Showing posts with label vegetarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vegetarian. Show all posts

Monday, October 28, 2013

PETA's frightful new Halloween ad stars someone from Twilight


Christian Serratos, who played Angela Weber in the Twilight movies, is already a PETA veteran at age 23. She previously appeared nude in one of their anti-fur ads, and appeared alongside a mixed bag of b-and c- list celebrities in an anti-sealing campaign.

Now Ms. Serratos gives us this Halloween pro-vegetarian campaign, appearing as a... zombie circus performer? ...vampire figure skater? ...reanimated magician's assistant? Not too sure.

Agreed on the factory farming issue, though.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

McDonald's goes veg



How can a hamburger chain survive in a culture where beef is taboo for 80% of the population? Easy — go vegetarian.

McDonald's India, which already has lots of meatless items on its menu, is opening a vegetarian-only location near the Golden Temple in the Sikh holy city of Amritsar in northern India. (Although some Sikh people eat meat, the consumption of it is prohibited near the temple.)

So what will they serve there? BBC says McDonald's India's signature dish in the country is the McAloo Tikki burger, which accounts for 25% of total sales. Based on the traditional snack, aloo tikki, it uses a spiced potato fritter as a patty.


McDonald's India also has a veggie burger made with a fried bread, potatoes, peas and carrot patty, and a "McSpicy Paneer" that is — literally — a cheeseburger. (The patty is all cheese.)

It ain't health food, but some of it sounds pretty good.

Monday, April 30, 2012

The Sexiest Vegetarian Next Door

PETA is finally getting around to addressing the most important issue yet in animal welfare: Who are the sexiest non-celebrity vegetarians willing to objectify themselves for the cause?


Will it be Stephanie of Roseville, CA, who (in addition to the fact that she is naked) would like you to know, "There is an unfiltered kindness and love in an animals eyes that you just can't find in a persons" (sic)?



Or Erika of Greenville, SC, who riddles us this: "If you love animals called pets, why do you eat animals called dinner?"

There are men in the running as well.


Zachary of Brooklyn, NY, who seems to have a hard time keeping his underpants up, says "No animals were harmed in the making of this body."



Malik of Pembroke Pines, FL, says "Animals have a place in my heart, not in my stomach".

You only have two weeks left to vote for the two winners, who will then be sent to Hawaii together to  prove how much sex vegetarians can have. (Presuming they're both straight. But I don't want to promote any stereotypes here...)

See all the contestants at the PETA site.

Interestingly, the women outnumber the men by more than 5:1.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Kellog's Frosted Beefs

Via Flikr

Last week, I blogged about crushed beetles in Starbucks "vegan" smoothies.

Today, my friend and fellow blogger Neil (who is a vegetarian) found something interesting in the Kellog's UK product site.

It seems you can search cereals and other products by ingredient.

Here's "Beef":


Wait, what?

From the Frosted Wheats ingredients page:
"Shredded Wholewheat, Sugar, Humectant (Sorbitol), Beef Gelatin, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12."
Gelatine ("it's made from bones, you know") is a common food additive and a real pest to vegetarians.

But wait! There's more.

He also searched "pork":


Yep. Rice Crispies Squares have pig in them:
"Toasted Rice Cereal (35%) (Rice, Sugar, Salt, Barley Malt Flavouring, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12), Marshmallow (33%) (Glucose Syrup, Sugar, Pork Gelatin, Flavouring), Fructose, Vegetable Oil, Invert Sugar Syrup, Glucose Syrup, Humectant (Glycerol), Flavouring (Contains Milk), Emulsifier (E472e, E472a), Antioxidant (E320)."
I'm not a vegetarian, and I have no problem with animal products in my foods. But many people are, and do. Including, ironically, health nut John Harvey Kellogg, who once said:

“A dead cow or sheep lying in the pasture is recognized as carrion. The same sort of carcass dressed and hung up in a butcher’s stall passes as food.”
The UK site even has a whole section recommending vegetarian diets for young children.

The Canadian and US sites aren't as easy to navigate by ingredient, and searches for beef or pork take you to meatloaf recipes.

