Hey PETA: Got Ethics?

Hey PETA: Got Ethics?
by Stephanie Herman

I don't drink cow's milk. Non-organic brands often contain growth hormones, and even organic cow's milk can trigger allergies. Then there's the research showing a possible correlation between milk's excess estrogen and higher incidences of breast cancer. Instead, I drink soy milk. It circumvents common dairy allergies, contains high levels of my favorite amino acid (tyrosine) and soy is an estrogen blocker, which may be helpful in preventing breast cancer.

Ergo, if I ever wanted to crusade against the consumption of cow's milk, I'd probably extol the healthful benefits of its alternatives: Got soy milk?

So it surprised me when the activist group known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) instead mounted an anti-cow's-milk campaign based on the slogan, "Got beer?"

Operating under its own brand of flawed logic, PETA deduced that "milk is so bad for humans that even beer looks good in comparison." But can the detriments of cow's milk have any bearing on the consumption value of beer? No, not even poison can logically improve beer's value simply because it compares less favorably. The quick wits over at PETA, though, didn't exactly mean what they said. Rather, the campaign more likely intended to position beer as an unhealthy standard against which milk still falls short. Which makes the "Got beer?" query - encouraging college kids, many underage, to consume the unhealthy standard - a blatant breach of ethics.

And nobody recognized the breach faster than Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who publicly charged PETA with promoting alcohol to underage kids.

PETA's response to the charge was schizophrenic. On one hand, PETA made weak concessions to MADD - $500 in employee-raised contributions and a link from their website - suggesting they accepted culpability. On the other hand, PETA wantonly embraced the ensuing controversy, which translated into valuable publicity. Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vegetarian campaign coordinator, eventually dismissed MADD's concerns with a Machiavellian flourish: "MADD got their message out; we got our message out."

But the story doesn't end there. In a letter to PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, MADD has since rejected the group's pathetic consolations. "We are unable to accept your contributions or allow a link to the MADD site because of the implied association with PETA's animal rights issues - issues which are unrelated to our mission to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking." The letter was dated March 21, but as of April 2, PETA's link to the MADD website remains.

In response, Ms. Newkirk accused MADD of exploiting her organization for purposes of publicity, while confessing to the very same sin: "We realize that MADD used PETA and we do not resent that. Without your drawing the media to our campaign, PETA would not have been able to let as many people as we did know that modern milk production is abusive to cows." Rather than show any remorse for their irresponsible campaign, Newkirk curtly informed MADD that the drunk driving issue had seen more air time in two days than in the last two years.

What's probably most disturbing, though, is PETA's assumption that any damage inflicted by their promotion of alcohol to minors can be mitigated via "goodwill gestures" to a fellow activist group. Was paying off the cause an ethical thing to do? It wasn't MADD that was potentially misled and affected by PETA's pronouncements; it was young, impressionable college students looking for social acceptance of their occasionally self-destructive behavior. It was alcoholics straining for any justification to continue their habit. And it was us, the drivers who share the road with them.

PETA didn't hurt a cause or an issue. It hurt the public, and therein lies the crux of the problem. The public is comprised of people - human beings - and the welfare of people is PETA's last concern. Bleeding hearts and celebrities sympathetic to animal cruelty issues assume this charge to be hysterical, but it's consistently upheld by the statements of PETA's own staffers. "I don't believe human beings have the 'right to life,'" Newkirk was quoted as saying in a 1990 issue of Audubon. "That's a supremacist perversion."

On second thought, to ask if such a person or her organization is ethical now seems rather pointless. I withdraw the question.

www.american-partisan.com