The way I see it, there are two kinds of celebrities who endorse PETA: Those who embrace the Whole Nine Yards of animal rights, and hypocrites who agree to be the group’s Flavor of the Month in exchange for free publicity.
Eva Mendes will unveil a PETA anti-fur poster in New York City today. Does she walk the walk, or just talk the talk?
- Favorite comfort food: “tacos from Jack-in-the-Box…and an Oreo shake” (not exactly vegan)
- Worn at her most recent press junket: “It was a really kind of crisp night, and I was wearing leather”
- TMZ reports on her latest shopping trip: “Joined by fur-covered pal Kate Hudson…” (photo: H/T to ICYDK)
- Handbag: “degradé calf leather Prada bag; available in shaded grey or pink”
- Shoes: Leather braided Brian Atwood sandals
- Sexiest photo-shoot locale (my opinion): Bearskin rug
- Must-have red carpet accessory: “black leather Jimmy Choo Fold-Over Clutch”
Here’s what PETA is against: Beef, chicken, pork, milk, cheese, leather, fur, wool, silk, medical research using lab animals, circuses, zoos, rodeos, aquariums, hunting, fishing, seeing-eye dogs — and that’s just what I was able to glean from spending a half-hour on the group’s website. I have a feeling there’s even more.
Memo to Eva: Either endorse the whole agenda — all of it — or admit you’re a phony spotlight-seeker like everyone else in Hollywood.
Update: INF Daily reports Mendes has canceled today’s scheduled Rockefeller Center unveiling. (Does she read Deceiver?) And The Blemish notes that the photo in the PETA ad is recycled from an old magazine. D’oh!
Related posts:
- Eva Mendes Renounces Fur, Still Absolutely Loves Leather You know the Oscar-worthy scripts aren’t exactly rolling in when...
- Chrissie Hynde is an Animal-Rights Pretender Pretenders screech-whore Chrissie Hynde is a big PETA backer. She...
- Oprah. Fur. Leather. (Thankfully, It’s Not What You Think.) Welcome Farkers. Look around! We’ve got lots more lunacy. When...
- PETA Steamrolls Jessica Simpson But Gives Angelina Love Animal Times is apparently no Cat Fancy — this magazine...
- Golden Girl Betty White Criticizes PETA’s ‘Misinformation’ I hesitate to speak ill of one of the few...
Having lived in Norfolk for six years, I have had plenty of experience dealing with PETA. If people really examined what PETA stands for no sane person would support them. The reason there are so few strays in Norfolk is that PETA collects them and puts them down without even attempting to contact anyone. Doesn’t matter if the dog has a collar or a tracking chip because PETA feels it is unnatural to have pets so its better they just liquidate them rather than the animals live a life of “slavery”. PETA is right up there with Scientology in my eyes. Just a bunch of idiots forcing their beliefs on others.
I fell for their lines to get donations. After I stumbled on an article about PETA members busted and on trial for euthanizing pets they were suposed to find homes for and disposing of them but keeping some of their organs (for what,selling for use in chinese medicine?) I have dropped my support for their organization until they can prove to society that they truly do care for animals and do not ever euthanize any animal for any other reason than to take that animal out of suffering from a condition that reduces their quality of life to nothing but pain no matter what is done. Such as cancer and any other condition that puts that animal in horrible pain day and night with no relief. Then even I would chose to be put to sleep. If these people are found guilty they need to be punished severly, not a slap on the hand or community service, I mean real prison time. Animals feel pain, and have a natural right to life. I have spent a few thousand dollars on my babies for life saving procedues and I am by far not rich, just making ends meet with a drained savings account from the last vet hospital visit. I have animals that I have rescued, many, and I love them all. They are my children as my human kids are all grown. I would steal an animal from anyone I caught abusing them, that is how passionate I am about this. PETA needs to prove themselves to me and many others, they need to prove that they do not engage in any activity that takes an animals life, especially when they are put in charge of finding that animal a home. I trust only my family with my babies, I do not use kennels if I go out of town. My kids babysit for me. If you need to find a home for an animal you can no longer take care of, do it yourself, trust no one else to do it.
Cyndi Burwell, Wiccan and animal lover, because all life is sacred.
That’s the last time I give to PETA. I feel so used!
So PETA is also against seeing-eye dogs? Why? Because they improve the quality of life for people who can’t see?
That’s a fair question.
I found a 2003 New Yorker article that profiled PETA president Ingrid Newkirk (http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2003/2003_04_14_peta.html). In it, the author writes that Newkirk “regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as ’servants’ and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use. She has had at least one dog taken from its owner.”
