PREMIUM SEARCH Search by job title, geography and build a list of executive contacts
Is horseback riding or having a pet dog an act of cruelty? The folks from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals seem to think so. And while the group has had great success in making true abuses socially unacceptable, it's now in danger of overplaying its hand.
In some ways, the PETA crowd seems like a fun bunch. Members have protested in feathers, fuzzy masks, and body paint -- even nothing at all -- to remind the rest of us humans that animals are our friends. On Thursday night, Sept. 21, they'll trot out comedian Sandra Bernhard and assorted celebrity friends for a glitzy New York City bash to celebrate PETA's 20th anniversary. The timing, pegged to the city's Fashion Week -- in a year when designers have declared that "fur is in" -- looks ingenious. But if the activist group continues down its current path, the next addition to the endangered-species list could be PETA itself.
These days, PETA is more likely to grab the spotlight for the outrageousness of its antics than for effectively promoting its animal-rights message. Forget PETA's traditional corporate guerrilla tactics, such as passing out "Unhappy Meal'' boxes filled with bloodied toy animals, or staging noisy protests at Gap stores selling Indian leather. Actually, both recent actions seemed to push policy changes at the targeted corporations. Rather, the group has taken to blasting the public with dubious science and tasteless ads to get its point across. Take the silly Sept. 14 demonstration against talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell, who jokingly promoted a Wear Leather Pants Day. Or using Jesus -- as he looks on the Comedy Channel show South Park -- in billboard ads that say Jesus is a vegetarian. PETA has even made an issue out of the Green Bay Packers (as in meat packers) for using a team name that supports cruelty to animals.
NO LAUGHING MATTER. Even if those moves elicited chuckles, the group's campaign against milk has turned out to be no laughing matter. Last month, it ran a series of ads depicting New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani with a milk moustache and the caption: "Got Prostate Cancer?" The mayor, who is currently undergoing treatment for the ailment, was outraged to see his image used without his permission. That's not funny.
PETA also was wrong in stating that science has established a link between milk consumption and prostate cancer. True, cancer researchers are investigating whether there is a connection between prostate cancer and fatty foods, or a dearth of fruit and vegetables in men's diets. But no link has been established -- and many doctors maintain the bigger problem for adults is that they don't get enough of the calcium and other nutrients milk can provide. Threats of a lawsuit from Giuliani and a loud public outcry provoked a grudging apology from PETA.
Still, PETA founder and President Ingrid Newkirk is unrepentant, noting that the group plans a series of similar ads linking milk to everything from breast cancer and acne to impotence. "If it was up to me alone, I wouldn't have apologized," says Newkirk, who conceived the ads after her father died of what she maintains were meat- and milk-related ailments. "I lament that I never got him off meat and milk," she says sadly. "He was a man's man, and sentimental stories [about animals] didn't move him."
Although Newkirk's father had prostate cancer, he actually died of heart disease at what many might consider to be the ripe old age of 80. She thinks he could have lived to see 100.
FREE FIDO! Granted, Newkirk's convictions are the all-too-human response of someone who has suffered a personal loss, for whatever reason. For PETA, the problem lies in the sweeping all-or-nothing nature of its mission. The group draws no distinctions between fishing and factory farms, between horseback riding and the worst abuses inflicted on animals in circuses and medical labs. They're all wrong in PETA's eyes. It has made pest control one of its central planks. Newkirk even maintains that keeping "companion animals" (a.k.a. pets) is unacceptable if the desire to keep companion animals is derived from a vain, selfish impulse. Drinking hormone-free milk from farmers who care deeply about their animals isn't going to win you any points in this camp, either.
Even Newkirk admits her group's tactics have become increasingly extreme. But that is society's fault, she contends, arguing that, 20 years ago, it was possible to have a sober discussion of issues in the media. "Now, people want to be entertained and titillated," she complains, adding that sound bites and shocking images play better than sob stories. "We're forced to be greeted with a yawn, or devise some gimmicky way to make our serious message fun or provocative," she says.
With that kind of attitude toward its target audience, one has to wonder where PETA goes from here. In PETA's view, people are more attuned to animal rights these days -- and the group has a point. Inhumane farming practices, animal lab tests, deplorable zoo conditions, even the use of fur, have clearly become less socially acceptable. Moreover, PETA has managed to grow from two activists in a basement to an organization that now claims to have more than 700,000 members. That success seems to suggest serious and thoughtful campaigns can continue to win converts.
The key is to celebrate the successes, build on them -- but lay off the heavy-handed, bombastic tactics. After all, Jesus may have been a vegetarian, but some of his best friends were guys who liked to fish.
Copyright 2000, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
