🐇PETA

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a nonprofit animal rights organization. They are the largest animal rights organization in the world and the only large organization of this type that has consistently fought for animal rights without apology. https://www.peta.org/features/what-peta-really-stands-for/ PETA has done so much good for the animals over the years, including: - Enforcing current laws. Through dangerous undercover investigations found more than 100 violations of federal and state anti-cruelty laws (1988), resulting in (on three separate farms) the first-ever police raid on a factory farm (1992, foie gras), the first-ever guilty plea by a fur farmer (1997), and the first ever felony charges for abusing factory-farmed poultry in the US where three people were charged (2008). - Passing new laws. Stricter laws now exist to uphold animal rights in large part because of PETA's work. Taiwan passed its first-ever law against cruelty-to-animals after rescuing countless dogs who were being violently abused (1998) and fur farms are now illegal in California (2023). - Stopping animal testing. Brought an end to car-crash tests using animals (1993), the US EPA's plan to test chemicals on animals (2004), uncovered smoke stacks that burned birds and bats to death (1995) - Getting several large companies to make vegan choices. Convinced the massive company Dove to go completely vegan (2010), convinced many large companies to boycott leather from India and China where immense cruelty is involved in its production: Gap Inc., J.Crew, Liz Claiborne, Clarks, and Florsheim (2000), and convinced Burger Kind to at least improve the animal welfare of the animals they exploit (2001). - Getting many people to go vegan. Through their many public awareness campaigns, PETA had informed people resulting in many more people going vegan. https://www.peta.org/about-peta/milestones/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Undercover_work

🏆PETA Accomplishments

PETA is also often the only organization fighting for animal rights in many contexts. For example, they are the only organization pushing back against cruel experiments on primates at NPRCs. https://headlines.peta.org/national-primate-research-centers/ It is important to note that, of course, PETA is not veganism. Veganism is a philosophical concept and justice movement, while PETA is a tangible organization. Arguments for or against PETA are not necessarily applicable on veganism. However, since PETA is a powerful instrument to beget a world that vegans want (a world where all sentient individuals have protected rights) it is relevant to look at their effect. Because PETA has been such a successful animal rights organization, several industries have monetary interest in trying to discredit PETA. As such, there have been multiple attack campaigns throughout the years.

CORE History

PETA's activism was seen as a threat to animal agriculture's profits drawn from animal abuse, so they hired a lobbying group to launch a disinformation propaganda campaign against them. They hired the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE). History and Motivations of CORE CORE, founded by the lobbyist lawyer Richard Berman as a way to funnel money to his for-profit company Berman and Company (violating federal tax law), has a long and colourful history of immorality. They received $900,000 of startup money in 1996 from the tobacco industry and to lobby animal products and fast food to the general public despite them being carcinogenic. Shortly after that they began receiving funding from companies representing the alcohol, gambling, and animal agriculture industries. https://web.archive.org/web/20070927191427/http://www.prwatch.org/documents/berman/pm300k.pdf They then went on to lobby against: - Mothers Against Drunk Driving - Greenpeace - The Humane Society of the US - The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine - The CDC (for reporting that 400,000 Americans were obese, which CORE filed against them to reduce the report to say only 112,000) - Mercy for Animals - PETA As of 2005 they were funded by the Tyson Foods (the second-largest producer and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork in the world), Arby's parent company, and Wendy's - among others. https://web.archive.org/web/20071015234839/http://nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&section=National&storyid=39402 The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine commented: "If you are in the business of putting veal or beef on the tables of America, and slaughtering more than a million animals per hour, and making an awful lot of money at it, you are going to try to neutralize PETA or other animal-rights groups." https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/business/perennial-foes-meet-again-in-a-battle-of-the-snack-bar.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601259.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education