So it seems that PETA objects to seeing-eye dogs because of the belief that the dog’s “right” to be “free” outweighs the human’s right to be guided across the street.
Or something like that.
Hey, hang on just a minute now about the Jack-in-the-Box tacos. If … and only IF she was lappin’ up the ‘Super Taco’ does this apply: they are made with soy meat, not beef. The cousin of the Super Taco, plain old ‘Regular Taco’; it’s that one they make with beef. Being the omnivore that I am, I am not very versed on this whole vegetarian, non-meat eater, vegan, yada, yada, yada thing. I always thought it was the vegetarians that I saw eating those big pink Hostess Twinkie Snowball things. I thought you guys just didn’t eat meat. Didn’t that vegan thing just come about fairly recently. No milk even for you guys. Wow. When you are baby vegans, are you allowed to drink your mamma’s breast milk. My stepson is an airatarian, he won’t eat anything. It’s a wonder he’s been able to sustain life. It’ll be a miracle if he makes it to 21 with that diet.
You know, I thought about that too. But I checked the Jack in the Box website, and the “ingredients” list only shows two kinds of tacos: The “Regular Beef Taco,” and the “Beef Monster Taco®” — Here’s the URL: http://www.jackinthebox.com/ourfood/ingredients.php
Maybe Jack used to have a “super taco” made from soy “meat,” but it doesn’t anymore.
Oh no … say it isn’t so. There were many a hangover prevented back in the day all over Houston, TX with a Jack-in-the-Box Super Taco, Fries and a Vanilla Milkshake upon awakening. Ah, to be 15 again.
I am disheartened by this ad. I am a strict vegetarian- I eat nothing of the animal’s flesh. I do still occasionally purchase foods that may or do contain milk or eggs because we live in a very small rural area with no vegan stores. Being vegan around here is simply impossible. I have very strong feelings toward animals and the cruelty that takes place in their lives and deaths as part of the meat industry. As I said, I live in a small rural area- with many farms and meat packing plants- my brother even owned a small pig farm for many years. I know what goes on as part of their business practices. I wish more people would consider becoming- at the very least- vegetarian.
However, I feel PETA hurts their cause drastically when they sell-out like this. I wish they would learn to focus on the facts of animal consumption and the real issues of cruelty rather than allowing a hypocrite like this to be their spokeswoman. It only irritates people and portrays them as hypocritical. And it hurts the cause by shutting people off to other things they have to say- much of which is factual. Extremists hurt their causes.
Also- wanted to add if I could- no snowballs for me- gelatin (marshmellows, Jell-O, etc) is a pig by-product- made of pig fat. Eww.
Actually, I think it’s a byproduct of cow hooves, not pig fat. But I have a feeling you’d be concerned either way.
How on earth is Eva Mendes a hypocrite? Just because she’s posing for an ad means that she’s going to take over the PETA organization! You can not want animals to be skinned alive and anally electrocuted for a fur coat and still eat meat. No need to throw away the baby with the bathwater–celebrities are good for making a point in this celeb obsessed culture and PETA’s no exception.
As far as saying PETA keeps the organs of animals it euthanizes, that’s the most ridiculous thing in the world. Having lived in the Hampton Roads area, i’ve seen the POSs who keep their dogs chained outside in hurricanes and freezing temperatures, and then call PETA to pick up the bodies. If they’re preventing any animals from suffering like that by putting them to sleep before this happens, they’ll get any extra income i can donate. Any time.
