PETA Loses Suit Over California Cow Ads (Happy Cows)

California's "Happy Cows" ads might be fairly cheesy, but that doesn't mean the state can be sued over them.

On Tuesday, San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal declared the California Milk Producers Advisory Board exempt from the state's false advertising laws, preventing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. from suing the agency over its popular campaign showing blissful bovines in a pastoral paradise.

PETA, based in Norfolk, Va., had claimed that the ads were "explicitly and implicitly untrue, deceptive and misleading" -- that California cows actually lead harsh lives in grubby fields before being slaughtered.

In their ruling, the appellate justices made no comment about the state of cattle contentment but simply held that a "plain reading" of the state's unfair competition law -- Business & Professions Code §17200 -- shows that public entities, such as the milk board, aren't subject to false advertising suits.

...

Link: PETA Loses Suit

The little tub of Parkay does not say "butter" like it does in the commercial!

There was no "da da da daaaaaaaa" or crown appearing on my head.

I couldn't sit on a toilet without being paranoid for years

looked like the ones in the TV commercials. I'm SO disappointed.

Everybody knows the weather is great in California compared to Norfolk, Virginia! Cows suffering in California? You gotta' be kidding me!

:silly:

Have you watched the news lately? Did you happen to check on the current weather in California? You might want to be in Norfolk, Virginia right now. However, I think the adds have more to do with competition in Minnesota and Wisconsin, not where PETA is located.

Did you read the premise behind the PETA suit, or even the article for that matter?

sense of humor... Geee thats weird...???


DownNotOUt

that you were not making a serious or valid point. Yeah ... the suffering and unfair treatment of animals and educating people about it ... man ... that's real funny stuff. Oh the irony ... the surprise of the unexpected ... it killing me with laughter. Stop it. You're busting me up. I can't take it anymore.

Same with posts 1,2,5, 69, and 147 ... real good stuff ... I mean coming to the epiphany that the cartoonish and exaggerated are not real.

Maybe they don't think cows are real! HAHA < cymbal crash > :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I hope you enjoy your stay.

rbpierce,

It's about the treatment of cows. An animal that is supposed to have a life of 25 years, only lives 3-4 years because of the conditions they face on these factory farms. It is about the government not informing the people of the true conditions of these cows in an add that is false and misleading. The add shows cows peacefully grazing on a hillside; whereas, the reality is much different for cows on factory farms.

What next? Support and create legislation allowing cow tripping? What about cock-fighting? I mean, there just a bunch of birds.

rbpierce, these cows suffer unnecessarily at the hand of people in conditions that could be changed for the better. Part of being human is to understand the suffering of others, including animals, and then make a change to alleviate that suffering.

Are you sure you're not the one being hysterical with such a knee-jerk reaction?

I'd go so far to propose that compassion is a progressive value. Why would any progressive be in favour of a lawsuit that seeks to limit suffering--be it human or animal?

I meant ad ... not add. Sheesh. Ignis, help me out, since I'm behind the curve. You're responding to my post, but I'm not sure if we agree or disagree.

there is no one else to speak for the speechless

themselves a laughing stock.

..but the ruling in the suit clearly points out that the state can lie all they want and it's legal. I think I'd be a little worried about that, even if not about the cows.

You are right. I know the animal haters here will laugh and rejoice but this basically says, sure it's false advertising but they are above the law.

Animal suffering is bad. It's not a joke. People who make light of it are very immature and certainly not people I would care to be friends with.

...and it's perfectly legit. If PeTA are so damned concerned about the dairy cows, they should target the dairy farmers, not the stupid ad. They're not making very many converts the way they go about things. THAT's the point being made here.

will get any more attention?(BTW, "farmers" now are mostly agriconglomerates anyway.) Yes, PETA makes these protests fun and ATTENTION-GETTING- that's the idea. Some of it may seem like mindless "puffery" but they do whatever it takes to bring attention to these issues. Like all advertising "converts" are not the goal, but suggestions and planting ideas are. They are up against huge federal ad dollars(and youth school access etal) so for PETA's budget the idea is more bang for the buck- like free press. If PETA treats it like infotainment the press eats up stuff like this. The "puffery" is the press's bar, not PETA's....

They do this as well and this is part of that effort. "Puffery"=false advertising no matter how you try to spin it. Kinda like they hate us for our freedom.

"people" who make fun of animals suffering maybe immature but they are not "people", as in human beings although they may be homo-supines.

Support the A.L.F.

classified as a terrorist organization? Hasn't A.L.F. been classified as a terrorist organization for a very long time?

Boycotting products is also considered a terrorist act.

which is a terrorist organization.

I wonder if this will lead to ANOTHER NYT "look what boneheads they are" article...

You'll find that it's not all about arson.

the arson tactics taint ALL of it.

agency could advertise any lie they wanted--AND WE THE PEOPLE CAN'T DO A DAMNED THING? sorry I yelled. Oh hell, who wouldn't?

there are all kinds of protections for gov't rulings (and more and more, Corporate policies) that harm citizens or workers. Yet their asses are protected. (specific example--where I work, they are breaking established, researched safety rules. When I got injured as a result, and my requests for safety considerations beforehand were dismissed, I was immediately put in the Worker's Comp system. Only later when I consulted with my lawyer did I find out that once you are in the W.C. system, your right to sue is removed.) :mad:

Or how about this Corp. example: Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, launched a national advertising campaign on Thursday to burnish an image tarnished by allegations that it discriminates in hiring and promotions and drives smaller rivals out of business. LIES!!!!!

I sympathize with the many sincere people in PETA, but I also get the feeling that many are in it mainly for kicks.

I think protesting becomes a fun & wacky lifestyle for some, hence their frequently ludicrous and offensive campaigns which ultimately turn off the public, and do little or nothing to advance the prevention of animal suffering.

god knows WE aren't sincere.

beneath you.

Way to go! :thumbsup:

Thank heavens that PETA is there to give money to people like Rodney Coronado who firebomb research facilities and go on college campuses advocating violence against those who have different beliefs than him. It's a great thing that this group is there to provide over $78,000 for this saint who teaches college students to make molotov cocktais.

Piss on PETA and for not condemning violence but passively supporting it.

I have seen this done on DU before. Attack PETA without any evidence.

they do their research so i don't have to. don't believe them? go ahead. but i see no reason for them to make something up like that, considering they interviewed the guy and everything.

The vegas clowns?

The blurbs of the episodes did betray their biases. On one episode, they brought in one man to say that all environmentalism has been coopted by anticorporate extremists. Bullshit...how ironic.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

Shortly after Coronado’s arrest, PETA gave $45,200 to his “support committee” and “loaned” $25,000 to his father (the loan was never repaid and PETA hasn’t complained). Now free from jail, with an expired parole, and with the benefit of an expired Statute of Limitations on his many earlier arsons (to which he readily confesses in his standard stump speech), Coronado stood before a crowd of hundreds of young people at American University in January 2003 and demonstrated how to turn a milk jug into a bomb. A few days later, ALF criminals tried to burn down a McDonald’s restaurant in Chico, California, using a firebomb that matched Coronado’s recipe.

