People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - Friend or Foe - Essay Example

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA Friend or Foe? The now well-known organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) was started less than thirty years ago, in 1980. Since that time, the organization has become famous for its numerous undercover investigations of animal research laboratories, its campaigns against using animal skin and fur for human clothing and their protests against using animals for human entertainment. In the process, they have also been accused of causing more harm than good. Their own practices regarding animal rights have been called into question and other activist groups have complained that PETA has made it difficult for them to make their point in the public eye because of negative associations engendered by PETA behaviors. In many cases, it has been argued that the group has taken the message too far even though the group has been successful in bringing about positive change for animal rights. Campaigns they’ve launched include a fight against the fast-food chain Kentucky Fried Chicken for the deplorable conditions in which chickens are kept as they are being fattened up for mass production in the chain’s food stores and campaigns against entertainment venues such as circuses for the way in which performing animals are kept. Before one can determine whether the group is beneficial or detrimental to animals and society as a whole, it is necessary to learn more about the charges levied against them as well as the successes they claim. PETA first gained national recognition only a year after it was founded when founding member Alex Pacheco investigated the research practices of Dr. Edward Taub in what was to become known as the Silver Spring monkey case.1 As the name of the case suggests, the events of the case took place at an animal lab in Silver Spring, Maryland. According to the Institute for Animal Research, photographs taken by Pacheco in a late night undercover mission in the primate lab revealed monkeys housed in ‘filthy conditions’ and evidence gathered regarding the nature of Dr. Taub’s research revealed what seemed to be excessively cruel practices.2 Information released about the case indicates Taub was deliberately cutting the nerves in the arms and legs of 17 monkeys he had in the lab and then employing further cruel methods to see what would induce the monkeys to attempt to use these damaged appendages. Methods employed included electric shock, restraining the undamaged limbs and withholding food.3 Taub had no choice but to admit to the methods being used, but suggested the research was necessary to a better understanding of the regeneration of severed nerves. Although he was arrested after a police raid on his lab and convicted, he was only convicted of six counts of animal cruelty and these convictions were later overturned on appeal. PETA also lost a case petitioning the court for custody of nine of the monkeys used in the study, all of whom were awarded to the National Institutes of Health, the organization that had funded Taub’s research.4 These animals remained with the organization until they either died of natural causes or were intentionally euthanized as a part of further scientific studies.5 It had been determined by the primate center’s blue ribbon panel of animal care experts and the Louisiana SPCA that the animals should be put down. “The animals were suffering and in danger of serious life-threatening injuries due to their deteriorating health,” but PETA representatives, as well as several other animal rights groups, argued that “they could live safely, humanely and comfortably if transferred to a suitable facility.”6 This struggle represented the first time the group was criticized for its methods as experts accused them of continuing the fight for political rather than animal rights issues. “They still blocked the euthanasia with court action. They are going to fight very hard for every monkey because the more publicity they get, the more money they bring in.”7 With this type of criticism offered, the group quickly became identified as one that would not hesitate to stoop to any method necessary to further its own ends. However, the case also represented a significant success story for the group as well. This was the first time a U.S. research scientist had been successfully convicted for his treatment of animals in the United States. Although the decision was eventually overturned, the original conviction sent out a warning message to other scientists who might consider questionable techniques in future experiments. The case also led to an unprecedented victory for PETA in that it went all the way to the Supreme Court.8 In addition, it brought about the Animal Welfare Act of 1985.9 Although there had been legislation in place since 1966, amendments to the act added in 1985 required assessment committees to review the practices used in experimentation and to ensure that these practices are in accordance with professional standards. From these controversial beginnings, PETA emerged as a noisy player on a national stage willing to do what it took to win increased consideration of the rights of animals to self-determination and compassionate treatment. Their actions since this