It’s so funny, nobody’s going around accusing all the missile & anthrax makers for what they do, but there are so many about a bunch of animal rights activists…
So Hollyweirdos are hypocrites? Say it ain’t so! I was a vegetarian for 3 years because I truly believed the hype that it was somehow healthier for me. It wasn’t and isn’t. In fact, a truly animal-product-free diet causes “failure to thrive” in infants who are abused that way. *Some* people benefit from a mainly vegetarian diet. And for certain conditions, a temporary period of meatlessness may be a good idea (gout, for example). But vegetarians/vegans who claim to love animals/the environment or make any other specious arguments (like the ridiculous notion that humans evolved as peaceful, matriarchal vegetarians until horrible meat-eating corruption in the form of civilization killed it all) are full of crap. Vegetarianism is NOT how humans evolved (just ask an Inuit or a Masaai farmer what their daily diets consist of and have consisted of since the dawn of time). Humans evolved as omnivores…period. Our ancestors ate carrion if there was no fresh meat available. We have canines and our guts produce hydrochloric acid…something only carnivores/omnivores’ guts do. We ate anything we could get our hands on to survive. We have eyes that face directly foward (another adaptation of carnivores/omnivores) to aid in hunting and much shorter guts and simpler stomachs in comparison to cows/sheep/pure herbivores. So there’s the lie to the whole “early humans as vegetarians” b.s. P.S. Even most traditionally vegetarian societies (think Hindus) eat some form of animal product (milk, ghee, seafood, etc). NO traditional human society is vegan! Next up is…the environment! Vegetarians are so much easier on the environment than heartless meateaters? Sorry, no, that’s blatantly false. Guess what guys? That soy you love so much? A major monocrop that KILLS the environment (think pesticide runoff, soil depletion, large scale disruption of an area’s natural plant life and not to mention the destruction of virtually thousands of animals…rodents and reptiles mostly). Cows/sheep/ruminants in general, while producing methane gas, are able to use land that cannot sustain agriculture. So much food can be gotten from a cow…milk, meat, bones and hooves for gelatin, leather, etc. A cow only needs so much land for this purpose…much less land than is used to grow a crop that produces the same number of food calories as one cow. So actually, cows (and their hooved brethren) can be good for the environment. Here’s where being a “concientious omnivore” comes in handy. Small scale dairy farms/ranches that feed their cows strictly on pasture, hand raise the cows and humanely slaughter them (look up Temple Grandin sometime) are the people we should be supporting. What PETA says about mass-produced meat is true…it IS inhumane and disgusting. But that doesn’t mean I need to become a vegetarian and make myself sick and foggy headed again and support industrial monocrops like soy and corn that absolutely DO destroy the environment. Grass fed meat is good for humans and we evolved to eat it(along with small-to-large amounts of locally, sustainably-produced vegetable material, depending on the location; folks in warmer climates generally eat more veggies than people in colder climates. Again, ask the Inuits whose thrive on traditional diets consisting almost ENTIRELY of meat and fat from marine mammals and fish as there ain’t a whole lot of plant life in the arctic tundra).
As for Eva Mendes, I do not give a flying fat rat’s a** whether or not she lives up to the PETA ideal. PETA has no real ideals. She gets free publicity and PETA gets to look “hip.” I very much doubt PETA spends a lot of time vetting the celebrities it uses on their personal lives…because PETA is hypocritical…far more than Eva Mendes. PETA, as pointed out even by people who would otherwise support their agenda, is a pack of abusive, extremist, violent, antisocial nutjobs who I think are basically terroristic creeps. Their tactics are criminal and their ethics are abysmal. Be a vegetarian if you wish and if you’re a vegan, well…I say live and let live. Just don’t support sh***y terrorist groups like PETA.
Gelatin is a protein, and it is rendered from the collagen in connective tissue. There is also protein in animal fat, and so it acts in a similar gelatin-y manner (I don’t think it’s the same thing, but I could be wrong). I suppose you could get it from hooves, but ligaments (with their high protein content) are a better source. Collagen is also a major component of bones, and is what gives them their shape, and keeps them somewhat elastic (the mineral portion just makes them hard). In any case, it -is- a byproduct of the animal industry, a good way to use up those leftover bits that people generally refuse to (knowingly) eat.
Did ANY of you bother to check with PETA about this “pet scandal”?
Maybe you should have:
“Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and “set them free.” What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren’t home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.”
There goes your myth. Next time do some homework, people. This took me about 45 seconds.
Well, that’s what PETA claims … Have you ever seen this website? http://www.PetaKillsAnimals.com
Just because PETA says something doesn’t make it so.
I’m just saying …
Perhaps it was the natural evolution of humans to eat meat. I do not doubt that. However, most of the people in my life who argue for meat consumption also argue that we are at a higher moral standard than other animals. They claim we are higher than them, yet still want to make the claim that we should eat animals because we are “just animals.” What a double standard.
Also, the meats we have now are not natural. Most chickens are grown to (greater than) full-sized at 6 weeks. The animals are artificially inseminated to produce larger numbers of them. They are confined their entire lives. If you guys could see where those pigs have to live, I do wonder if you might change your mind about eating them. I’m not kidding when I say- if you have ever smelled bacon or a porkchop cooking, you have smelled a pig barn. Once I smelled that barn, realized how similar it is to the smell of cooking pork, and had to see where that pork has been, that was the end of pork on my plate.
If were in the middle of the forest, starving, don’t think for a minute that I would not hunt an animal and eat it. The problem I have now is that the meat industry is extremely cruel to animals in their lives and deaths. When the native peoples of this continent killed an animal, the animal had been born free, lived free, and died fairly quickly. That is the “natural” way of things. Give me a meat industry where animals breed freely, forage, and truly are “free-range” until they are killed, and I would certainly have a different attitude toward it. Doubt know if I would still eat it, but I certainly wouldn’t be arguing with people who consumed that meat.