The following month, Ingrid Newkirk told ABC News that Rodney Coronado is “a fine young man.”

(more at the original site)

They're an industry shill, funded by the meat industry, among others.

"soccer moms by day, terrorists by night".

More shills listed at:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Think_tanks

Every good DUer should bookmark this list :kick:

than practically ANY other group I can think of.

http://www.activistcash.com/index_celebrities.cfm

You have referenced a right wing website. They don't list their funding sources, but I expect it is corporate America, like the coal and GMO industries.

Sierra Club is on their hitlist. Look at these filthy lies:

Once dedicated to conserving wilderness for future human enjoyment, the Sierra Club has become an anti-growth, anti-technology group that puts its utopian environmentalist vision before the well being of humans.
This is not your father's Sierra Club. Some of its leadership positions are held by activists with radical ties and even violent criminals

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I posted a link that shows that PeTA did indeed contribute to Rodney Coronado's defense fund. I also posted an actual court document that details his connection to PeTA, which I believe was what was originally requested. Instead of addressing that issue, you chose to attack the site it came from.

Edit: Since the moderator has seen fit to delete the link to the court document, here it is again:

http://www.cdfe.org/Sentencing%20Memo.pdf#search='peta,%20rodney%20coronado'

These guys are flat-out industry shills, and so over the top nothing they say has any credibility. I am not a PETA fan, but to call them an criminal enterprise is going RIGHT OFF THE EDGE. They're wacky, often wrong-headed, but Consumer Freedom is so right-wing and biased, I refuse to believe a word they print.

but I do believe they walk a very fine line in their support of known criminal enterprises.

Tobacco, too
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/anti_organic_consumer_group.cfm

PR Watch Exposes "Anti-Organic" Center for Consumer Freedom
7/2/2003

Web Note: One of the most vicious corporate front groups in America is the so-called Center for Consumer Freedom, which specializes in attacking the organic movement and public interest groups opposed to genetic engineering and industrial agriculture.

The Organic Consumers Association and our allies have been frequent targets for the CCF over the past few years. OCA's public interest ally PR Watch

has published an excellent expose of CCF and its founder and chief propagandist, Rick Berman. Among CCF's major funders are Coca-Cola, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and Monsanto.

See http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

Center for Consumer Freedom From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture ‹ the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' " CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman.

Based in Washington, DC, Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. The group actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of red meat consumption, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the "nanny awards" to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives.

Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association; the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

.........snip.........

Get the picture?

:grr:

and so soon, all for the love of PETA.

Bless PETA for de-frocking the freepers evertime.

Bad Ted Turner, Bad CSPI

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has used a private foundation to funnel at least $432,000 to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), another animal rights group. PCRM in turn falsely promotes itself as a mainstream medical charity.

Media mogul Ted Turner does more with his money than pay salaries for the Atlanta Braves. His own foundation lavishes over $40 million per year on anti-consumer activist groups, including those who advocate confrontation with police.

The Ben and Jerry's Foundation has given $10,000 to Mothers for Natural Law, a radical anti-food-technology group operated by disciples of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a Minnesota-based activist group, has accepted a $75,000 grant from the Foundation for Deep Ecology for -- and we quote -- "a campaign to end industrial agriculture."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) repeatedly attacks groups for accepting industry funding to conduct research. But CSPI itself took $50,000 from the Helena Rubenstein Foundation to fund an attack campaign against the fat substitute Olestra.

If PETA has made no other contribution to DU other than this de-frocking of trolls, then every DUer should kneel and kiss PETA's doormat.

and the activist cash site was at the top. It was when I googled PETA Coronado.

does innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you guys? damn fascists

http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/3255

Rodney Adam Coronado is a long-time ringleader of the Animal Liberation Front, a criminal enterprise that the FBI classifies as America’s most dangerous domestic terrorism threat. He was sentenced in 1995 to 57 months in federal prison, for the 1992 arson of a Michigan State University research laboratory. In a November 30, 2002 speech, Coronado openly confessed to at least six other arsons, all of them part of a crime spree known as “Operation Bite Back.” While the FBI was most intensely investigating Coronado, PETA gave him over $70,000 in “grants” from its tax-exempt coffers.

Or this, from the horse's mouth:

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Satya%20April%2097%20Interview%20with%20Rod%20Coronado.htm

"For PETA, I see the mainstreaming of animal liberation. Where other large organizations compromise their more "radical" beliefs to gain acceptance, I have yet to see PETA compromise in this fashion. They have pushed animal rights into every home, and have brought the idea of respect and reverence for animals past the stage of ridicule and into the borders of acceptance. They also have never shied away from recognizing or supporting their troops -- the ALF -- which I think is vital. Above-ground organizations like PETA and EF! have an obligation to support illegal, direct action because so many of the things both groups believe in can only be won by breaking the law. Very rarely if ever have struggles for justice and liberation been won without breaking establishment laws."


Or this, also from the horse's mouth:

http://www.nocompromise.org/features/rod2.html

"It must be said that, for all the criticisms I've heard about PETA, they at least were not afraid to voice public support for the A.L.F. and report A.L.F. raids in their newsletters and to the media. And, when activists were subpoenaed to the grand juries, PETA offered financial and legal support where others had failed."

Or this:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1273697,00.html

"Although Peta is keen to distance itself from Shac, its links with other hardliners in the animal rights movement are undeniable. Its campaign director, Bruce Friedrich, has said that 'blowing up stuff and smashing windows' in the name of animal liberation is an effective tactic. The group also gave $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front which has claimed responsibility for a string of arson attacks.

In addition, Peta also gave more than $70,000 to fund the legal campaign of Rodney Coronado, a one-time ALF member, who was jailed for setting fire to a Michigan State University research lab.

In 1992 Coronado, who has attended several Shac conferences and demonstra tions in the past couple of years, filmed himself setting fire to the research laboratory and then posted the results to Ingrid Newkirk, Peta's founder.

The presiding judge at Coronado's trial, Richard A Enslen, noted that Newkirk arranged to have the video delivered days before Coronado committed arson. Last year Coronado was captured on video showing activists how to make an incendiary device out of everyday household items. "

how many sources do you need?

why are you passively supporting this?

clean your own house.

You're required to pay taxes...like it or not. You're not required to give money to PeTA, so the house cleaning comment is irrelevant.

why is it ok to slaughter animals, happy as they maybe about it?

n/m

My spouse is actually a regular poster here. :-)

PETA. You are seriously misinformed.

There is more than porn on the internet, after all.

I would welcome you, but I don't feel so inclined.

The last thing this message board needs is more people who don't know a right wing propaganda source when they see it and have permanently confused PETA with ALF.

and then executes them without even trying to place them. They view dead ferals as better than live but neutered ferals. They ENCOURAGE this practice as the most humane way to deal with ferals.