initial case have continued to focus on undercover and in-depth investigations as well as aggressive media campaigns designed to ignite public reaction. The other founder of the organization, Igrid Newkirk, admits to this openly. She says the organization intentionally works toward to find those issues that “touch the public imagination, the public heart” and attempt to target those organizations and practices “that will result in great change for large numbers of animals and set an example for others to follow when we win our battles with them.”10 PETA members, while retaining their high moral stance that they are fighting for the rights of animals, make no apologies for their sometimes extreme measures. “If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then of course we’re going to be blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them, exploded tomorrow.”11 Direct militant actions taken by PETA members include the famous incidents of throwing red paint on anyone passing by wearing a fur coat as a means of trying to stop the fur industry in its tracks.12 Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue Magazine, has been perhaps the group’s most often targeted individual due to her magazine’s staunch support of using fur in high fashion. PETA members have thrown dead raccoons on her dinner table in New York, have left bloody paw prints leading up to her front door with the words ‘Fur Hag’ written in blood on the doorstep and have had animal viscera full of maggots delivered to her office with the explanation that “Anna stole this animal’s skin and his life, she might as well have his guts.”13 When confronted with these illegal harassment techniques being used by members in the name of PETA, Newkirk has responded with support rather than condemnation: “No movement for social change has ever succeeded without ‘the militarism component’.”14 In keeping with this philosophy of direct action and strong spirit, Newkirk also defends PETA’s support of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) which, together with the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) has been labeled a ‘special interest extremism organization’ and ‘as a serious terrorist threat’ by the Counterterrorism Department of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.15 This connection was revealed by The Observer which reported that a “network of relationships between seemly unconnected animal rights groups [existed] on both sides of the Atlantic.”16 Specific examples of this connection include Rod Coronado, who is a former ALF activist, who was given $64,000 in 1992 and then another $38,240 two months later as a ‘loan’ in order to defend himself in court after setting fire to a Michigan State University animal research lab.17 The ‘loan’ was never paid back and PETA even claimed a tax refund from the government for a donation in that amount.18 Other questionable donations include $1.3 million to trauma surgeon Dr. Jerry Vlasak with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine who also happens to be in charge of the North American ALF Press Office,19 $5000 to Josh Harper’s support committee in an unsuccessful defense against ‘animal enterprise terrorism’20 and $1500 to ELF supposedly by mistake in order to help further “public education about destruction of habitat.”21 Most alarmingly, PETA has been connected with the attempted murder of Leon Hirsch, CEO of United States Surgical Corporation by providing Fran Trutt with $7500.22 With a firm idea of the organization’s philosophy, it is possible to begin tracing their actions as they apply directly to animal rights issues. As is suggested with the way they first gained notoriety, the group works to expose unethical and inhumane treatment of animals in research facilities or other places where animals are housed or used by conducting undercover investigations. These investigations usually do not interfere with the actions of the facility itself, but instead collect evidence in the form of paper documentation and filmed practices that are then submitted to the proper authorities.23 As a result, these investigations have often led to corrective legal actions. For example, a research lab undergoing persistent protest as a result of PETA activities is Huntingdon Life Sciences with labs in the UK and America. PETA has presented evidence showing test dogs being beaten in the UK facility and monkeys being abused in the American facility. In response to this evidence, the company fired the employees involved and its licenses were suspended in the UK.24 Their investigations have not been limited to animal research labs, either. One entertainer in Las Vegas lost both his license and his lawsuit against PETA after being filmed beating his performers, a group of orangutans and pig farmers caught skinning a sow who was apparently still alive and conscious during the process were also indicted in North Carolina on animal cruelty charges.25 Other successful cases for PETA include the U.S. government’s suspension of funding to a biomedical research lab in 1985 because it was allegedly mistreating its dogs and the decision of East Carolina University board of directors to cease using animals in classroom experiments. As these cases suggest, the practice of undercover filming seems to be a