I think what we are all forgetting is a simple fact of nature, the unsaid issue upon which Omnivore touched. This earth simple cannot maintain the increasing human population. Soil depletion is a serious issue. The meat industry is cruel because there simply is no humane way to kill the number of animals it takes to feed the large number of people in this world.
Oversneer, you are correct. Gelatin comes from many parts (fat, hooves, skin, ligaments, etc) of the animal, and no, it makes no difference to me which part
PETA and pets- I once saw a quote from one of their reps, John Bryant who said, “The cat, like the dog, must disappear….. We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.” Again, this extreme thinking hurts the real issues of animal cruelty- The same way personal feelings of many toward Al Gore have marred his environmental work in their eyes. Please everyone, focus on the issue, not spokesman.
Wait — Pig barns smell like the aroma of bacon cooking? Sign me up to be a farm-hand!
Seriously, though — you’re right about the growing population. And the way I see it, a fixed number of people will require a fixed amount of protein to live. As the population grows, their protein needs grow, and humans are going to have to raise more and more animals for food.
Would you rather (a) have “Old MacDonald” farms sprouting up literally everywhere to accommodate this need, displacing forests and other ecosystems for pasture land, or (b) have the animal production concentrated in a small-footprint that won’t require us to clear-cut most of the planet? And would you rather have the animal waste of this fixed number of critters spread everywhere, or confined in a limited number of places where it can be treated and recycled as manure?
I know it’s a false choice, and the answer lies somewhere in the middle. But raising animals takes land. And you can’t be all “save the rainforest” and “kill the factory farm” at the same time. Can you?
No, you can’t.
And like I said, the problem is actually the human population. Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution for it all. If I did, I suspect I wouldn’t be sitting here discussing this online, lol. However, my own convictions say that I simply cannot support the meat industry as it is.
I feel the earth will take care of itself. It is the human existence for which I fear the most. Someone in Leo’s movie said “The earth will live on, it will simply shake us off like a bad case of flees.” But then some say to me, “Nothing lasts forever.” Eh, I guess so. I just wish we didn’t have to speed it along.
PETA does kill animals. It’s a fact, and it’s been caught on tape during the documentary “I’m an Animal”. It’s unbias documentary about Ingrid and there is a scene that will not leave my mind. Ingrid, being the good sport that she is, goes out to check on a dog that has been sent to a sactury by it’s own. The dog was lame, but his condition could be cured with heart worms (They came to this conculsion by hearing the dog cough. No blood teste or anything, just by haering the dog cough. Next time I cough, I might as have TB.) medication. But PETA puts the dog down. THEY PUT THE DOG DOWN. If the dog indeed have heart worms, it would be on a prophylactic treatment given monthly. The treament is uncomfortable, but at least the dog will live. Plus, it’s a whole lot better than getting a huge needle shoves into your chest. Also, the played music for a turkey.
“Give me a meat industry where animals breed freely, forage, and truly are “free-range” until they are killed, and I would certainly have a different attitude toward it. Doubt know if I would still eat it, but I certainly wouldn’t be arguing with people who consumed that meat.”
I used to work at a free range pig farm. We most raised the pigs for ham. Good ham too and it tasted like acorns since the pig ate the acorns off the forest floor.
That being said, PETA does not help animals. It’s a damn same so many people follow them like zombies. I can never understand how naive people can be. Support your local ASPCA cneter today!
Hello Moto, I didn’t see the documentary. But I just wanted to tell you I believe you may be confusing heartworm treatment for prevention.
We treated a dog for heartworm- one we rescued from a bad home. The treatment involves high doses of potentially lethal medication and the dog must be kept extremely calm for weeks following to prevent a worm from being broken away from the heart and lodging in the lungs. We paid $500 for the treatment- in a rural part of the country. Sometimes the treatment even fails and the dog still has the disease afterward. In its progressive stages (signified by a dry cough) many vets recommend the animal be euthanized.
You are thinking of Heartguard, which is used monthly to PREVENT heartworms.
If Peta didn’t take such radical action to get their message out, no one would hear it.
Even IF that dog in the documentary could have been helped with medication, Ingrid called the owner of the dog and he said he didn’t want to deal with it and gave the ok to euthanize the dog.
I love dumbasses who think only having half the info is good enough.
Y’know, I watched that documentary too — I think the PETA people told the dog’s owner that it would be expensive to cure the dog, but that it could be done. Then they recommended putting the dog down.