However, I did find this on the American site:

What is the source of gelatin in your products? 
Gelatin, which is used in some of our products to provide texture, is derived from either beef or pork. Products containing pork gelatin include Kellogg cereal products with marshmallow additives (i.e., Kellogg's® Marshmallow Froot Loops cereal and Kellogg's Smorz® cereal) and all varieties of Kellogg's® Rice Krispies Treats® Squares. Products containing beef gelatin include all varieties of Kellogg's® Frosted Pop-Tarts®, Kellogg's® Frosted Mini-Wheats® cereal, Kellogg's® Rice Krispies Treats cereal, and the Kellogg's® Fruit-Flavored Snacks that contain gelatin. 
The information provided here is intended to act as a general guide only. We ask that you always check the Nutrition Facts on the side panel of each of our packages to determine if the product contains any ingredient(s) that you want to avoid.
The moral of the story? Animal products show up in the strangest places. When you buy packaged foods, always read the ingredients list. (And always be suspicious of terms like "natural" flavour or colour.) If you're a vegan, vegetarian, Hindu, Jew or Muslim, you may be surprised how often you're breaking your vows.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Do vegetarians buy BBQs?


Of course some do. You can do amazing things with grilled vegetables and mushrooms.

But this flyer, from a local distributor for BBQing.com, seems to be betting not only that its potential customers are not vegetarians, but also that they hate PETA.



Now, I am not a vegetarian and I do dislike PETA's marketing tactics and extremism. This brand is probably making a smart strategic move by targeting guys (let's face it) who eat lots of meat and like to feel obnoxious about it. Canadian Tire and Home Depot can't do this, because they have to appeal to everyone. These guys can afford to be assholes.



By the way, if the "mashed potatoes" gag seems familiar it's because this billboard has been floating around the internet forever:


But if you're going to wear that statement around, you might as well get the original.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

"Barrista! There are bugs in my vegan smoothie!"

At least they spelled "flavour" the proper way.


I don't know why vegans even bother with fast food. Remember when everyone was outraged by beef tallow in McDonald's fries? More recently, there was concern over hidden bacon in Chipotle's pinto beans.

Part of the problem is that there are two divergent customer demands: on one hand, people want junk food made with as many "natural" ingredients as possible; on the other are personal food restrictions based on religion, philosophy or allergy.

The latest big brand to be torn by this tension is Starbucks.

Via Tumblr


Jezebel explains that after "customers insisted that Starbucks start to use natural ingredients whenever possible," the coffee chain started using cochineal extract instead of chemical dye to make its strawberry soy smoothies pinker. (They also add lycopene, the pigment from tomatoes.)

Cochineal extract is certainly natural. To make it, you grind up a bunch of these guys:

Via this blog
The resulting pigment, known as carmine, has many industrial uses. And it's common in food.

Wikipedia says:

"Carmine is used as a food dye in many different products such as juices, ice cream, yogurt, and candy, and as a dye in cosmetic products such as eyeshadow and lipstick. Although principally a red dye, it is found in many foods that are shades of red, pink, and purple. As a food dye it has been known to cause severe allergic reactions and anaphylactic shock in some people. 
Food products containing carmine-based dye may be a concern for people allergic to carmine, or people choosing not to consume any or certain animals, such as vegetarians, vegans, and followers of religions with dietary law (e.g., kashrut in Judaism and halaal in Islam)."


The true nature of the ingredient went viral in the veggie community when a vegan Starbucks employee leaked it to This Dish is Veg. There was soon a petition up at Change.org which so far has 2,427 signatures.

Starbucks isn't budging yet, though. Corporate spokesman Jim Olson told msnbc.com, “We certainly respect and understand the interest this is getting, but it is a very common ingredient in foods and juices and beverages.”

There's actually a very simple solution to this problem: leave out the dye, and expect customers to accept a paler pink smoothie. Hell, I make my own for breakfast all the time. Strawberries add their own "natural" colour. It just isn't the bright pink that people seem to think they want.

Do you think that such a thing is possible?

Friday, October 21, 2011

F'd Ad Fridays: Sausage Fest

Via AOTW

This campaign, by Taxi, for Toronto's Wurst restaurant is one of those "screw you, vegetarians!" campaigns that we've all seen before.

Via Wandering Gourmet
In this case, the art direction is nice, but I don't find the concept particularly awesome. And I'm a guy who really likes sausage. (Not penis, actual sausage—just to be clear.) Thinking about the random bits of beast that get ground into neat intestinal packages is not my idea of an appetizing mental image. I guess Taxi missed that famous Otto von Bismarck quote, "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made."

Via AOTW

What I do like is the "all natural - no preservatives" angle. They would do well to talk about the provenance of their meat and their processing people as well, since foodborne illness scares are on top of everyone's minds. As I like to say, "If you're going to put a man's sausage in your mouth, you ought to be able to look him in the eye." (Once again: sausage, not penis.)

Ironically, as well, Wurst features two vegetarian sausages on its menu (PDF). So they haven't quite take it to this extreme:

Via Passive-Aggressive Notes

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

PETA's confused Biblical symbolism

Angela Simmons is an MTV reality TV "star" and a self-professed Christian, as well as a vegetarian. She is also PETA's newest spokesmodel:


Now, here's where they lose me. The apple, I thought, was the symbol of sin. (The sin of knowing too much, that is.) So if eating meat is a sin, why is she trying to tempt me into sinning? Or is she trying to tempt me into eating fruits and vegetables instead? But isn't vegetarianism, in that context, the sin?