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=38

"Because of the huge number of feral cats and the severe shortage of good homes, the difficulty of socialization, and the dangers lurking where most feral cats live, it may be necessary and the most compassionate choice to euthanize feral cats. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your local shelter uses an injection of sodium pentobarbital, take the cats there. Please do not allow the prospect of euthanasia to deter you from trapping cats. If you leave them where they are, they will almost certainly die a painful death. A painless injection is far kinder than any fate that feral cats will meet if left to survive on their own."

Please note this is NOT a RW source, but a PETA site. Apparently, ferals eat songbirds, so they're OK to kill.

Let me be the first to say that this is one of the many reasons I dislike the organization.

And I'd like to thank you for not just posting the usual anti-PETA tripe and actually making a valid point.

often PETA is it's own worst enemy. A lot of the stuff they do is too crazy to make up. Take the Mommy Kills comic book...

How can we forget this gem?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C906288%2C00.html

they do more harm than good.

You obviously took this out of context. There are no federal programs to protect feral cats and allowing them to breed uncontrollably would not only destroy the balance of the ecosystem. They are also at risk of harm by trappers where they die a slow and painful death.

Unless you have a real solution I don't think you should knock their stance on euthanasia.

It's called "spay and release". Lots of groups do it. PETA doesn't.

BTW, I linked to the PETA website, so you can see the entirety of it IN CONTEXT.

However, I've spent many years researching organizations like PeTA and ALF. I am not misinformed about them, but you appear to be.

But, since you're new, generally you want to back up your "facts" instead of just posting baseless garbage.

Animal welfarists believe in advocating humane treatment for animals.

Animal rightists believe that animals should be afforded the same basic rights as a human being.

These are two very different things and PeTA falls squarely into the "rights" camp.

Even by your definition.

It was a while back, but I seem to remember them convincing McDonald's to use more humane methods of slaughtering their cows (as humane as that could possibly be). I'll look around for a link.

I don't care one way or the other for PETA, but every single time someone even says the word "PETA," all the meat-eaters come out of the fucking woodwork to attack, and frankly, it gets old.

PeTA supports granting animals the same basic rights as humans, not just humane treatment of animals. Well, some animals that is...the ones that can turn a profit for them. When was the last time you heard them advocate for the "rights" of the animals killed in the production of grains and other vegetarian staples?

(And how the hell do you kill animals producing grain?)

Vegetarians will still eat some animal products, vegans make efforts at least to not eat any (difficult to do, unfortunately).

As far as going "well beyond welfare" did you read the link? They invested in McDonald's and got them to start slaughtering chickens more humanely. Sounds pretty pragmatic and levelheaded to me, but what do I know, maybe there's somemore wackiness up their sleeve.

And your jab about "turning a profit" seems to fit your MO of baseless attacks. They own stock to have influence over the practices of the company.

My overall purpose was not to defend PETA, but to call you to task for repeating the same old tired anti-PETA talking points that rarely ever get backed up without a link to that right wing cesspool you posted.

Should vegans not drive?

People can accidentally step on bugs as well. Neither carry the same moral implications of intentionally slaughtering an animal.

You two are really reaching...

EDIT- I'm not agreeing with PETA here. I think a lot of those PETA people have lost their minds. I was just answering your question.

I fail to see your reasoning.

My point is, Yes, animals get killed by unintentional means all the time (cars, farm equip, industry, etc.) I think we she do our best to minimize unintentional animal deaths but I totally accept that, short of killing all humans, we cannot stop the unintentional killing of animals.

I think we're on the same side here. I'm not a PETA fan, I think this was a silly law suit, and I think PETA actually HURTS the animal rights/welfare movement.

I don't care for PETA, more the personal experiences I've had with them, but baseless attacks from right wing sources like the poster above is doing doesn't really further a legitimate discussion about the issue.

I wish people who support PETA would leave it and form a more rational, logical, REALISTIC animal rights/welfare activist group. A group that could be respected and who sane, intelligent animal lovers could associate themselves with without feeling like a kook.

Local, state, national.

Why on earth does PETA get y'alls panties in such a wad? Their advocacy campaigns are really no different than the HSUS or the ASPCA...wait, what's that...PETA threatens Factory Farmers and Agricultural Conglomerates...by making them follow ALREADY EXISTING LAWS known as the Animal Welfare Act...Which costs MONEY...oh, now I get it...these guys are the buddies of Bush and his cronies...who can afford to pay people to spread misinformation around for gullible idiots like you to gobble up.

I'd say you are either one of the viral marketeers or you are skeered of them and don't have the balls to stand up for your beliefs with out "feeling like a kook". Pathetic.

That any true ARA should not, nor should they partake in any of the conviences of modern life, since virtually all of it results in or has caused animal death. Really reaching? Perhaps, but animal rights carried to it's logical conclusion is just that.

I can advocate human rights, but things I may do may inadvertantly may still cause someone to be killed. Hell, I pay taxes, and that supports the killing of Iraqis. Or, if I accidentally hit someone with my car, that doesn't mean I don't believe in human rights.

You have a very warped view of what animal rights is, it seems.

You could be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter. Should the same apply if you inadvertantly kill an animal?

That's a tough question, since I'm not an "animal righter" but I don't eat meat, and generally support PETA's cause (though not necessarily a few of their tactics).

To me, that question is like, "Which of your kids do you want me to kill?"

I'd guess more people have been killed this way than animals.

Hundreds, if not thousands of animals are killed every day in the production of grains and veggies.

But what are we going to do? Go back to picking all our vegetable products by hand? That kind of labor intensive work would make a vegetarian lifestyle un-affordable to most.

Plus by that logic all animal rights/welfare activists should stop driving cars (might hit an animal), stop using paper (loggers kill animals) stop wearing clothes (I'm sure animals are killed in the harvesting of cotton) etc, etc, etc.

As a vegetarian I have promisted myself I will do my best not to harm an animal to allow my survival. I can only do so much. If I wanted to make sure that NO animals suffered in any way, I'd have to kill myself. And every other human on the planet.

My point is that of course you can take it to its logical extreme, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Intent is the key. Intentionally killing something is not the same as accidentally killing something.

and I don't know why the others don't see this. It's very simple.

and trying to demonize the entire organization, then call upon it to denounce violence. Very common villification tactics of the Right Wing. Their enemies list includes Garofalo, Moore, even Ritter, Blix and anyone else that gets in their way.

here we go.

ignorance reincarnates itself on a regular cycle here, and spews out of the mouths of ones with suspiciously few posts.

I'll build a bullshit shield once I get the timing of the banning cycle down.

It is comforting to know that PETA must be SERIOUSLY, and I mean SERIOUSLY, hurting you guys for you all to devote this much energy to such an organized and unrelenting misinformation campaign. Thanks for keeping the thread kicked anyway, we can always rely on you all for that.