simple, fact-filled and difficult to refute peaceful means of settling animal rights issues. However, several other cases have again exposed the dual nature of the group that has been revealed in its philosophical approach. In 2003 and 2004, PETA members conducted an undercover investigation of a drug company called Covance based in Princeton, New Jersey. The video evidence they provided to the U.S. Department of Agriculture illustrated test lab monkeys being hit, tormented, humiliated and otherwise abused in direct violation of the Animal Welfare Act and the company was fined as a result.26 However, according to Meredith Wadman,27 a German court cleared the company of all animal cruelty charges based on the company’s claim that PETA had tampered with the evidence in such a way as to exaggerate the evidence presented and thus did not give a true representation of the laboratory’s practices. The claims of video tampering are supported by another case which occurred in 1984. In this case, PETA members presented a 26 minute film in which researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Head Injury Clinic were intentionally damaging the brains of 150 baboons by causing simulated whiplash injuries. The Office for Protection from Research Risks confirmed the video footage, stating that the lab had seriously violated the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. As a result of the investigation, the university’s chief veterinarian was fired, funds were suspended, the lab was closed and the university had to observe a period of probation in all research studies.28 These convictions were a result of the independent investigation, though, as the PETA video, obtained from the ALF as part of a raid on the laboratory, was found to have been edited unfairly. According to Lisa Sideris,29 there were at least 25 errors in the voiceover describing what was occurring in the video that were intentionally misleading through the use of repetition and erroneous identification of substances. Another undercover film that was called into question was one taken in 1999 at the Carolina Biological Supply Company. These videos depicted cats in the process of being embalmed despite the fact that they were still alive. However, as the case was being formulated, other experts called in by the company’s defense lawyer demonstrated that the ‘wriggling’ of the cats that made them appear alive could have been something else altogether. According to these experts, when the chemical known as formalin is poured on freshly dead muscle tissue, the muscle fibers can contract in just the way depicted on the video. As a result of this testimony, the case was dismissed before entering trial.30 As these cases demonstrate, PETA continues to walk a fine line between honorable good deeds on behalf of animal welfare and breaking the law to achieve their own ends. Their standards have been called into question even when they are acting on their own behalf, but, as their philosophy and financial assistance suggests, this picture only becomes murkier once other animal rights groups are considered. The case against the University of Pennsylvania illustrated how PETA is not averse to using evidence procured during illegal activist raids, some of which can be very violent, on labs in order to bring cases to trial. This is not an isolated incident but is instead a standard part of their operating procedure. In addition to its investigative practices, both sanctioned and illicitly obtained, PETA is well-known for its controversial campaigning techniques, such as the anti-fur campaign carried out against Anna Wintour of Vogue Magazine. Slightly less controversial than throwing red paint on women walking on the streets in fur coats is the “I’d rather go naked” campaign. In this campaign, several supermodels have posed nude in tastefully done advertisements (the naughty bits are ‘accidentally’ covered) that are headlined with the phrase, “I’d rather go naked than wear fur.”31 Celebrities that have participated in this campaign include Sophie Ellis-Bextor, Shirley Manson, Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss and Cindy Crawford. As with all of their other efforts, even this seemingly innocuous and well-meaning campaign is marred with controversy as PETA has been accused of essentially blackmailing the models into participating in the campaign.32 This accusation is somewhat supported by the decision by some of these celebrities to ignore their bold claims on billboards by continuing to wear fur anyway. However, there remain numerous other reasons why these models might have opted to participate in the campaign and continue wearing fur. Models Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss and Cindy Crawford have been barred from further PETA campaigns for this reason. However, the campaigns have worked in some quarters. According to an article in the Associated Press,33 the large fashion design house Polo Ralph Lauren has agreed to stop using fur in any of its clothing lines as a direct response to PETA’s arguments. The organization also sponsors other ‘less controversial’ campaigns encouraging people to consider animal rights. The Lettuce Ladies are young women, some of whom are Playboy models, who dress up in bikinis that are purposely designed to look like lettuce leaves