Furthermore, the punishment for giving in to temptation was being kicked out of the garden, being ashamed of our nudity, and having to kill animals to survive (and to appease Yaweh). If you've ever actually read the damn Bible, you'd know that the OT God hates veggies—only blood will slake his thirst. And Adam and Eve only covered up with leaves after they felt shame.

I am so confused by this ad. And I only went to Sunday School. Imagine how confusing this must have been for poor Angela, who PETA describes as a "devout Christian".


Ah, there. They got rid of the confusing leaves. That's a little better. At least it puts us in a pre-sin context where there is nothing shameful about being as God made us (give or take a few hair extensions). But that apple is still confusing me. Are you trying to tempt me to sin? (I mean, beyond the hazard of committing Onanism.) Or is she trying to tempt me away from sin... with sin? And is the apple meaty sin, or fruity salvation? Help!

All images via Global Grind

Oh, OK. That's better. No leaves, no apple, no logo, no confusing copy.

Now what were we talking about again?

Maybe the video wil explain.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

A PETA campaign as tasteless as microwaved pork chops

If you haven't heard the awful story from Dayton, Ohio, of China Arnold killing her month-old baby in the microwave, consider yourself lucky. And I'm sorry to have brought it to your attention.

But then PETA, in yet another show of misplaced priorities, created this ad for veganism:



Nobody media company will place it anywhere, of course.

PETA's comment:
“We understand why our message — that most of the animals killed for human consumption are innocent babies who feel pain and fear just as humans do — might be upsetting,” PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman said in a Tuesday email. “We encourage anyone who is troubled by the comparison between a baby human and a baby pig to clear their conscience by adopting a humane, vegan diet.”
This isn't the first time the organization has cashed in on human misery, and unfortunately it probably won't be the last.

But why? While some people still naively believe that "there's no such thing as bad publicity", there really is. Does anyone believe that campaigns like this really make the PETA brand more palatable to "soft" animal rights supporters, vegetarians and vegans?

What I'd really like to see happen is for someone to confront some of the celebrities who are all-too-happy to lend their celebrity to the organization — like Pamela Anderson, Joaquin Phoenix, Anjelica Huston, Iggy Pop or Alicia Silverstone with the question of whether they really believe in these marketing tactics.

"I'm getting naked for exploiting dead babies!"

Because PR cuts both ways, you know...

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Can we re-imagine meat as a luxury good?




For someone who loves cheeseburgers so much, I actually have a lot of respect for vegetarians and vegans. Not so much on ethical grounds as on environmental ones. Many of them are living more lightly on the land than I do.

But I continue to consume meat. For me, it is a natural and healthy food if sourced responsibly and consumed in moderation. Julia, my wife, has gone 2/3 vegan with her "Vegan Until 6" lifestyle. But she's still an omnivore at supper.

What we try to do is to choose locally-, small-scale-, and naturally-farmed meat whenever possible. This is more effort, requiring visiting open-air markets and farm gates, and it is certainly more expensive. But I've come to decide that that's a good thing. It makes us value it more.

It also makes us think about the animals we eat. Julia's grampie used to raise cattle in New Brunswick. (Her uncle there still does.) Family farmers who have small herds really get to know their livestock. They love them. But when the time comes to slaughter, they do it, because farmers' pragmatism overrules their sentimentality. (Despite the fact that they tend to have a lot of both!)



We're raising our son as an omnivore, and he's a child who is not afraid to feed clover to a cow one year, and have it as a hamburger the next. We are fortunate enough, here in Ottawa, to be able to visit the Canada Agricultural Museum whenever we want. He gets to see, touch (and smell!) the creatures that make up his hamburgers, hotdogs, and chicken sandwiches. I like to think it teaches him to respect them.

And "respect" of the animals we eat, in the Noble Savage myth we all imagine where the hunter-gatherer's life is a shared journey with his prey, is what I'd like to see more of. But how?

Well, here's a crazy idea: What if we purposely made meat more expensive? 

Imagine if our agricultural standards and regulations cracked down on the many industrialized practices that keep meat cheap: confined animals, medicated feed, growth hormones, feedlots and factory slaughterhouses. Imagine if livestock had to be raised the old fashioned way: pastured, slaughtered and butchered by many small businesses.

Gone are the mass meat recalls (since small-scale meat packing limits spread of contaminants). Gone are the disgusting massive pig, chicken and beef operations. Back are the entrepreneurial family farms.

