and food in any form must be shipped to you or you will starve.
Second, consider that the transportation of bulk grains has always been and remains inefficient. Vermin (bugs, rats, mice, toxic molds, etc) get into the grain during storage and transportation, making it unfit for human consumption. Repeated use of bulk handling methods for transferring grains (from farm to local wholesaler, to regional wholesaler, to transoceanic shipping, to dock unloading, hauling and redistribution in the “hungry country”, et. al.) severly damage and degrade both the economic and nutrient value of the grains. Each step in storage, handling, and shipping requires large amounts of energy to effect the transfers. Between vermin contamination, loss of time dependent nutrients, and physical degradation of the grains from repeated handling and storage, large losses from the original volume of useable grain and their nutrient values are incurred. Huge total amounts of energy are expended to transport the large volume, low energy, high loss, incomplete protein grains from one country to another. Bulk shipping of grains from countries of surplus to countries in need is the truly inefficient distribution model, by all measures! Mr. Friedrice’s opinions on behalf of PETA are unsubstantiated and pathetically misleading.
Conversely, local production of food from both animals and grain is efficient. Since the dawn of farming, local surplus grains have been used efficiently by farmers as feedstock for food and work animals, fermenting favored beverages, and making their daily bread. Having the family cow and calf eat the surplus grain is always better than letting the rats and bugs get it! Most importantly, meat provides complete proteins, essential amino acids, and a better dietary balance overall when fresh grains and vegetables were not available. Their livestock converted the surplus incomplete grain porteins into complete proteins, providing a far more efficient and potent food reserves (milk, cheese, butter, meat) during long winters and harsh times. The livestock also generate a large amount of “fertilizer”, effectively used locally by the farmers to enhance vegetable and grain growth the next year. They could even fertilize a few flowering plants around the family yurt, to keep the Misses happy! The flawed policies espoused by PETA and Mr Friedrice are in direct opposition to exactly the kind of self sustaining practices espoused by our “think local, think green” philosophers!
Third, consider that your local grocer is stocked with fresh greens, grains, vegetables and meat year round. It is only fair to apply the same burden of Mr. Friedrice’s “extra processing steps and energy costs” to herbivore food commodites as well as meat. How many extra processing steps and how much more energy is expended to bring fresh Chilean grapes, Balinese tea, and Mexican jicama to Madison WI in February, to satisfy the PETA palate? Without fresh vegetables from far away places, the Vegan diet becomes very difficult to sustain through long winters! If you wish to use canned vegetables, their transportation costs are no different than canned meats. The Vegan diet and PETA et.al are “tried and found guilty” of the same anti-meat assertions made by Mr. Friedrice!
What are we left with? Some people don’t think it is “right” to kill animals for food. Some poeple do. Each is entitled to enjoy their personal dietary choice without rancor from the other. We must all learn to embrace diversity, right? Even PETA, Right???
There’s room for all God’s Creatures, Right next to the carrots and potatoes!
Invictus Maneo
IP hash: f151ec33
But you have to decide whether you agree with PETA’s position or not. PETA is not advocating a vegan diet because they think it is better for people, they’re advocating it because they think it’s morally wrong to eat animals. That’s a fundamental difference.
While the author doesn’t associate human meat-eaters with dogs, PETA regards them as lower than dogs. PETA’s position is that eating meat is a violation of the animal’s “rights.” If you believe this then it IS a “sin of sirloin” to be eating animals. It is a moral issue.
It is not only PETA’s tactics but, more importantly, their ideas that should be rejected.
IP hash: 46cd3555
10:06, I don’t think you understand the “more resources” argument. Regardless of how many steps are used to bring plant-based foods to market, meat will always require more.
IP hash: 243b1b7e
PETA didn’t flour bomb Lindsay Lohan.