I'm at work right now, and it's the best I can do.

http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/macvskfc.asp

"You might not expect to find the world’s largest buyer of beef and pork, and the world’s second-largest buyer of chicken, in an animal rights group’s stock portfolio, but PETA owns shares of McDonald’s stock for a reason—to help the millions of cows, pigs, and chickens who are slaughtered for the restaurant chain each year. McDonald’s has agreed to meet the terms of PETA’s shareholder proposal, which calls on the company to prepare a feasibility report for switching its chicken suppliers over to the least-cruel slaughter method ever developed, controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK). To learn more about CAK technology, click here."

www.peta.org

It's worth checking out :)

PETA may be annoying and self-righteous, but their publicizing of outrageous abuses does do a lot of good. The kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa, the chicken-stomping at a Tyson plant, etc. were all exposed by PETA

Methinks you have an obsession with them.

You'll learn quickly that some of the DUers get a kick out of bashing PETA and mocking vegs for some reason.

There's a vegan, vegetarian, and animal rights group in the DU Groups forum. You have to donate to get access, but it might be worth it.

Uh ... the Anti-Abortion activists?

--p!
Ducking.
And covering.
But mainly ducking.

Think of the mooless!!

that have brought awareness to the general public that animals are living beings worthy of compassion.

There are many organizations working for this goal, but PETA's in-your-face style has brought the issue to mass consciousness.

You've nailed the problem of the head - there is no other national group speaking for the speechless besides a ridiculous, insane, inflammatory, fanatical bunch of extremist whacko nutjobs who do the absolute greatest DISSERVICE to the serious issues of animal rights and humane animal treatment thanks to their outrageous and often stupifyingly BAD arguments.

...and get squished by cars.

Probably one of the "happy cows" who stepped too close to a cliff edge.

Still, I've actually seen a lot of cows in my lifetime. The ones in CA, grazed on coastal ranges, if they have a consciousness, actually probably are "happy". Until the big truck shows up.

hooked up to machines by their udders. Factory farms usually don't care if cows see the light of day. So the question is, if peta or other groups don't stand up for farm animals who does?

A great group called Farm Sanctuary does a lot of work trying to pass laws for farm animals. They don't have the reputation that peta has. Unfortunately, our wonderful government and factory farms are in bed together and it's hard to get anywhere. Can't blame some people for losing their patience.

There are factory farms in California, but they have many small farms that produce organic and artisanal cheeses; it is only cheese, not milk or other dairy, that the CMAB promotes with its Happy Cows campaign. I have met some of these producers and they are crazy about their cows, and proud of their high-end cheeses that bring a hefty price at specialty shops.

http://www.winepalate.com/artisanal_cheeses.htm

(snip)

Ten years ago there were only a handful of specialty cheese makers in the United States. Currently there are more than 200, and some of the most interesting—mostly small family ventures—are located on the West Coast. The work of a cheese maker is hard, and the hours are long. But drawn by the exciting, living, constantly evolving quality of the cheeses and the richness of the land, these artisans are slowly changing the way a lot of America eats.

The French have a word for these regional clusters: terroir. A terroir is a grouping of vineyards that share the same type of soil and weather, which contribute to the detailed character of wine. The same principles hold true for cheese: the grasses, nettles, and herbs that grow in certain soils that animals eat; the water they drink; the air they breathe—all contribute to the quality of the milk they produce and hence the complexity and singularity of their product.

"Terroir also includes the people who inhabit the place," Sue Conley, co-owner of the Cowgirl Creamery in Point Reyes Station, Calif., told me by phone. She makes the best cottage cheese I've ever tasted. Why? A big reason is that the Cowgirl Creamery buys its milk from the Straus Family Creamery, an organic dairy located in nearby Marshall, Calif., and the milk the farm produces is delicious. "The Strauses are a very conscientious dairy family," says Conley. "Their milk has a grassy taste and a little bit of a salty taste because we're on the bay." I can vouch for the fact that you can actually taste the meadow and the salt in their silky, slightly tart cottage cheese.

kinda unrelated... but funny as hell

http://www.seanbaby.com/news/cow.htm

<snip>

City officials actually had to come in and tell these people that the dead cow had the legal status of "food," and that "throwing food around is not illegal." That's humilating. You need to get out of the angry parade and go back to school if the government has to come in to help you figure out what food is.

Really, a comic genius. I haven't read the linked piece yet but http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?pagename=article&articleid=22088">this, for example, had me rolling on the floor laughing.

Wow that says a lot about you. I am surprised you would admit this in public. Especially on a forum where people are not moronic hate mongers. I can see this being the toast of Freeperville but here?

DEFINITELY.

n/t

n/t

I don't think he was talking about "The Wizard of Oz."

I think it's digusting.

As much as I hate PETA, I love them. They provide so much comic material. You can't make up half the shit they say and do and be believed.

Without quoting an industry that they fight against? i.e. Fur industry, cattle industry, vivisectors, etc?

I am so fed up with people here constantly bashing PETA. There are some of their issues I don't agree with, but they do more good than harm.

I am not so sure they do.

I support their overall mission, but their tactics make them way out of the mainstream. They get no respect from the media, no respect from the general population, and are seen as ultra-radical trouble makers. This doesn't do any good.

I have known of a person who specifically bought a fur because she thought PETA was too crazy and in your face.

We can distinguish between goals and actions in PETAs case. The goals are extremely laudable, but the actions of PETA members and their over the top marketing efforts don't seem to help us progress to the ultimate goal of public awareness of animal cruelty issues, and internalization of the need to treat animals humanely.

Back in the early '90's a PETA video was a large part of why I finally became a vegetarian. But they go to far now. Just for the shock value. I want nothing to do with them anymore.

Would I like everyone to go veggie? Of Course.

Do I think it should be accomplished by scaring little children into pressuring their parents? No way. PETA aims FAR too many of its efforts at children now. And a lot of it is just inappropriate.

They do more harm to the cause than they do good. So many people loathe them now, they make veggies and animal rights activists laughing stocks to those we are trying to reach. The animal rights movement would do far better if PETA just disbanded altogether, IMO.

See post #48 above.

I understand the need to get attention to these issues. But everytime PETA pulls some stunt like this or shows horrific pictures to children in the name of press attention, I hear people turn away from the cause. This is why I say they do more harm that good. Contrary to popular opinion there IS such a thing as BAD press.

...I don't care how the Press feels about them :)

respect from the media? that's like getting respect from Hitler.

respect from the general population? the same general population that voted for Bush? the same general population that stuff their faces day in and day out with animal carcass? why should PETA want any respect from there?

big businesses and factory farms don't give a s__t about internalization of the need to treat animals humanely. They speak the language of the almighty dollar and media blitzes.

If not to make the public aware of these problems?

If they have no respect from the public or media, then their message either dies or is ridiculed. This is not an effective campaign.