Could it work? If hamburger were $10 a pound, would you eat less of it? Would you really value the taste of a well-prepared burger?

And in case you're rushing to the comments thread to tell me what an elitist prick I am, I know what the gaping holes in this idea are.

First off, rising food prices are causing unrest worldwide. Why would we want to make it worse? Economically vulnerable people already struggle to feed themselves. And as easy it is to suggest that they learn to cook and eat beans and rice — like the rest of the world — and minimize meat. But there would have to be a major social change for people to adapt to that. Cooking is not a skill that is in the toolkit of many of Canada's urban poor, and people are used to feeding themselves on McDonald's for cheap.

Secondly, my Libertarian friends are experiencing fits of outrage at the idea that the government should force the change. I understand that. But don't worry — the industrial food lobbyists would never let it happen anyway.

No, the only way to really do this is with consumer power. Making individual choices about how our food gets from gate-to-plate that allow us to enjoy that bacon sandwich with full responsibility and little guilt.



And it is elitist. The stuff is expensive. I really do pay $10/pound for my hamburger to get naturally-raised, dry-aged, local beef from Aubrey's Butcher Shop

Here is their pitch:

From “Field-to-fork”..... this traditional butcher shop prides itself on its extensive knowledge of the meats and the farms they come from. It begins with a time honoured history of providing the highest quality products from dependable local sources … that means Farmers, not factories. Some of the relationships with farmers and suppliers extend back over 40 years. Meats are prepared and cut by true butchers trained on site. This ensures that all products meet Aubrey’s high standards and more importantly, exceed the customer’s expectations. In short, at Aubrey's, you will get exactly what you want cut skillfully to suit.
It tastes much, much better. And while I end up making burgers less often, I really put care into preparing them because that meat is valuable stuff.

In short, it's a luxury. Just as meat was a luxury food for our ancestors, from the early modern period right back to the hunting and gathering days. Meat was not to be taken for granted.

So my question to all my omnivorous friends is, are you willing to pay more for less meat? And to all of you: do you think it will make a difference?

Or am I just a smug food snob idealist?

Monday, July 19, 2010

I am offended by this ad

The Toronto Star reports (and rather gleefully, I should add) that the following ad "is a tad too sexy — even for the famously sultry City of Montreal":



Apparently, a city official calls the advertisement sexist and "not something Montreal could endorse".

Montreal, people.



In Pammy's words:

"In a city that is known for its exotic dancing and for being progressive and edgy, how sad that a woman would be banned from using her own body in a political protest over the suffering of cows and chickens. In some parts of the world, women are forced to cover their whole bodies with burqas -- is that next? I didn't think that Canada would be so puritanical."


You obviously have your own opinion about whether this ad is sexist, smut, or "you GO girl" empowerment. But it's pretty damn tame for PETA, who have at other times shown the Canadian ex-pat topless and in a lettuce bikini. They show skin, someone gets mad, people talk about it, and PETA gets the attention it so desperately craves. Old story.

In fact, the most offensive part of this whole tale is how hackneyed the ad concept is. Real live PETA protesters have been doing this one — in a far more daring way — for years.




UPDATE: Interesting note from PETA regarding their use of naked women in ads (via @Treehugger):

"First, please know that PETA isn't using women's bodies. Women are using their own bodies. The women who use their bodies as political tools do so willingly and gladly, and they don't like to be told to cover up by other women who don't agree with their choices. They feel that they have the right to express themselves in this way, and they don't want some women dictating and criticizing them for how much skin they wish to show any more than women who lived during the early days of feminism and before wanted men to tell them to cover up.

As for PETA, we recognize the simple fact that there's a lot of competition for consumers' attention, so we are creative and provocative in order to make sure that people do turn around and stare and then learn something about the cruel industries that we fight. Our activists and celebrity supporters gladly use their bodies as a sure-fire way to draw attention to how animals are exploited. The women are not exploited--they are happy to participate in a social cause. They show about as much flesh as you might see at the beach. They are proud to be able to use their bodies for a good purpose--to draw attention to the suffering of elephants who are beaten bloody and forced to live in chains and to the plight of other animals who endure torture, isolation, terror, and violent death. And it works--Olivia Munn's participation in our anti-circus campaign prompted more than 300 clothed people to participate in our protest against Ringling Bros. at the Staples Center in Los Angeles last week.

As an organization headed and founded by a woman and staffed largely by feminist women, PETA knows about the serious problems that women face, both here in the U.S. and in countries where women are forced to cover up and shut up. Impassioned individuals have been "going naked" since Lady Godiva protested taxes. We believe that all people should be free to use their minds and bodies as political instruments."