PETA’s New Infographic
Print This Post
PETA has a new infographic that’s causing a stir amongst animal advocates. Here is the graphic:
And here are the sources that PETA used:
Eating Animals InfoAll information included in The Truth About Eating Animals was obtained from the following sources. To find out more about how eating animals affects the animals themselves, the environment, and your health, we recommend the following list of resources:
Animals Killed
http://animaldeathcount.blogspot.com Pollution
Environmental Defense Fund: “Fighting Global Warming With Food” Marcia Kreith, “Water Inputs in California Food Production,” Water Education Foundation, 27 Sept. 1991. John Lang, Scripps Howard News Service, “U.S. Staggers Under Weight of Waste From Farm Animals,” The Grand Rapids Press, 26 Apr. 1998. Water Use
American Meat Institute, “The United States Meat Industry at a Glance“ U.S. Department of Agriculture, “U.S. Soybean Industry: Background Statistics and Information“ Water Education Foundation, “Water Inputs in California Food Production“ Salmonella and E. coli
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Salmonella Serotype Enteritidis” David White et al., “The Isolation of Antibiotic-Resistant Salmonella From Retail Ground Meats,” The New England Journal of Medicine 345:1147-54, 18 Oct. 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Library Somatic Cells (Pus)
Hoard’s Dairyman, “Somatic Cells Continue to Rise“, 25 Apr. 2001. Cardiovascular Disease
American Heart Association: “Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics” Cholesterol
Kerry K. Saunders, The Vegan Diet as Chronic Disease Prevention, Lantern Books, 2003.
A few of these statistics are a bit controversial. For example, Erik Marcus of vegan.com wrote:
“The water claim is bogus. The feed conversion claim is deceptively worded. I analyzed both these topics in exhaustive detail in Meat Market five years ago. It’s simply inexcusable for an organization with PETA’s substantial resources to churn out this kind of crap [...]”
I’m not sure that Marcus realizes what PETA does. PETA is an animal advocacy group that focuses on marketing a pro-animal message to young people. PETA is NOT a news agency or a co-op of university professors. PETA is in the business of persuasion. PETA knows that the target audience for an “infographic” is not the same audience that is so inherently skeptical and rational that they’ll read countless books and reports on a subject before finally coming to a decision about it.
It’s silly, really. Marcus is angry that PETA didn’t spend more time on fact checking, although I’m sure that he is well-aware of how inept real news media is at actual fact checking and I’m sure the citations PETA provided are more than sufficient for most people. The statistics are good enough. For whomever they’re not good enough, that person will do the research and learn more horifying details about animal agriculture to be better persuaded to make major personal dietary changes that benefit animals, the planet, and their own health.
Maybe Marcus never heard the expression that “perfect is the enemy of good.” Or maybe it’s just cool to hate on PETA. Whatever the reason, how’s about we all stop trying to hold each other to impossibly high standards and start accepting the good that each and every animal advocate does?
Amen.
PETA is a marketing organization, and they’re good. IMO holding PETA to a different standard than you’d hold those who market commercial products (especially animal products) is silly.
If you think marketing is scuzzy in general then I guess I hear you, but if you’re going to get really bent out of shape about it then you might as well move to Mars because that’s the only place you’ll be free from it.
It’s really tiring watching vegans stand up for misinformation. Any time an animal rights organization makes a claim that is easily debunked as false or misleading, it discredits animal rights as a whole. I don’t understand why you think PETA shouldn’t just use factual information. I think you and I can agree that there’s more than enough TRUE information out there to go vegan — why give the false stuff? It’s just going to hurt us in the long run.
Actually I don’t think Mars is far enough, at least not if you bring a bunch of humans with you. The human body is designed to consume whole plant foods, and the human brain is designed to consume marketing. Maybe that’s sad. It’s definitely true.
@Colinski
See above. Ever see an ad campaign where a company claimed something not-quite-true about their product? Like, say, Milk does a body good. Do you think that not-quite-truth has hurt or helped to sell milk?