Of is PETAs intent just to be loud and in your face about their pet issue? If that is the goal, then they have met it. A pretty lame goal, if you ask me.

made to give to three and four year olds....filled with graphic depictions and photographs of dead animals....which were set to be handed out at a performance of "The Nutcracker" in Boston....Gotta love it when they start traumatizing preschoolers....

LMAO

Don't use sources from the industries PETA works against. It will be like saying "Bush is a liar!" and then having someone say back it up and then you come back with, "Well, Condi Rice says he isn't!"

Same damn thing. Come up with facts from independent sources. Just as you would expect when they are anti-dem claims.

... and every reason NOT to trust Peta. You're asking me to prove a negative, when we already know that Peta is full of KOOKS and VIOLENT EXTREMISTS and VANDALS.

reminds me of the way participants in the Stonewall rebellion were described by those less inclined towards liberation.

can you name a SINGLE ALF participant that was arrested and convicted that DID NOT start out in PETA?

And why would I care?

routinely does press releases for ALF, they routinely give money to ALF and ALF members, and Coronado certainly speaks warmly of PETA...when he's not teaching people to make explosives or watching his back in a "PMITA" Federal penetentiary...

Ingrid Newkirk also wrote a great book called Free The Animals: The Amazing True Story of the Animal Liberation Front.

I highly recommend it! You can order it here.

How many did they euthanize?

"We're here to save you from your horrible life by killing you!"

If they did this with humans, they'd be annihilating third world countries....

None are euthanized, thanks. Ignorant response on your behalf.

You do realize that they euthanize a lot of their "rescues", they just don't brag about it, right? For example, were any feral cats mentioned in the book? Because they automatically kill them immediately after "rescue". I'm not making this up, see the link upthread...

Read the book

n/m

they're just like assholes :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My uncle was there and I've read quite a bit about it as well. The comparison is only absurd if you don't you think that animals deserve better than lives of slavery and torture. I also don't see anything particularly innocent about parading around in the fur of a creature that's been clubbed on the head or anally electrocuted just for your "luxury".

But you're right, you can't stop me. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's not nice.

of the purpose of laws that protect ordinary innocent people from being attacked and assaulted and that protect legitimate businesses from being attacked and vandalized and terrorized by criminal Peta THUGS.

Good for your uncle! Your comparisons of Peta to gay rights is absurd. One of the most laughable and ridiculous things I've ever heard. :eyes:

... the difference between Peta's illegal actions and a human being's struggle for equality and equal protection and equal rights under the law.

WOW! That's quite an analogy you're making. Do you honestly think that homosexuals are no better than common animals?? Or do you think that animals deserve the same rights as humans?

"There are viable non-animal alternatives to animal research"

Anybody want to take a crack at this one?

Animal Test
Rabbits are locked into full-body restraints and a test chemical is applied to the shaved skin on their back.

Non-Animal Test
Human skin equivalent tests such as EpiDerm™ and EpiSkin™ have been validated and accepted in Canada, the European Union, and virtually all other member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as total replacements for animal-based skin corrosion studies.

Animal Test
Rats’ backs are shaved and a chemical is smeared on them for an exposure period of up to 24 hours, after which the rats’ skin is washed and the animals are housed individually in “metabolism cages” to permit the collection of their excrement for analysis.

Non-Animal Test
Various tissue culture methods have been rigorously evaluated and accepted in Europe as total replacements for animalbased skin absorption studies. These methods use skin from a variety of sources to measure the passage of a test chemical into and across skin to a fluid reservoir.

Animal Test
Mice or guinea pigs are locked into restraints and different concentrations of a test chemical are applied to patches of shaved skin on their backs. Half the animals are then exposed to ultraviolet radiation for two or more hours, after which the chemical is removed.

Non-Animal Test
The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) Phototoxicity Test was developed and validated in Europe and has since been accepted at the international level as a total replacement for animal-based phototoxicity studies.

Animal Test
A rabbit pyrogen test has been in use since the 1940s. In this test, rabbits are locked in full-body restraints and a test substance is injected into their bloodstream while their body temperature is monitored.

Non-Animal Test
An In Vitro Pyrogen Test has been developed and validated in Europe as a total replacement for animal-based pyrogenicity studies.

Where did you get your information on how animal research is conducted?

Regarding cell culture, where do you think those cells came from? And, what do you think the cells are cultured in?

But I do know how to use Google.

As a side note, you can get cells from any kind of living being without harming it, let alone killing it.

It sounds to me though that you may participate in vivisection for a living or at least advocate it but I did what you asked, I provided you with examples, it is up to you to gather the rest not me.

Care to try again?

Yes, you are correct that many types of cells can be obtained without killing the animal, it's just not economically feasible to do it that way. By mentioning that simple point, you acknowledge that cell culture is not an animal-free alternative.

So, where did you find your information on how animal based research is conducted?

Now that we've established that the cells used in cell culture are usually animal based, what do you think they are cultured in?

Oh, and one more I forgot to throw in before: Name one viable alternative to a living multi-organ system for research purposes.

I will answer your questions.

It will debunk most of what you've stated

Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
http://caat.jhsph.edu/

European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods
http://ecvam.jrc.cec.eu.int/f_home.cfm?voce=m&idvoce=0

And aren't cultures what you grow bacteria in generally (as I stated I'm not a biologist—if you are why do you need me to provide you these answers? Lazy maybe?) In any case, Agar is a plant based medium for growing cultures. Cells can be taken from the human body to do testing, as well as eyes from eye banks, etc. If tests on animals must be performed, why not use eyes from cows that have gone to slaughter? This is a viable method if you want to grow some cells in some culture. How about human stem cells? There's an option.

As far as your last question, there is only one animal that has close to the same physiology of humans and they are pigs. How often to you see pigs vivisected? Not much. Many of the tests have proven that the outcome in mice or rabbits or primates can not say with certainty that humans would react the same way, it's all guess work. Use google and educate yourself.

The whole point shouldn't be semantics, it should be if there are alternatives, why not use them? What is wrong with being humane? What do you have against it? Everybody in this discussion that "hates" PETA must hate humanity because whether or not you agree with what they do or how they do it, all they are attempting is to bring humanity to a process that often has none because of people like you and your attitudes. If that's wrong, string me up 'cause I think this nation could use some freakin' humanity.

I try to live humanely every day, I'm against the war, I'm against the death penalty, I'm against factory farms, I'm against useless vivisection, and I'm against a government that says it's legal to lie to people (as this case does). There isn't much of a line between what they did in Cali and what Armstrong Williams did for Bush.

I'm asking you the questions to make you think and actually go out and research some of PeTA's claims. Very simply put, all cells require some type of nourishment in culture. This requires some type of animal based media, usually Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS). So, you have animal cells being cultured in animal based media, both of which have cost animals their lives. Not really a "non-animal alternative," eh? PeTA lies when it describes cell culture as a non-animal alternative.

In addressing your other points, yes pigs are used in significant numbers in research. Rats and mice do consistute about 90% of animals used in research and they are also very biologically similar to humans.