and pass out information about how to live a Vegan lifestyle. They are supported by their less well-known counterparts, the Broccoli Boys.34 Another favorite among the news programs is the annual Running of the Nudes. This is an event intended to parody the annual Running of the Bulls that takes place in Pamplona, Spain. The Running of the Nudes, sometimes covered in various types of undergarments for modesty’s sake, typically takes place two days before the animal’s event and is often well-attended. In protesting against the way in which the popular fast food chain slaughters the chickens used for food distribution, PETA has again gone the conservative and respectable route. Enlisting support from numerous celebrities such as the Dalai Lama, Al Sharpton, Paul McCartney, Dick Gregory, Tommy Lee and others, they have made the simple request that KFC and its suppliers enforce the welfare recommendations made by the company’s own animal welfare committee. Resorting back to their videotaping techniques, PETA has demonstrated how many suppliers have resorted to breaking birds’ bones and then drowning them in very hot water as a means of execution.35 The PETA organization is actually a shareholder of the YUM! Brand that owns and operates the fast food chain and initiated a shareholders’ resolution to change the way in which chickens are killed for consumption, adding Kentucky Fried Chicken to its list of fast food markets ‘reformed’ by these types of efforts. Other markets include McDonalds, Burger King and Wendys.36 As was alluded to in reviewing the cases that PETA has brought to trial alleging animal rights abuses, the organization does not hesitate to call out well-loved entertainers and entertainments as being cruel to animals. According to David Johnson,37 circuses are targeted because of their use of animal training devices that are thought to be cruel. In one of their many videos, Tim Frisco of the Carson & Barnes Circus is seen attacking his performing elephants with electric prods and bullhooks as he shouts “make ‘em scream.”38 In order to force circuses to cut elephants out of their entertainment features, PETA has petitioned many U.S. mayors to ban the use of these devices within their city limits while public service announcements equate performing animals as modern-day slavery. While the methods used to try to persuade mayors that animals are being abused in circus troupes are not revealed, one mayor begins to suggest the dark side of PETA once again rearing its head. Mayor Rod DesJardins from Munising, Michigan said the organization was full of “radical extremists with a bizarre philosophy that considers the life of an insect equal to the life of a human being.”39 As should be expected given the organization’s history and practices, however, there are numerous campaigns that are not so friendly and above board as those listed above. Most of their campaigns are characterized by a hefty amount of angry controversy. One example of this can be found in their use of Holocaust imagery to further their objectives. In July of 2003, the organization distributed ads to several U.S. cable networks and some networks in Warsaw Poland that introduced the idea of using the Holocaust as an analogy for the treatment of animals in the modern world. “The television ad showed the outside world through the slats of a boxcar and is narrated by a man (with an accent) who describes the plight of being transported with no food and water.”40 This type of advertising encouraged other militant animal rights groups to take up the symbol. “It’s easy to see the resemblance of the systematic destruction and slaughter of over six million Jews by the Nazis before and during World War II and the over 20 million animals that are executed every day in America alone. Many of the Jews of the Holocaust were transported to concentration camps in cattle cars to their death. The concentration camps very much resemble the common slaughterhouses of today.”41 Following this campaign, in the same year, PETA launched the Holocaust on your Plate exhibition.42 The exhibition, shown in San Diego and Los Angeles and then traveling , was designed by Jewish PETA supporter Matt Prescott, who also lost several relatives in the real Holocaust. In an interview, he said “the very same mindset that made the Holocaust possible – that we can do anything we want to those we decide are ‘different or inferior’ – is what allows us to commit atrocities against animals every single day … The fact is, all animals feel pain, fear and loneliness. We’re asking people to recognize that what Jews and others went through in the Holocaust is what animals go through every day in factory farms.”43 The exhibition featured eight 60 foot square panels that compared images from the Holocaust with images that were taken from farms. For example, caged chickens would be shown next to images of Holocaust victims sitting in their wooden bunks and pictures of the piled bodies of victims are juxtaposed with images of piles of pig carcasses. In addition, the project was reportedly funded by a Jewish philanthropist who preferred to remain anonymous with the expectation that the exhibition would draw public heat. That is exactly what it did. The Jewish anti-defamation league immediately came out against the exhibition with Abraham