I would never argue with a pet owner’s decision to spend his/her money on other things (food, rent, gasoline) instead of expensive doggie surgeries — but isn’t PETA’s whole schtick that every animal is sacred? Don’t they raise a bazillion dollars every year? What’s it for, if not for fixing up actual animals?
Seriously.
god can you guys just DROP THE SUBJECT?? eva mendes will be eva mendes, and thats all there is to it.
The heartworm treatment is brutal. After seeing our little guy go through it, I honestly don’t know if I can say it was for his own good. He suffered a lot and it takes a lot of money and a lot of care- 24 hour watch over the dog to prevent death. The dog cannot get excited at all. Life should be respected, yes. But, imo, it is not fair to the dog to go through brutal treatment if the disease is advanced, because the treatment at that point also has a high mortality rate. And that death is a bad one.
I feel that a life is sacred- sacred to the point of not being abused. The meat industry is abuse. No one can deny that. Humanely euthanizing a dog cannot and should not be compared to people who care enough to fight for a cow that hangs from one leg and struggles as it’s throat is slit and it slowly bleeds to death. At the very least, couldn’t we and shouldn’t we give them a less gruesome death? Guess you can’t do that when the dollar per pound is the most important thing.
I just wanted to add a point to this conversation. I love animals as much as the next person. Although I am not vegetarian, I understand a person’s personal choice to live that lifestyle.
What I can’t stand is how PETA shoves lifestyles down people’s throats. I saw the documentary on Ingrid as well, and I was appalled at the arrogance of the organization. Even other animal rights groups disagree with the way PETA handles their organization.
I think that “ethical” treatment does not amount to animals being equal to people.
Here is what Ingrid said about Aids research: “Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it..” — Ingrid Newkirk, PETA President
To me, that is a travesty.
It’s not really Eva’s hypocrisy that should be of concern. Certainly it is amusing, but can you really expect a celebrity to have any significant amount of integrity?
What PETA is missing other than a moral compass or common decency toward all life is the point. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sounds like a nice idea doesn’t it? In theory their name would imply that they want to see animals treated in a decent manner rather than the impersonal and tragic way they are treated on factory farms or how some are brutalized for sport and some for fur or some other animal materials. Instead, you have a terrorist organization run by a band of ruffian extremists with the zeal of a suicide bomber only lacking in the commitment having a complete misnomer for a name. They are not people who treat animals ethically. There is substantial proof that they have performed illegal and unnecessary euthanasia procedures and they damage the property of other living beings. Even euthanasia is not an ethical or kindly death. There is proof that the animal still feels the injection and if the animal is not anesthetized properly to begin with, the procedure can be incredibly painful.
Frankly, it’s been proven that many animals actually live longer and perhaps even higher quality lives than they would in the wild. Lifespans and the experiences of individuals would prove this. Many domesticated animals or plants would not exist today had there been a lack of human intervention. There are cases where animals in captivity are treated cruelly but that is not the rule but rather an aberrant exception.
Admittedly, factory farms do seem cruel in nature however, considering the sheer number of human beings there are out there, it is a very efficient way to get meat to the masses rather than meat being a luxury only afforded by the exorbitantly wealthy. It’s not as if there is any nice way to ask people not to breed for awhile or to control the human population so that this situation is unnecessary.
And yes, corn, sugar and soy are among the most harmful crops there are to the soil. They rely on very rich soil but can only be planted so many times before the land is too barren. Grass and alfalfa at least are far less taxing on soil nutrients and certain small herbs help replenish the soil rather than rapidly drain its resources. There are certainly more efficient ways to utilize land without leaving the land barren after a few seasons but there would be a significant drop in production levels in the short term. People forget that fertile soil is not as renewable a resource as one would imagine.
It could be argued that plants give the most direct energy, but as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Do you know any professional athletes who are vegan? There may be individual cases where a meatless life works however there is a reason why humans have two types of teeth. Note that the front teeth resemble those of a carnivore, structured for tearing while the teeth in the rear of the mouth are flatter like that of a vegetarian animal yet still ridged like a carnivore’s teeth. Our hybrid style teeth are a clear indicator that humans are meant to be omnivorous.
No matter what we do, we are going to harm something in the process.
“So it seems that PETA objects to seeing-eye dogs because of the belief that the dog’s ‘right’ to be ‘free’ outweighs the human’s right to be guided across the street.”
That seems fair. A pedophile having sex with a child would argue that his right to experience sexual pleasure is greater than the child’s “right” to be “free.”
Typical circular animal-rights “logic.”
A human child does have the right to be free. A dog does not.