Anyway, you asked for someone to show you a PeTA lie and I just did. Would you like to move on to "Companies that don't test on animals?"

eliminated.

All kidding aside.

I hate to think what suffering innocent animals are suffering right now.

Perhaps if PETA would concentrate on items such as these, instead of wasting everybody's time and losing sympathy for their "concern" over a comical, humourous, great ad OF TALKING COWS for christsake - then then maybe we all would take PETA more seriously.

So far, they have a LOOOOOOONG way to go.

I said some of the shit they do is so wacky you couldn't make it up and be believed. This lawsuit for instance.

but the sad thing is that Peta has developed such a reputation as being a BUNCH OF KOOKS, that whenever there's a legitimate instance of cruelty or abuse... if Peta is the one to complain, most folks just turn away and ignore it.

That group of Peta VANDALS and EXTREMIST WACKOS who assault citizens wearing fur (or what they think might be fur) have cried wolf too often. Their (bad) reputation precedes them. They have made themselves impotent and ineffective. They do more harm than good.

Indeed their efforts often cross over into the ABSURD and COMICAL.

You said it perfectly Arwalden.

Some people need to get a life and lighten up.

Upset with a COMEDY COMMERCIAL about TALKLING COWS!

T-A-L-K-I-N-G C-O-W-S!

is not good idea. I am against it. this thread reminded me of that weird guy in the movie "harvest of fear," who firebomed a biotech researcher.

but the cows aren't happy in the farm really. they are fed corns they aren't meant to digest, being infected and sick, pumped up in hormon, drolling and fooked up to machine in crowded space. jeebus, you guys are supposed to know those stuff. you are the democrats, leftist, liberal (or whatever the label people uses on us).

they need to graze on good field grass in order to produce milk. No farmer worth his salt would abuse the crown jewels of dairy production. Most cows are very intelligent and know when its time to give up their milk, usually in the morning and late evenings. A dairy farmer is sensitive to his cows needs and tends to their tits, with various lotions or creams such as "Bag Balm". They are regularly bathed. A milking machine and its components must be sterile to avoid disease. Milk producing cows are too expensive to be treated poorly, given a farmer is only making a few cents per pound of milk. (Yes milk is sold by the pound). I seen the ads and usually had a little snicker, its is true a happy cow gives good milk.

PETA must be confused with steers which are primarily raised for our supermarket. There is a difference you know!!!!!! Even steers need sustenance in order to put on weight. I don't know what they mean about a grubby field. What do they expect Kentucky Blue Grass. Around where I live the nibble the grass pretty close and avoid crappy weeds. I'd bet PETA is employing cow psychiatrists.

I spend a fair amount of time around dairy farms, and you are incorrect in your assertion...I have seen plenty of cows that never leave the barn, and never get to go into the fields. Btw, it's teats, not tits.

(to tits part).

"good cows" aren't happy ones. Good cows are made, and are injected with hormone to produce 4 times more milk than they naturally produces. This obviously puts strains on the cows. In addition, cows don't get fed weed you know. They are fed corns even though their digestive system aren't equip to deal with corn. Which makes the cows sick all the time.

Have they changed so much? It seems a waste of manpower to keep the cows inside all day. The farms I am familiar with all graze their cows. The cows themselves begin to return to the barn at milking time when their udders start to become full and uncomfortable. I wouldn't want to buy milk from a farmer who kept his animals inside all the time, standing in their own filth. It would cost the farmer a fortune to keep the barn clean enough for milking operations, so I doubt that many would do it.

My best friend and her husband ran a dairy farm for years in Minnesota, where I visited. They kept to very strict standards of cleanliness. The cows grazed all day and came in to be milked and fed grain. Did the cows look happy? They looked as happy as cows can look.

Edit: for left out word

"Our society is showered with images of happy animals living on farms where the cows graze in lush green fields and the chickens have the run of the barnyard. This vision of free-roaming animals living out their days in sunny fields is very far from the reality. A majority of the animals that are raised for food live miserable lives in intensive confinement in dark, overcrowded facilities, commonly called "factory farms.""

more...

And more info on factory farms:

http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/Spring2000/HormoneInjections.htm

http://www.hsus.org/farm_animals/factory_farms/the_dairy_cow_factory_farm.html

http://www.factoryfarm.org/teenguide/cattle.html

Though consumers may imagine bucolic scenes of nursing calves and cows munching on grass or hay, much of American agriculture no longer works that way. For years, calves have been fed cow's blood instead of milk, and cattle feed has been allowed to contain composted wastes from chicken coops, including feathers, spilled feed and even feces.

http://www.agobservatory.org/madcow/index.cfm?id=19147

The livestock industry claims that productive animals are by nature healthy animals. The reality is that drugs, hormones, and other chemicals are routinely administered to animals in intensive confinement systems to mask stress and disease and to speed growth. In addition, farm animals have been selectively bred for productivity at the expense of their well-being, and are worn out in a fraction of their natural life spans.

Hundreds of thousands of these animals die every day. Physical disorders brought on by exhaustive production demands are common. Dust and toxic gases accumulate in crowded, enclosed systems, causing respiratory diseases and death. Losses are high, yet the industry considers this acceptable because factory-farm profits depend on the optimal use of space and equipment, not on the well-being of individual animals.

http://www.hsus.org/farm_animals/factory_farms/

Anyhow, the reaction to Peta around here looks to me to be the same as the "I'm against the war but I support the troops" syndrome. Personally, I like Peta. They do a good job and that's why they are so viciously targeted by the corporations and MSM. Unfortunately, the smear campaign has been pretty successful even around people as enlightened as most DUers.

There's a huge difference! I’m from Minnesota, and I know every farm I have gone to takes very good care of their animals. To paint small farmers with the same brush as corporate farmers is an injustice to people who work hard and take care of their animals.

I think corporate farms have a lot of problems and are a horrible sign of what is going on in the business world. Of course, both of my parents were born and raised on dairy farms, so I have a different respect for the old school way of doing things.

This seems like a waste of time, but I would rather PETA does this than firebomb labs.

Please do tell of the facts of your illusion...

They don't bomb the labs directly but they provide support, financial and otherwise, to those who do.

You know, innocent until proven guilty, right? And while you're Googling for other instances, don't throw anything that CCF feeds you out there. PETA may support other orgs. Members of other orgs may do things that are illegal. It doesn't mean that the original donor is advocating those particular acts. If it did, then by 6 degrees of separation, I'm a terrorist for donating, as are 750,000 other folks.

when the people came up through PETA, are trained by PETA, supposedly "leave" PETA, go burn shit, and then PETA pays for their defense after putting out their press releases. BEST CASE scenario, it looks improper. Worst case: It looks like they not only condone it, but are actively supporting it.

And I've never been to, nor heard of any PETA training camps. You might as well be linking folks that shoot abortion doctors and burn clinics to nonviolent anti-abortion groups with huge memberships.

they DO have a staff, you know. They even pay some of them.

