First of all please understand that I am not defending or promoting PETA on these issues because I have not done the research some of you have so I really don’t know. I can say that I am a member of PETA, I do protest animal abuse and I choose not to contribute to the suffering of animals to the very best of my ability. I don’t believe in bombing or smashing windows.
Haiku, the link you provided is from a tainted source. I don’t deny that the person in question didn’t say the things he did but this source is of no value. No better than Nambla or the KKK. The only statement on the page that is offensive is really only the first and they did not provide access to a link that provided a decent source. The news coverage in the Washington post is hardly a defamation of PETA it’s actually praise. The only information on the web that is complaining about this conference is hunting organizations and the like. The Post’s article is available in the archives for $3.99 if you want to read it. Just because something is on the web doesn’t mean it is true. Just because it is quoted on a particular website doesn’t mean anything either. I can very easily go to my website and quote what ever I want. Who it is published by absolutely matters otherwise how can you know what is true and what is not?
I have done extensive research on the agricultural industry, government agencies, and the center for consumer freedom. I know for a fact that they lie for their own benefit.
Opcn, you obviously didn’t read what I quoted in an earlier post. The USDA has great affect on what the population as a whole chooses to consume. It is so much more than what you propose. I’ve recommended literature for you to read in the past and I wish you would check it out.
Again:
Another example in the 1990s was the appointment of a former president of the National Cattleman’s Associating, JoAnn Smith, as chief of the USDA’s Food Marketing and Inspection Divisions. Two decisions made by Smith show a conflict of interest between consumers and the cattle industry. She approved the euphemistic designation “fat-reduced beef” for bits of meat that had been processed from otherwise unusable slaughtering by-products, and she opposed an American Heart Association proposal to put a seal of approval on certain meat products that were low in fat.
This is just one example of thousands to choose from. All are publicly accessible if you are into dry reading. But the information is out there. Not from bogus websites but from actual minutes of congressional meetings and legislation passed over the past 60 years and more. The USDA was created in the late 1800’s for the simple purpose of providing a resource but your premise is dated over 100 years ago.
I would bet my life that at least 50% of the adult American members on this forum have dieted at one point or another in their lifetime. An over weight person may want to choose foods that are low in fat. Smith designated processed unusable slaughtering bi-products to be low fat while refusing the American Heart Association to put their seal of approval on the products. These types of by-products are very bad for health, just as bologna is. So a person who is trying to lose weight or keep their cholesterol under control will choose the meat that says low in fat while all the while it is doing them harm.
This “reality” I cannot ignore. The code of ethics in the agricultural industry is what is truly disgusting and education on these issues is simply not one you can just google. It requires time and effort. The agricultural industry has broken all and more of the universal ethics you speak of. You just don’t know it like most of America. I wish education on these matters were a requirement for public schools but we both know that will NEVER happen.
Let's not get our panties in a bunch and exaggerate...lol
/www.activistcash.com/organization_quotes.cfm/oid/21