Wishing the contrary won’t make it so. Ever.
typical crap about this and that without actually knowing the facts,about how animals should be allowed this and that; with more and more everyday stuff being proven as to the intelligence of animals and not just being “animals” ,so to be used as animals!!! for what ever products can be produced to make your life[should i say pathetic existence] easier and with little regard for the suffering they go through[if the slaughter of another group were to happen like this the politicians and maybe movie stars would be raising the rafters with beautiful oratory at the immense and horrific crime against the whole world].let`s see about saying something clever here before i get too upset and go on like a raging wild creature about the goddamn!*(&^ mess everything is.peta does seem a bit radical[about some things] and doing things that no one else will but should; which they should be rewarded for.i could go-on for hours about this but i suppose that`s good enough now.
Somewhere out there, a village is being deprived of its idiot.
“..considering the sheer number of human beings there are out there…”
That won’t be a problem much longer. The earth can’t and won’t sustain the human population as it is. It cannot sustain the abuses of the human species in this large number.
“There may be individual cases where a meatless life works however there is a reason why humans have two types of teeth. Note that the front teeth resemble those of a carnivore, structured for tearing while the teeth in the rear of the mouth are flatter like that of a vegetarian animal yet still ridged like a carnivore’s teeth. Our hybrid style teeth are a clear indicator that humans are meant to be omnivorous.”
Round and round we go with that “natural” argument… yet, none of your conventional meats are naturally created. It is also “natural” for us to hunt our own food rather than to eat artificially inseminated, growth hormone consuming animals, but that isn’t happening, eh?
Here’s an interesting article regarding the “natural” ways of meat consumption…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121100737.html
High Meat Consumption Linked to Heightened Cancer Risk (In this study, “high consumption” was one serving per day).
I’m guessing, Natasha, that you’re a vegan. How is it, then, that India (arguably the most vegan country, ever) can’t match our life expectancy, and has higher overall cancer rates?
I just love those epidemiological studies that claim to find increased risk of something in a haystack. What it usually boils down to is that instead of having a 1.0 percent risk of cancer, daily meat eaters have a 1.2 percent risk. The newspapers call that a 20-percent increase, and a scientifically illiterate public thinks their actual risk has hit 20 percent.
Honestly. Unless you have some graduate-level science courses, you shouldn’t be writing this kind of stuff for the national news wires.
I’ve been reading all the comments, and there are a lot of good points. on both sides of the debate.
It all comes down to individual choices, and conscientious human beings making decisions for themselves. I have recently become a vegetarian, and I must say that for me PERSONALLY, at least for now, it has been beneficial health wise. I was always a healthy eater, but I’ve always had digestion problems, and eating meat seemed to make them worse. That’s me. This doesn’t mean it’s the right diet for everyone. There are super healthy people who eat meat. Everyone’s constitution is different. Every successful “lifestyle” had devotees…even extreme ones like frutarians…but there are so many, and often they contradict one another, so the only reasonable explanation, is that there are a lot of options, and you have to find what is right for you.
ETHICS. now that’s a different question altogether. I think we can all agree on what is truly cruel and extreme– on both sides of the debate. But that leaves a whole lot of in between, it’s a spectrum…just like every aspect of life. and I don’t think we can ever agree on any kind of objective truths.
As for celebrity endorsements… get real people. Do you really believe supermodel use the drug-store cosmetics and hair products that they endorse, or that Paris ONLY wears her own perfume?? Eva agreed to make a point about fur. Good for her! There is no good reason to wear fur anymore, unless you live on the north pole, hunt for your food and use up every bit of the animal you kill. Just because she agreed to use her star power to send a positive anti fur message doesn’t mean she has to embrace EVERY aspect of PETA…nor is she to answer for the extremist actions/word of a few.
I guess what I am trying to say here…is that there is no absolute right way or ideal, that is right all the time for everyone. It took me a long time to embrace vegetarianism, because I was so put off by outspoken vegans, who vilify everyone else. I don’t eat meat, I try to eat organic, I try to re-use and recycle, I try to support local businesses, I walk when I can, I filter tap water when possible, and I am against fur. BUT…I do eat fish (mmmm…sushi) and I wear leather and wool. Does that make me a hypocrite? NO. because I am not buying into anyone’s version of what a vegetarian should be. I am making choices that are right for me. I don’t feel the need to defend them.
You can find holes in any argument… sure, synthetics are not cruel to animals…but they are often toxic to the environment and not biodegradable. a pair of leather shoes, if you take good care of them can last for years…and I know a similar argument can be made about some animal friendly products, or products make out of recycled materials. This is the same as the discussion about meat VS soy products. In a perfect world, organic soy is better than mass produced meat. …but…organic free range chickens are probably better for the environment than mass produced pesticide laden soy. MOST people are not faced with such neat choices though.