Foxman, chairman, calling it “outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights.”44 In a rare move, however, PETA actually apologized for the hard feelings created among the Jewish community. Newkirk acknowledged that the campaign had been disturbing to many people, telling reporters, “This was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry.”45 Like the images of the Holocaust, PETA grabbed onto the analogy of animals as slaves brought forward in the circus protests and began producing advertisements and exhibitions that illustrated how this analogy was appropriate. In much the same approach as was used in the traveling Holocaust exhibition, images of animals in abusive situations were again compared with images of the oppressed. An example of the imagery provided included elephants chained by the ankle and black slaves chained by the ankle or the neck. Other minority groups represented in the images included child laborers kept in the dark, Indians and women alongside slaughtered cows, pigs and chickens. Again, while the ads might have a philosophical point, the imagery proved to be too strong, the analogy too unbalanced and it was once again, predictably, objected to immediately and vehemently. Once it received the reaction of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), PETA opted to suspend the campaign indefinitely.46 While both of these campaigns went a little too far in providing animals with exact equality compared to human suffering, they each brought forward their point in a highly visible way. While organizers had to realize that they would be causing harm to numerous people who had suffered through such treatments, particularly in the later of the two campaigns, they remained true to their founding philosophy – better to ask forgiveness later than permission now. However much pain these campaigns caused, though, there was still room for PETA to pull back, issue an official apology and retain some spark of a reputation. There have been some campaigns launched that remain difficult to forgive because of the harm caused to impressionable young people. One example of this is the graphic pamphlets PETA has issued drawn especially for children in comic book style. According to PETA, the pamphlets are not intended for children but are instead intended to wake parents up to the violence they are inflicting on their children on a regular basis as they go through commonplace activities. Titles include “Your Daddy Kills Animals” and “Your Mommy Kills Animals”, neither of which sound as if they are addressing the parents at all.47 In the first of these pamphlets, the father is shown gutting a fish he just caught and attempting to break down the differences between catching a fish for dinner and owning a dog or cat as a pet: “Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing. Until your daddy learns its not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He’s so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next.”48 This language not only addresses children specifically, but is so full of logical holes that it would be ineffective on any adult. This, in itself, illustrates the lie inherent in PETA’s assertion that the pamphlets are intended to educate an adult audience. In the book featuring the mother, Mommy is engaged in the unlikely act (for most children) of slicing open a rabbit. Those who have seen this before are most likely also aware of the delicate balance of life and death as Mommy is preparing whatever was killed for the dinner table. Another harmful campaign that has been launched by PETA is the ‘Got Beer?’ campaign which parodies the recently popular ‘Got Milk?’ campaign. Again improperly influencing the minds of the easily influenced, this campaign encourages college students to get drunk rather than to be healthy as they attempt to reduce the amount of milk consumed by the public. When organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and college campuses from around the country rose up in protest, particularly as it encouraged underage and irresponsible drinking habits, PETA was forced once again to back down for a short time.49 They shifted their attention instead to trying to convince younger teenagers that milk was the source of all of their poor health issues, from acne to cancer, lending a hand in causing obesity, heart disease and stroke as well.50 While these types of misleading claims were banned in other countries, PETA continues to promotes these types of messages on its website and elsewhere. In 2002, once the heat was off regarding their earlier attempts to replace milk with beer, PETA even began these advertisements again.51 (PETA’s Got Beer, 2002). The power of the media message, particularly on impressionable children who have grown up with the television as their strongest moral guide has been deemed incalculable, thus the damage being caused by such campaigns is immeasurable. Having come together as a means of protecting the rights of animals to live unfettered lives free of unnecessary pain, PETA has managed to make a huge name for itself in a short space of time. Developed through sensationalistic activities such as dangerous-sounding undercover investigations which seem to show how laboratories are inflicting horrendous pain and suffering upon their animals, the