You're taking a number of people and suggesting that they all worked for PETA at one point, right?

As I have friends employed by PETA, I'm well aware of their staff and compensation.

"They also have never shied away from recognizing or supporting their troops -- the ALF -- which I think is vital. Above-ground organizations like PETA and EF! have an obligation to support illegal, direct action because so many of the things both groups believe in can only be won by breaking the law."

This statement came from Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist who received over $70,000 from PETA, according to PETA's public records. The link us upthread, I posted it, titled "try this". And that quote isn't from an anti-PETA site, it's from an animal rights group's site.

On edit: here's a link to make it easy for you to find.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1146492&mesg_id=1150109&page=

Everyone with a yellow "Support Our Troops" ribbon supports the crimes that have been committed by the few. Got it.

singing a different tune. It doesn't matter what politics you have if you support violence your wrong, plain an simple. PETA has evolved from an organization with a sensible agenda to completely irrational elitists, who support bombing clinics, while they enjoy the benefits of years of medical animal research. If we ended all animal research there would be no medical advancement period.

Thank you Peta for drawing this to the attention of the public, some of us do understand the methods to your madness, which is media genious, IMO....from Dawnwatch's e-list:

Those of us in California are familiar with the amusing but misleading 'Happy Cows' advertisements from the California Milk Producers Advisory Board. The theme of the cartoon-style campaign is "Good cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California." It shows cows on rolling green hills, chatting happily to each other about the California good life. The campaign, though light-hearted, is clearly taking advantage of the increasing public concern for animal welfare, using the preferable conditions in California as the basis for the pitch to buy California dairy products.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued the milk board. An article in the Wednesday, January 12, San Francisco Chronicle (Pg C2) tells us, "The ads, funded by dairy farms, were misleading, Peta argued, because California dairy cows commonly spend their lives in dirt and mud, are repeatedly impregnated and milked throughout their pregnancies, often suffer painful maladies, and are slaughtered when they can no longer meet the industry's production demands. A court may not be able to tell whether cows are truly happy, the organization said, but it should decide whether consumers are being led down the primrose path."

Sadly, that article, headed, "Dairy farms can keep milking their 'Happy Cows' campaign," tells us:

"An animal-rights group's suit against a state milk board for its 'Happy Cows' advertising campaign was put out to pasture Tuesday by a state appeals court, which said state agencies can't be sued for false advertising....

"San Francisco Superior Court Judge David Garcia dismissed the suit, saying the false-advertising and unfair-competition laws invoked by Peta can be used only against individuals, companies and private associations, not government agencies."

In other words, government agencies are free to lie to the public.

You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/12/BUG0TAOPRK1.DTL
or http://tinyurl.com/3mrba

For more information on the law-suit, and the way dairy cows live, including distressing photographs and footage, visit http://www.unhappycows.com/

And please send a letter to the Chronicle. You might discuss the way animals raised for human food are treated, or sing the praises of soy milk. The San Francisco Chronicle takes letters at: letters@sfchronicle.com and advises, "Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication."

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

Yours and the animals',
Karen Dawn

(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. To unsubscribe, go to www.DawnWatch.com/unsubscribe.php. If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)

shut UP and go away?

I thought that ad was damn clever. And no, it didn't deceptively trick me into thinking that cows actually talk, so there goes the basis of PETA's stupid lawsuit.

Redstone

...cows talk ? LOL, that's precious.

spurious and did not do wonders for PETA's image.

I agree that PETA can get a little crazy sometimes, but they don't have the budgets to advertise like the National Pork Producers Council or any of the people they fight. I've spent some time studying academic animal welfare philosophy, and although I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the idea of animal "rights," it doesn't seem so far-fetched to me that we should protect them from some of our most horrible violations against their natures. Factory farms treat animals like machines, and I think it reflects well on all of us to show some mercy toward them. Our kindness should not be limited only to those who can pay us back.

just my $.02

Not according to:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/cornucopia011205.cfm

The Cornucopia Institute, today, filed a formal
complaint with the USDA¹s National Organic Program asking them to initiate
an investigation into alleged violations of the federal organic law by a
factory farm operating in Colorado. At issue is whether it is legal to
confine cows in an industrial setting, without access to pasture, and still
label milk and dairy products organic. Similar factory farm operations in
Idaho and California are also under investigation by The Cornucopia
Institute and will likely be targeted with formal complaints to the USDA in
the near future

"We have been interested in these confined animal feeding operations, or
CAFOs, for some time," said Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst, at the
Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute, a progressive farm policy research
group. As demand for organic milk has skyrocketed, investors have built
large industrial farms mimicking what has become the standard paradigm in
the conventional dairy industry. "It is our contention that you cannot milk
3000­6000 cows and offer them true access to pasture as required by the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, the law that governs all domestic
organic farming and food processing," said Kastel.

This week the Chicago Tribune published an investigative report that
compared the 5600-cow Aurora Dairy in Colorado to a more traditional 70-cow
organic farm in central Wisconsin. One of the owners of the large Colorado
farm, in Platteville, Colorado, Mark Retzloff, has justified an exemption
from the requirement for pasture based on not enough rain in the area to
support it. Federal law does give the farmer the ability to remove cows
from pasture for "temporary" reasons based on weather, environmental, or
health considerations. However, in their complaint, The Cornucopia
Institute countered that the claim that pasture is impractical, or not
cost-effective, in arid Colorado is no excuse under the law.

more......

They've been there all week. This is in CA.

thats prime beef wasting away. PETA need to find something better to do with their time. I'm more concerned about the homeless and hungry people than some sort of misleading cow advertisement

n/t

Why do people think that all dairy operations are ‘factory farms’? If you haven’t taken time to actually visit a dairy, you are making the same mistake a very large portion of the PETA type animal welfare people make. They see video of the worst dairy operations and naturally assume it means ALL dairies run their cattle that way.

The cows about a mile down the road from us are allowed to graze in fields all day with access to as much grain as they want. They actually walk themselves to the dairy barn once a day because they know when it’s time to get milked by their udder size. Keeping dairy cows content and full helps maximize their production.

If you want to go after factory farms go after poultry and pork. Those industries are far an away the worst about factory farming. Beef (before the feedlot) and to a lesser extent dairy just doesn’t work in the factory farming system that poultry and pork use so much.

I just find it funny that PETA chose the dairy ads to go after rather than doing some actual good to get REAL factory farms taken care of. It’s just another example of their desire for attention outweighing their desire for the actual welfare of the animals they pretend to lobby for.

own industry. For starters, please deny CAFO's are not only inhumane, but dangerous to human health also. I double-dog dare ya :)

Yes, they are. Life sucks by the way.

Unless you propose that we switch to a society where money isn't the thing that drives production, it won't change.

That this thread has become all about PETA bashing and defending, and so little about the fact a Court of Appeals just said government entities can't be spew out any misleading crap they'd like to.