Of course Eva Mendes shouldn’t be expected to be a vegetarian just because she’s (suddenly) anti-fur. But the problem is that she lent her star power to an anti-fur group that’s also anti-meat, anti-milk, anti-fishing, anti-circuses, anti-zoos, anti-horse-drawn-carriage, anti-seeing-eye-dog, anti-lab-rat-research, etc.
If Mendes had chosen to go public on her own with an anti-fur statement, and then headed off to a filet mignon for lunch, there wouldn’t be anything definitively hypocritical about it. But aligning herself with PETA, I think, puts it all in a different light.
Of course, I don’t really believe Mendes is anti-fur in the first place. I’ll bet anyone here 10 dollars that she’ll be photographed wearing real fur at some time in the next two years, once the free publicity has been cashed in and everybody forgets about her nbaked poster.
But then, I’m a cynic.
And it is possibly true…she may very well be photographed wearing shearling or fur lined mittens, or something else. But I think that Eva doesn’t need publicity from PETA as much as PETA needs publicity from EVA. It’s not like PETA has hoards of A list bombshells begging to be on their posters. But I am sure there are MANY top designers…and even fur designers, who would love to dress up EVA… (or undress her for their cause!)
I think someone of her caliber gets to pick and choose to endorse a cause, and if you can agree with even some of what PETA stands for, you might choose to donate to other causes…but don’t vilify them. Their heart, I believe is in the right place…even if their actions are sometimes over the top.
PETA might be extreme, but in our culture one has to get extreme to get a point across. I’m sure they are not expecting everyone to change all their ways…but if they can get people to just give up one bad vice…it’s a start.
What saddens me, is how quickly people find excuses to not do the right thing… rather than appropriate a saner/more moderate version of what PETA stands for, it’s easier to just dismiss it.
– the eternal optimist
Also, I think the average woman that the anti-fur PETA ad is aimed at doesn’t really read up on PETA or think about where EVA or any other celebrity stands on such matters as zoos and pets. No, the point is giving these consumer glamorous and enviable role models who don’t wear fur, since the personal style/choices of A listers like EVA are often imitated. To that end, EVA is a better spokesperson than someone like Pink or Pamela… not to put them down in any way…however I don’t know how many Pink and Pamela fans are also the type to wear fur in the first place.
What if the sane thing to do is to dismiss it entirely? You have to allow for the possibility that the natural evolution of animal “rights” is something we should not aspire to. The issue of medical research alone provides ample ammo for those who think it’s societally suicidal to grant rights to animals.
I’m just saying.
I guess I just wonder… and oh geez, I’m going to catch hell for this question, but here goes anyway… Do we really need more people on this planet?
Why do we want to keep on with medical research to make MORE medicines that cause MORE side effects- particularly for conditions that aren’t even lethal in the first place?? And Overseener… it isn’t as though the species would no longer exist withouth modern medicine. “Modern man” has lasted for nearly 100,000 years with only natural remedies. And life, particularly the evolution of man, for many millions before that. Like we need a f-ing medicine for “restless leg syndrome”!? Give me a break. Medicines like that only cause more problems. Do we really need another anti-depressant on the market? How about teaching folks to get off their asses and get some exercise for a mood enhancer? Hey, there’s an idea.
And want to know about India and cancer? Try pollution…
http://www.infochangeindia.org/features168.jsp
Other life expectancy problems come from communicable diseases and a lack of sanitation…
http://www.who.int/countries/ind/en/
Well, I guess that’s one way to look at it. Our species survived just fine without modern medicine, but our average life expectancy was around 35 years until the 17th Century. And it was just around 50 years until the 20th century. Not much of a life, if you ask me.
And you chose some interesting examples of the results of medical research. I’m not so impressed with restless-leg-syndrome pills. But AIDS therapies, the polio vaccine, organ transplant procedures, antibiotics, cancer chemotherapy, and multiple sclerosis drugs — well, I’m all for sacrificing lab rats to get to these things. Aren’t you? If not, I hope you have the intellectual consistency to refuse treatment the next time you land in the emergency room. Tell the attending physician to treat you with herbs and roots. I’ll send your family a sympathy card.
You do realize that people didn’t realize disease were contangious until the 19th century?
Pre-Civil War discovery, as a matter of fact.
Fear of our death, it’s the root of all of this isn’t it?
Why not emphasize quality over quantity (years of life, human population)?
And so many of those diseases could be remedied if we (as a species) would do what we know to do? Eat right and exercise. Use organics when possible.