Euthanasia Service

Shelter of Last Resort Around 2003, CORE (then called the CCF) launched their propaganda campaign of disinformation against PETA. Among their tactics was to paint PETA as bloodthirsty to kill pets. They claimed that PETA's shelters have a huge euthanasia rate. Here's the truth: PETA operates what is called a shelter of last resort. Many shelters have strict requirements to accept animals. They will turn away animals who they think are unadoptable, and will not admit any animals without the person surrendering them paying first. Whereas PETA will take literally anyone who walks through the door. In fact, selective shelters will often send animals to PETA so that their euthanasia rates look good while PETA's rates get tanked. In many cases, the animals who PETA takes in have no chance at any quality of life, including emergency calls for strays. When the alternative is starving to death, diseased and alone, euthanasia as an alternative is in the animal's best interests. PETA offers this service for free regardless of PR consequences because PETA is there for the animals, not for popularity or profits. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals:_clients_exposed#PETA.27s_local_programs_in_Virginia_.26_North_Carolina https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/ https://www.peta.org/features/peta-kills-animals-truth/ We can see the grim reality of this in the outcomes at many so-called "no kill" shelters. For instance, at one "no kill" shelter, dogs were eating each other while others froze to death in outdoor kennels. https://www.peta.org/blog/dogs-eating-each-other-freezing-death-no-kill-shelter/ https://kvia.com/news/el-paso/2019/10/25/el-paso-animal-services-accused-of-inhumane-conditions-with-dogs-killing-each-other-at-shelter/ Mobile Spaying/Neutering But euthanasia is never PETA's hope. Whenever animals are adoptable PETA will transfer them to other shelters to be adopted. PETA's main tool for combating domestic animal suffering is spaying/neutering. PETA operates a low/no-cost mobile service specifically for this. https://spotlight.peta.org/petasaves/ https://www.spayneutercoalition.org/ 2014 Misidentification Accident Unfortunately, PETA have made mistakes. In 2014, PETA was asked by a farmer to help gather abandoned dogs and cats because they scared his rabbits, ripped his cow's udders, and killed his goat. PETA responded to help and gathered stray animals, where they were also invited by an inhabitant of a nearby trailer park to look there too. Among the dogs who PETA rounded up was a dog who wore no collar, no rabies tag, had no licence - nothing whatsoever to indicate that the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. She was not tethered nor was she contained. In accordance to what PETA was called for help to do, PETA euthanized this dog. Unfortunately, they later found out that they were not a stray dog. Emotions obviously ran high from this terrible mistake and it spiralled into criminal accusations, but no prosecution occurred because the activists obviously had no criminal intent. "it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed that they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community" http://www.wboc.com/story/27466469/statement-by-accomack-county-commonwealth-attorney-regarding-the-peta-associates-investigation Both parties made mistakes that day. PETA should have waited awhile to proceed with euthanasia in case of a mistake like this, and the guardian should have been responsible and indicated in some way that the dog was not a stray. Furthermore, mistakes like these are tragically not out of place at any shelter. Just this year there have been many cases of mistakenly euthanizing pets.

• A dog ran away, was found by a good Samaritan and surrendered to a shelter, but then erroneously killed within a day. When the guardian contacted the shelter they had already killed their dog.

• In another case, a dog had been voluntarily surrendered to quarantine because they had bit someone. Due to computer error, this dog was euthanized instead of held for the 10 days.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article272228993.html https://www.wsaz.com/2023/06/30/putnam-county-commission-calls-internal-investigation-after-dog-euthanized/ Lobbyist organizations against animal rights have latched onto this singular mistake to attempt to permanently discredit PETA despite all of the good PETA has done for animals for decades.

2007 Rescue

In 2007, two PETA outreach workers found what appeared to be a stray dog on the side of a road where the speed limit was nearly 90 km/h. The police intercepted this rescue and instead of investigating the mistreatment of the dog that lead to the situation of them being abandoned in such a dangerous area, the activists were arrested. The circuit judge overseeing the case called one of them a "meddlesome do-gooder". The case against them ultimately became a claim that they were trying to steal the collar attached to the dog, which prosecutors obviously failed to prove because it's an insane and ridiculous accusation. Charges against the other activist were also dropped. https://web.archive.org/web/20080324235743/https://hamptonroads.com/2008/03/dogcollar-case-against-worker-peta-dismissed https://web.archive.org/web/20080119075947/https://hamptonroads.com/node/288261

Lobsters of Nebraska

There is a rumour about PETA buying and releasing thousands of saltwater lobsters into freshwater, killing them. This never happened and is purely a rumour. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/peta-lobster-rescue-in-nebraska-kills-captive-creatures/

Shock Campaigns

PETA regularly does shock campaigns, because they genuinely work, and because what they're up against is difficult. How do you get people out of societal indoctrination? Especially when the reason why people have a moral obligation wake up from speciesism is for the victims - not for themselves? This is not a strong motivator for a lot of people, so it's a difficult task. There is controversy around shock campaigns in the truest sense of the word - their campaigns get people talking. As an organization whose primary goal is protecting animal rights, getting people actually talking about animal rights is foundational to achieving this. There's no denying that shock campaigns by PETA have successfully sparked conversations on animal rights.