organization has hoped to gain free rights and equality for all animals when compared with humans. Their philosophy seems to make no distinction between the human and the animal with the single exception that when one must be saved over the other, it is the animal that receives the helping hand. Because of their philosophy and approach, openly advocating whatever will work to generate public attention and reaction, PETA has often been involved in scandal, controversy and extremist action. As much as they have increased public attention on the plight of animals under the control of humans, they have reduced the level of concern in this same public as a result of their unorthodox and even deliberate misdirection. While they have succeeded in bringing about some change for the better for animals, they have also made it difficult for more conservative and ethically humane organizations to garner support to further greater change. Works Cited Associated Press. “Peta Claims Victory as Fashion House Drops Fur.” Guardian Unlimited. June 10, 2006. December 1, 2007 “Carson & Barnes Trainer Videotaped Beating, Shocking Elephants.” PETA Media Center. Norfolk, VA: Peta, July 6, 2006. December 1, 2007 “Covance Fined for Violations of the Animal Welfare Act.” Covance Cruelty.com. Norfolk, VA: Peta.org, 2007. December 1, 2007 Doward, Jamie. “Beauty and the Beasts.” The Observer. August 1, 2004. Doward, Jamie. “Kill Scientists, Says Animal Rights Chief.” The Observer. July 25, 2004b. “Fashion and Dress.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2006. December 1, 2007 Friedman, Stefan C. “The PETA-ELF Connection.” New York Post. 2006. December 1, 2007 “From Push to Shove.” Intelligence Report. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center, (Fall 2002), p. 2. “History of Our Fur Campaign.” Furisdead.com. Norfolk, VA: PETA, 2007. December 1, 2007 Jarboe, James F. “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism.” (Testimony of Domestic Terrorism Section Chief). Washington D.C.: Counterterrorism Division, FBI, February 12, 2002. December 1, 2007 Johnson, David. “Review of The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force.” Curled Up. (2003). December 1, 2007 “Holocaust Imagery and Animal Rights.” Archives. Washington D.C.: Anti-Defamation League, August 2, 2005. December 1, 2007 “Hot Topics: PETA’s Latest Anti-Fishing Ad Campaign.” About PETA. Norfolk, VA: PETA, 2007. December 1, 2007 Johnson, Mike; Spice, Linda. “Saving Face?; PETA’s New Anti-milk Ad Campaign, Aimed at Teens, Angers AG Department.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. May 20, 2000, pp. 1.  Loewenberg, Anna Sophie. “The Fur Police.” The New York Review of Magazines. 2006. McCarthy, Charles. R. “Reflections on the Organizational Locus of the Office for Protection from Research Risks.” The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western Reserve University. 2006. December 1, 2007 Merzenich, Michael. “Long Term Change of Mind.” Science. Vol. 282, N. 5391, (November 6, 1998): 1121-1125. Morrison, Adrian R. “Pogo Revisited: Caring about Animals and Creativity.” Lab Animal. Vol. 28, N. 10. Portland, OR: National Animal Interest Alliance, 2006. December 1, 2007 < http://www.naiaonline.org/about/contact.htm> Newkirk, Ingrid. Free the Animals. New York: Lantern Books, 2000. Newkirk, Ingrid. PETA Annual Review. Norfolk, VA: Peta.org, 2004. December 1, 2007 Newkirk, Ingrid. “The ALF: Who, Why, and What?” Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals. Best, Steven & Nocella, Anthony J (eds). New York: Lantern Books, (2004b), p. 341. “News Briefs.” Laboratory Primate Newsletter. Vol. 28, N. 2, (April 1989). Pacheco, Alex. “Biography.” ActivistCash. Washington D.C.: Center for Consumer Freedom, 2007. December 1, 2007 “PETA’s ‘Got Beer?’ Ads Return to College Campuses.” Tallahassee Democrat. September 20, 2002. “Peta Resolution Among Five for Yum Shareholders.” Business First. May 18, 2005. December 1, 2007 “PETA Tells Kids to Run From Daddy.” FOX News. November 25, 2005.  December 1, 2007 “Pig Farm Cruelty Revealed.” Norfolk, VA: Peta.org., 2001. December 1, 2007 “Pulling the Wool.” The Sun-Herald. WA Export News. January 30, 2005. December 1, 2007 Rood, Justin. “Undercover Cameras OK, Judge Rules.” ABC News. April 13, 2007. Schwartz, Jeffrey M. & Begley, Sharon. The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. New York: Regan Books, 2002. Shac TV. Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty. (2006). December 1, 2007 Sideris, Lisa; McCarthy, Charles & Smith, David H. “Roots of Concern with Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Ethics.” Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal. Washington D.C.: Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Vol. 40, N. 1, (1999). Smith, Wesley J. “Terrorists, Too: Exposing Animal-rights Terrorism.” National Review. October 2, 2002. Swift, Earl. “PETA Says It’s Putting Beer Campaign Out to Pastures.” The Virginian Pilot. March 17, 2000, pp. A1.  Teather, David. "”Holocaust on a plate angers US Jews.” The Guardian. March 3, 2003. December 1, 2007 Wadman, Meredith. “Profile: Neal Barnard.” Nature Medicine. Vol. 12, N. 602, (2006). Woolcock, Nicola. “Animal Rights Activists Convicted in the US of Terrorising British Lab.” The Times. March 4, 2006. Read More