And no, I don’t take medicines. Nor do I use herbal “remedies”, because frankly, I’ve never gotten sick enough to take anything. Sick enough that if others got sick they would, however.
But I already know if I develop cancer or any other disease that requires extensive treatment, my family can be prepared for the fact that I will not subject myself to that.
Why do we struggle so hard to stay around another 10, 20, or 30 years. Egocentrism, imo.
Death is a part of life. As long as it isn’t forced upon me by another person or animal, I don’t intend to rally against it – other than mentally.
http://www.jenessabyers.com
Nor would I do it to my children.
We are doing fine with the medicines we have now. We don’t need more.
That touching website about Jenessa Byers kinda makes my point for me. How could you not want to support any research that could prolong that little girl’s life or improve its quality?
I hope you never have to make the kind of gut-wrenching decision you describe. But if you do, I hope you’ll also consider that it’s selfish to cling to 19th century medicine and deny your loved ones the pleasure of your company for as many years as you might be around. You and I both have kids — how could you deny them your presence as they grow up, if there were another alternative?
Selfish is as selfish does.
Oh — and Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas to you, too.
I am teaching my children that death is natural. With all of the treatments available, we will still die! In my opinion, one’s strenght must be on the inside- within- not on the hope that another person will always be there. Because they won’t. No matter what.
Until humanity gets a grip on that, we are sure to kill ourselves trying to stay alive.
Example: Have you ever done any reading on the quality of the water near cancer treatment facilities?
My mother died of cancer when I was 15 years old. I wish I had been emotionally prepared. Instead, I watched her suffering, clinging to life, fearing what she faced.
And remember, some amount of research requires humans, including children, like this to be subjected to that treatment- no animal testing can provide the information necessary to prove any medication or treatment safe for human use. Are you ok watching humans endure it? Well, at least they have a verbal choice, I suppose.
Yes, that site is touching. I have followed her story for some time and all I can see is a child who is suffering. And through all of her suffering, there have been times when she said she wants to die. (All of this stated on her site- I am not saying anything “personal” that isn’t already made public on that site.) I know her will to live is strong at other times and it keeps her going. But god, I just don’t think I would have the heart to do that to my child.
You know as well as I do, there will NEVER be a cure for all diseases. It is pointless to continue this quest of immortality and destroy the world for all of us in the process.
And for the record, I have enjoyed this virtual “discussion.”
I think this is the last part of this back-and-forth I’ll have time for, but it’s been enjoyable.
You haven’t made a convincing case for the assertion that we’re “destroying the world” in the pursuit of scientific knowledge that could (and does) save human lives. Like it or not, we live in a world where the vast majority of people have improved their quality of life through the advances of hard sciences and the softer social science of Public Health. Read up on John Snow and the history of epidemiology. And Albert Sabin. And Frederick Banting. And Hans Adolf Krebs. And on and on and on…
If you truly believe you’re better off closing your eyes to the real-world benefits of modern science, some of which are realized through the use of lab animals, you’re not only kidding yourself. You’re also in a vanishingly tiny minority.
I think there are very few appropriate responses to a website featuring the cancer struggles of an innocent child. One is to thank God that scientists who have never met her are working to save her life. Another is to pledge financial (or other) support toward reaching a day when her specific disease is curable. A third is to weep and pray. But saying “Hey, that’s the way it rolls” is both naive and, in my judgment, unacceptably defeatist.
Human beings do a lot of things wrong. We all screw up. Frequently. But the best of us sweat and toil toward becoming better. Not toward giving up and regressing.
God bless us. Every one.
Inhumane treatment of animals is one thing, but fretting over leather boots seems just a little bit too extreme. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with leather.
I love Natasha’s statements “That won’t be a problem much longer. The earth can’t and won’t sustain the human population as it is. It cannot sustain the abuses of the human species in this large number.”
Sounded familiar to me, an old(er) man, so I looked it up:
In The Population Bomb, in 1968, Ehrlich foretold “certain” mass starvation by 1975 because of population growth. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” Ehrlich’s first sentence read. “In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs,”
To those who have donated to PETA and feel conned, don’t feel too bad as con artists are the best liars/salespeople in the world.
I have yet to figure out if Ingrid is insane, a con artist, a cult leader, or all three. Whatever the case, the agenda is certainly not about ethical treatment. Their stunts and antics have been funded for way too long by the unsuspecting public, and it’s sad to see the donated monies given to ALF and ELF members.
As a farmer I saw and felt the adverse effects of PETA’s destructive and unethical actions, long before the general public. I’m glad to see they are being exposed for who they truly are. Spread the word.