🐷Speciesism

Linking Dairy and Autism

In 2014, PETA responded to the animal agriculture propaganda campaign "Got Milk?" with a poster that claimed a link between autism and dairy consumption. https://globalnews.ca/news/1365084/peta-links-milk-to-autism-in-controversial-new-ad/

PETA's claim is sourced from two studies, so this is not an unfounded claim. However, due to the poor quality of the studies (for one, the small sample sizes) the evidence is weak. PETA has since removed this claim from all of their materials. S. Lucarelli et al., 1995, n=56: "a worsening of neurological symptoms has been reported in autistic patients after the consumption of milk [...] We noticed a marked improvement in the behavioural symptoms of patients after a period of 8 weeks on an elimination diet" https://web.archive.org/web/20160306014532/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?uid=8869369&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8869369/ A. M. Knivsberg et al., 2002, n=20: Children with "autistic syndromes" put on casein-free (dairy) and gluten-free diets showed better "development". https://web.archive.org/web/20160401111309/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12168688

It seems, in this case, in trying to straddle the line between shocking enough to wake people up while still being fair, PETA missed the mark - and partly because in 2014 we didn't know as much about autism as we do now. Back in 2014 several nonprofits founded with the goal of helping people with autism had mission statements for curing autism, while now we of course don't look at autism that way. PETA seems to have recognized that and made changes. Autism Speaks removed curing autism from their mission statement in 2016. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cure-for-autism_n_58062f2be4b0dd54ce3522b1 Nancy Bagatell wrote a paper in 2010 documenting the debate on whether a "cure" should be sought out for autism: "this tension, arising in a debate regarding whether autism is a condition in need of a cure or a way of life" https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01080.x

I could not find any evidence of any current, general, inappropriate stance around autism by PETA at the time of writing this article. On the contrary, (in a 2021 article focused on non-consensual experimentation on nonhuman animals) PETA has slammed the notion that autism should be "cured": "These experiments aren’t just cruel to mice, who have meaningful relationships, complex emotions, and interests of their own. They also harm neurodivergent humans by treating autism like a problem to solve." https://www.peta.org/blog/autism-experiments-on-mice-fail-in-human-trials/

🧪Animal Testing

Holocaust on Your Plate Campaign

I have written about this in this linked article:

🏭The Animal Holocaust

Encouraging Adoption

Some people and organizations have argued that PETA doesn't want anyone to have pets. This is simply not true. PETA is not against pets in any capacity. Many people who work for PETA have pets. "We encourage people who have the time, money, patience, commitment, and love needed to care for an animal for life to adopt one from a shelter" https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/ "Cat and dog adopt-a-thons, spay-and-neuter clinics, and foster families are all crucial" - Miriam Porter, a long-time PETA member who has cats of her own https://prime.peta.org/news/adopt-dont-shop/

Bottom Line

PETA's values are clearly in working for the best interests of the animals. This is why they advocate for and offer services for spaying/neutering, why they operate shelters "of last resort", and why they advocate "adopt, don't shop!" So why do people hate PETA? For the animal agriculture industry, they have made their fortune abusing animals. It is self-evident why they would want to smear an animal rights nonprofit. But of course, profit doesn't make something ethical. For speciesists, if they can attack a symbol of veganism such as PETA and claim that they are hypocrites too, then they feel a reduction on the pressure from their own conscience. But this is of course the tu quoque fallacy. When people look past the decades of good PETA has done and instead try to vilify PETA over any little thing they can find and smear them with complete lies, it should tell you what those people's motivations really are - they don't want animals to have rights.

👉Tu Quoque