Marketing works with truths and half-truths. More importantly, marketing works. That’s reality. Maybe you think that stinks, and maybe you live your life by ethical standards that don’t allow you to get on board. That’s fine. I don’t spend my time making infographics either, and I’d feel a little icky if I did.
But when you guys say that this stuff “hurts us in the long run” I frankly think that just shows ignorance. Marketing works very, very well.
Colinski, there are nearly 30 claims in the infographic. Marcus has a problem with 2 or 3 of those claims.
And he’s not even bothered enough to set the record straight and provide concrete data in his blog. Instead, he expects people to sift through his book for the information.
For him, the mere possibility of error is enough to trash the entire graphic as well as the entirety of PETA. He’s being petty, he’s missing the point, and his criticisms of PETA don’t do any actual good.
If, as you say, it’s so “easily debunked as false or misleading” then why haven’t you done exactly that? Why didn’t Marcus do that? Spell out the specific errors in the graphic above, provide better citations, and give PETA credit for the correct claims they make.
Right now, all you’re doing is casting doubt and spreading rumors. You’re no better than those you criticize. In fact, you’re doing the CCF’s job for them and you’re hurting animals.
I have to side with the for-truth people here. I personally hate being fed untrue or misleading information. Sure, when I don’t know that it’s misleading or untrue, I may fall for it, but when I find out that it isn’t true, it just makes me lose respect for the people who fed me these lies. Isn’t that how most people would react?
So, yeah, I have to agree that this stuff does hurt in the long run. Sure, misleading advertising may work on some (but I’m sure it repulses a lot of people, too), but here we’re at a disadvantage because we’re advocating a very controversial movement. And just like you see with global warming or with elections, every misstep is an opportunity for your opponent.
I’ve seen different studies that show vastly different amounts of water to produce a pound of beef. The differences are usually accounted for due to different climates, different management practices and so forth. But of all the stats on water use for meat production I’ve seen they all show that meat production uses an extremely large amount of water compared to say, soy production.
The 2,500 gallons stat that PETA uses in this infographic is about middle range from the estimates I’ve seen. I agree Marcus is a little too angry about this. I do think PETA could be a little more clear about why they chose the water stat they did and provide a more concise link to the stat itself, but I think they are trying to present the information in as accurate way as they can. Meat = wasted water. That’s 100% true and accurate no matter which figure you choose to cite.
Thank you, Allen, for being the voice of reason here.
I agree with those who think misinformation discredits the AR movement. I’ve seen how all it takes is for someone to realize the opposing side has said a single thing wrong, and then they shut their ears to anything else – they don’t do further research to discover that the real information out there is horrible.
PETA might be in the business of marketing, but there ARE horrible facts related to the meat industry. So why not use the ones that can be supported so strongly that no one on the other side can tear them apart and miss the point?
Still waiting for someone to list the specific errors in the graphic above, provide better citations, and give PETA credit for the correct claims they make. Until that happens, the only ones discrediting the AR movement are the people making unfounded accusations.
“how’s about we all stop trying to hold each other to impossibly high standards and start accepting the good that each and every animal advocate does?” Can I say “YES!!!” any louder?
There’s enough good information here for me to be confident to pass it along. I’m not into throwing babies out with bath-water either.
Elaine, I’m surprised really disappointed by what you’ve written here. You’re not presenting a “voice of reason”—you’re presenting a total lack of caring regarding the accuracy of information that activists distribute. You bought an entire carton of my book Meat Market, so I’m all the more surprised you seem unfamiliar with the water claims that are at issue here. In appendix B I cover the inflated water claims that have been made within the vegan movement.
After I posted my blog entry, PETA went and updated its source page to contain a water use claim that actually mentions water. The trouble is it’s the 20-year old study by Marci Kreith. I looked at that study carefully in Meat Market and explained why its 2464 gallon claim can’t be taken seriously.
My analysis of water use goes on for five pages. I’m not going to repost it here or to my blog. You have my book; go look it up and if you find fault with what I’ve written feel free to blog about it.
This is not about holding activists to impossibly high standards. It’s about refusing to distribute faulty information to the public. I would hope this is something that every activist would care about.
Finally, I want to respond to what Allen said about Kreith’s water claim falling into the “middle range” of estimates. What matters is finding the estimate with the best scholarship behind it. Simply choosing the middle number from a bunch of flawed calculations is NOT a way to obtain the truth.
I’m just stunned that we’re even having this discussion. The problems with PETA’s water claim is abundantly clear.
Mr. Marcus, you’ve completely missed the point. You’ve “thrown out the baby with the bathwater.” You’ve been unreasonably harsh on this infograhic and your expectations of PETA are too high.
If you, the self-declared expert on animal agricultural water use, can’t be bothered to condense the information into a usable statistical average, what use are your five appendix pages other than to cast doubt on the animal movement?
Can you at least go as far as Allen has to say that “Meat = wasted water” and that the general message PETA is sending is an accurate one? Or would you rather just continue to increase your book sales rather than increase vegans???
> If you, the self-declared expert on
> animal agricultural water use
Elaine, why are you being so hostile? I don’t get it. And what’s with this “self-described expert” stuff?
I’ve never seen any convincing evidence that the amount of water used by the meat industry is large enough for our side to make an issue of, given the multitude of slimy practices the industry is engaged in for which we have clear-cut evidence.
And when an infographic like PETA’s contains a claim that’s flat-out wrong, it casts doubt on everything else that’s being argued.
>Or would you rather just continue to increase
>your book sales rather than increase vegans???
Nobody’s going to buy my book because of this water discussion. You own it and can’t even be bothered to read the relevant five pages that would put an end to this debate.
I’m with Marcus on this one. There are a lot of reasons why peta is NOT a good organization, and their willingness to bend the truth in order to further their agenda is scary and puts them right on par with the dairy and meat industries who do the same thing (Milk Does a Body Good, etc.). Yeah, marketing is marketing, whatever. But we as a movement are above stooping to the same techniques the dairy industry uses to push their cruel products. With the amount of money peta has and the number of interns they employ, it really wouldn’t be that hard to check all of these facts. Now this graphic is in the news, not because it’s helpful, but because its wrong. The mainstream media will always try to find a fault in our arguments, and this is just handing it to them on a plate. Disgusting.
Marcus, Can you please make a firm, concrete statement instead of all these vague criticisms? You’re so vague that it’s meaningless. Exactly how much wasted water would be enough for you to consider it an issue? Use some numbers please! Isn’t any wasted water enough to mention?
And why are you the arbitor of what is “enough”?
You’re so caught up in trying to be exact and precise that you wind up saying nothing at all! Nothing.
I’m frankly astounded by this thread. I cannot believe that anyone in the movement would support the distribution of erroneous information as the basis for effective activism. The fact is the vegan movement (such as it is) isn’t the milk industry. The milk industry can buy whatever people, media, and government agency they like. The vegan movement can’t afford such luxuries. In his book “Change of Heart”, Nick Cooney rightly states: “In presenting its opinion, the minority has to be more concerned than the majority about presentation style and articulating valid concerns.” The vast majority of individuals actively LOOK for excuses to discredit a minority opinion. They want the majority to win: it’s easier and it just “feels right” to them. In my activist work I NEVER say anything that I can’t be positive isn’t 100% true. Why open that door? You run the risk of jeopardizing every valid point you make when you give an opening like that. If the water argument isn’t our best hand…which clearly it isn’t given the conversation that has ensued…why play it? (“Isn’t any wasted water enough to mention?” Um, actually no, it isn’t. Please read Cooney’s book and find out more about why that is.) PETA does us all a disservice when they put information out into the world that can’t be substantiated.
Let me cite Erik Marcus on agricultural water use:
page 187 of Meat Market, hardcover 1st edition.
This debate isn’t about what’s true or false.
This debate is about what is effective or not.
This debate is about whether or not it’s worthwhile to attack PETA.
PS to Carrie, I’ve read Change of Heart and reviewed it here:
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/book-review-change-of-heart/
I’ve also lived in the real world and done plenty of real animal advocacy on which to base my opinions. It’s not some fluke that PETA is the biggest and most well-known AR organization. They know what they’re doing.
PS – I like this video (two parts below) and I think it’s persuasive. What do you think?
The transcript and citations are here:
PETA has been around for a long time, longer than many other prominent animal orgs. They are also the foremost voice for AR ideas in the mainstream consciousness. During the time that PETA has existed, the AR movement has, by any reasonable measure, been growing.
If an animal org that has been around for decades, the most prominent org of all no less, were really “harming the movement in the long run”, how do you square that fact with the observed growth of the movement? When it comes to PETA, the Center for Consumer Freedom and Gary Francione come in on the same side – with relentless attacks. Yet PETA – and the AR movement in general – rolls along.
IMO there’s no evidence whatsoever that PETA and their campaigns do harm to the movement. All the evidence I see suggests exactly the opposite. If PETA were really shooting itself in the foot at every turn, then how do you explain their success?
Again, I doubt I will personally ever make infographics for PETA. And there are definitely fair ethical criticisms that can be levelled at them. But if you want to argue that PETA is INEFFECTIVE or HARMFUL, then I think you have a whole lot of nothing to support your thesis.
P.S. What EV said. It seems we’re all agreed that animal ag wastes resources and pollutes as compared to an equivalent amount of plant ag. We’re just arguing about the degree of wastage, and at that point IMO calling PETA out about a number on an infographic seems like a huge overreaction.
I agree with your main point: We should stop attacking other animal advocates and activists. Let’s direct all our efforts to ending animal exploitation — whether that’s by incremental welfare reforms, making veganism easy and fun, or getting information out about industrialized animal abuse.
That said, accuracy is important, and no one in our movement should open themselves to attack by failing to use the most objective, verifiable, and conservative data available. Institutionalized animal abuse in this country is horrific enough — there’s no need to exaggerate or use questionable stats.
@ Plump Vegan
well stated. erik marcus is unnecessarily critical of PETA, for reasons that are unclear at best. and he didn’t prove PETA wrong with a couple of statistics, in fact he merely supplied his own numbers, creating greater confusion.
the relationships between water usage, pollution, environmental degradation, waste of precious resources and a meat-centric diet are well known.
@ Eccentric Vegan
i agree totally. it is silly to fracture and divide the AR movement, makes little sense, especially concerning those that have amassed just enough information to start asking the right questions about veganism, animal cruelty and making more humane, compassionate lifestyle choices.
I was looking at the cholesterol part of the artwork above, and I noticed that it that meat eaters have 210, vegetarians have like 160 and vegan has 133. Recently I decided to go vege, I haven’t exactly gotten to the hard part of it yet. I’ve wanted to do this for a while but my family is meat and potato people and they didn’t want to hear of my transition, and they even made fun of me, weird huh, it’s a life choice I make, and they decide to ridicule me about it, but I also want say something about the cholesterol, I was a hardcore meat eater, a while back, and my cholesterol level was a perfect 100, and I’m not exactly skinny either.
That’s great Julia! I’m not exactly skinny myself and my fasting cholesterol is currently 108. Not fasting, it’s 124. Blood pressure is good, too, and all other blood tests have come back normal. Yay
Now wait a minute…. Milk may be allowed to contain somatic cells, yes. But somatic cells are NOT PUS. Yes, pus is somatic cells, but literally any cell from an animal that is not a reproductive cell (gamete) is a somatic cell. My word. You breathe in somatic cells on a daily basis, but that doesn’t make breathing horrifying. Your bedsheets contain so many somatic cells, but I’m sure you still go to sleep at night. That isn’t even misinformation as much as it is a blatant, barefaced lie. There is no reason to include it, especially if the other facts are correct.