Apple vs. Snackcake

Humor, NYTimes, On The Web, Organic, Politics

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
 Print This Post  Email This Post

6 Responses to “Apple vs. Snackcake”

1. Tamar Says:
   August 31st, 2007 at 9:48 am

   Does PETA have any credibility?

   I’m pretty sure that plastic shoes and purses vegans love and mass-produced tofu and soy-milk are doing a lot more damage to the environment than the chicken that I bought from the Amish farm last week.

   I was turned off from PETA long ago, around the time of Guiliani and “got cancer.” I’m not a Giuliani lover, but can you get more offensive?

2. Aliza Says:
   August 31st, 2007 at 1:27 pm

   minor correction: Although it’s supposed to be completed by the end of September, the Farm Bill will likely not even get out of Committee in the Senate until October- ensuring that the 2002 bill will need to be extended for some amount of time.

   FYI the apple vs. snackcake was done by Free Range Studios, not PETA.

   Tamar, while one could certainly have a very unsustainable, oil-guzzling vegetarian diet, on the whole, the vegetarian diet uses less fossil fuels bc of grain feed and CAFOs (and the inverted energy pyramid). Not saying that PETA is generally an effective nor palatable group….

3. Michael Croland Says:
   August 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pm

   Interesting juxtaposition of topics in this post! :-) I see both the Farm Bill video and PETA’s global warming PR stunt as silly but hopefully effective ways to get the message out there and get people listening. (If the latter was covered in The New York Times so far in advance of anything actually happening, that strategy seems to be rather effective.) Putting aside the manner of getting the message out, the point needs to be made: According to the U.N., animal agriculture causes the plurality of greenhouse-gas emissions, and according to a University of Chicago study, you can do more to prevent global warming by switching from an average American diet to a veg diet than by switching from a standard car to a Prius. It’s an “inconvenient truth” perhaps, but it’s one that needs to be brought to the public’s (and the media’s) attention a great deal.

   Re Tamar’s comment about vegan shoes doing harm to the environment — I don’t think Tamar truly meant to imply that leather shoes are somehow better! First of all, the cows whose skin becomes leather are raised by the aforementioned, environmentally-destructive animal agriculture industry. Secondly, the process of tanning leather (particularly chrome-tanning, which is the norm in the U.S.) involves tremendous amounts of energy and dangerous chemicals. People who work in or live near tanneries are also at a high risk for cancer, seemingly a direct connection; one study found that tannery workers had cancer rates that were 20 to 50 percent higher than the expected rate. Steer clear of steers in your shoes!

4. GP Says:
   September 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm

   good way 2 get the message out in a “light ” way … Here in montana, the farm bill is being watched like the proverbial hawk… we’re staying tuned

   gp in montana

5. Tamar Says:
   September 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm

   Actually, I’m not defending leather shoes or meat eating. Instead, I was trying to point out how annoyed I am by animal rights’ groups self-righteousness. Yes eating meat is bad for the environment, and wearing leather is, too, but so is using fossil fuels for your shoes and clothing (i.e. plastic shoes).

   I do eat meat–and not Kosher meat. I eat meat that comes from a local organic farm or from a local Amish farm. And that local organic farm does not have CAFOs, and the cows are fed by grass, not grain. I don’t eat meat but once or twice a week; I almost never eat soy. Does this mean that I’m better than vegans? No. But I don’t spend my life telling them how much better I am, which is what I feel like they are doing to me.

Leave a Reply