I guess we've all just gotten so accustomed to the Bush administration's swill that an AG board, whose decisions and marketing affects just as many people, and in such direct ways, seems like small fry, nothing to be concerned about.

Personally, I'm pretty outraged. That's taxpayer money being used to promote pro-agribusiness propaganda.

Hell, it got me to post for the first time in a year or so.;)

write...

All the court held was that the statute (passed by California legislators) carved out government advertising from the regulated class. If Californians want to pass a law that covers this type of advertising, nothing is stopping them...they could also put it on a ballot initiative.

That is exactly what they said. I have no idea where you are going with this but the ruling clearly said they cannot be sued for the same thing any other biz can, false advertisement.

REGULATES advertising (falsely) does not include government advertising because the legislature carved it out...

YOU CANNOT SUE BASED ON A STATUTE A GROUP THAT IS NOT COVERED (EXPRESSLY CARVED OUT) BY THE STATUTE....that is all the court held, nothing more. Go read the suit.

If they would have brought such a ridiculuous suit, such an outcome as you describe, tho I doubt your assertions from reading it - it was about THIS CASE WHICH HAD NO MERIT - is does not extropolate to saying the government can lie about everything as you assert - then we wouldn't have this judgement, would we!

Sometimes, it's best to keep one's mouth shut and not expose to the world what a boob one is - and PETA in thia case takes the cake of being my nominee for IDIOT GROUP OF THE YEAR!

I see about a dozen slips showing right now.

At least they kick the thread.

So our plan of branding the word PETA into the brains of everyone who accesses the LBN forum is coming along nicely. Hope they don't find the pro-vegetarian subliminal messages we've hidden in here. We definitely couldn't do it without the trolls.

It's a bit like the kitchen floor when the light is turned on, I say. :)

The sad part (for me, at least) is that this sort of knee-jerk anti-PETA dogpiling really serves to kill any chance of rational discussion regarding animal rights and/or welfare on DU.

I suppose I should just be thankful that this thread hasn't been "slipped" full of those hillarious yet monochromatic "Mmmmm, meat!" responses...yet.

They're hilarious! Shows a cow holding a sign that reads "Eat More Chikin!" :evilgrin:



Note: chicken is misspelled deliberately

why some of you are so freaked that PETA took issue with them. Do you really think it's OK for the dairy industry to disseminate propaganda indicating cows are well treated and enjoy their fate? If we want to drink milk, eat cheese, eat meat, whatever, we can, but we shouldn't wrap the violence that accompanies our consumption in lies. That's no different from what the Bush Administration does regarding its criminal policies in Iraq (they love us! really! they're happy!)

If those of you who find PETA to be a fatally flawed messenger are as sincere in your concerns about the mistreatment of animals as you profess to be, why don't you start your own group? If everyone at DU who carps at PETA put their money where their sizeable mouths are, you'd easily be able to afford to do all sorts of good things.

Gotta get our simplistic descriptions correct!

http://www.caringconsumer.com/animaltimes/at-fall2002/dairy/

PETA Cries, “False Advertising!”
“Unlike the luxurious depictions in the Happy Cows ads, the majority of California dairy cows are worked until they cannot possibly work anymore, and then their lives are ended prematurely.

California dairy cows do not die of old age; the ones who don’t die prematurely on the ‘farm’ or during transport inevitably end up at slaughterhouses, where they are hung upside down by one leg and have their throats slit, most without ever being close to a field, a blade of grass or a shade tree.”

In the fantasy TV ad world created by the California Milk Advisory Board, dairy cows loll about lush, green fields, enjoying luxurious lives of ease and comfort.“Great cheese comes from happy cows,” the announcer claims.“Happy cows come from California.”d).

Consumers take note: The reality is that dairy cows in California, the largest milk-producing state in the U.S., live anything but easy lives. Real cows are typically kept in feces- and urinesaturated, treeless, grassless “dry lots” of dirt (or mud, during California’s long winter rainy season). They are shot full of growth hormones or other drugs to get them to produce unnaturally high quantities of milk, commonly suffer from disease and painful injuries from their intensive rearing, are repeatedly impregnated in order to keep them lactating, and are attached to milking machines several times a day nearly every day of their lives, even throughout their pregnancies. Their beloved calves, shown in the ads talking about their blissful lives to their grandmothers, barely get to see their own mothers. Most are torn from them within 24 hours of birth. Many die before even reaching the age of weaning, and many more are condemned to the veal crate. In fact, the veal industry relies on the dairy industry for its very existence. After just four or five years (a cow’s normal lifespan is about 20 years), when their bodies are so worn out that they can no longer meet the inordinately high milk production demands, they are trucked off to the slaughterhouse to be strung up by one leg and killed with a knife to the throat. Happy cows?

more...

It's one of my favorite ads.

Clue one for the clueless: Dairy farmers don't go around torturing and killing DAIRY cows - they're kept for as long as their natural lives will permit to PRODUCE MILK and any mistreatment STOPS the production of milk.

Other cattle are used for tasty steaks and burgers!

Besides, I don't get all the controversy for PETA = "People Eating Tasty Animals"! I love that group!

eom

Thanks livinginphotographs. I know many have probably already posted links describing the real conditions of the Dairy Cows, but just to remind ... once again ... that those knocking PETA and downplaying the issues are really just arguing against the facts. Kinda like the Repuke noise machine they so often criticize.

Dairy cows are artificially inseminated each year, and must carry the burden of being pregnant once a year. This in turn shortens their lives, along with being given growth hormones that enlarge their udders making them prone to "frequent" infections. The growth hormones also make the calves susceptible to birth defects.

Calves are separated 1-2 days from their mothers, and the veal we enjoy is a product that was chained around the neck and kept in crate 2 feet wide. when the calves are auctioned off, if they cannot walk, they're dragged by the the legs or ears.

Normally, Dairy cows have a life span of 25 years, but most die within 3-4 years because of the abhorrent conditions.

We can go into the fact that before cows are slaughtered for meat, they're stunned by a mechanical blow to the head and hung upside down, and are often still conscious.

About all those growth hormones in the milk these people are drinking.

But if they like that sort of thing... :shrug:

Here's a hint: that's not as clever as you probably think it is. :eyes:


And, yes, dairy farmers DO go around torturing and killing dairy cows. There's more than enough links in this thread that support that argument.

....who was razzed by an activist dressed in a chicken costume at a McD's. The group is his revenge for being embarrassed! Speak about a misspent life!

Unless you consider being constantly impregnated and sucked dry by machines constantly until they can no longer produce any milk humane, you don't have a clue. Oh yes, and their babies are not allowed to nurse....They are split up between veal farms (which is another ballgame all together) or to be raised as beef and some suffer the same fate as their mother.

Please, unless you know what you are talking about, don't say anything at all. You may know a dairy farm where cows are treated the way you describe, but the reality is factory farming, and that's where 99% of people get what's on their plate. :mad: