PETA's dangerous new campaign
Jan 26th 2009
From Economist.com
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) claims 2m “members and supporters”, making it the world’s largest animal-rights organisation.
Much of its popularity likely derives from some important work it has done improving the welfare of farm and research animals around the world. But there is another side to animal-rights organisations. Many of them, PETA included, advocate that animals should not be regarded as property (no pets), and should not be used for food (even milk, honey and fish are out), clothing or research. Those who take such a hardline view are a distinct minority.
Even by PETA’s standards, its latest campaign against fish is particularly troubling. In the past PETA has drawn much mirth for its “fish empathy” campaigns, and at one point tried to have fish sticks banned. But its latest campaign, dubbed “Save the Sea Kittens”, is beyond satire. The sea kitten site aims to rebrand fish in the eyes of younger consumers. “It’s time for a serious image makeover,” an ad says. “And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?”
The site clearly is pitched towards younger web surfers. You can create your own cartoon sea kitten, customising your cute cartoon fish with sunglasses, a tiara, a pink skirt and, naturally, kitten ears. Sea Kitten accessory items include, rather bizarrely, a bowl of water (someone may need to remind PETA that fish live in the sea and therefore have the benefit of large quantities of the stuff).
The site also urges that e-mails be sent to H. Dale Hall, the director of America’s Fishing and Wildlife Service, asking him to stop “promoting the hunting of sea kittens (otherwise known as ‘fishing’).” When Mr Hall has stopped laughing long enough to pick himself off the floor and raise a still quivering forefinger, he will relegate such emails swiftly to the electronic dustbin. But while such complaints to the authorities are likely to fall on deaf ears, marketing aimed at children is not. Neither are attempts to manipulate the genuine worries of their parents.
One part of the site contains sea-kitten bedtime stories. These seem to be largely intended to scare children away from eating fish. But one story is aimed at both parents and children. “Tony the Trout is the smartest Sea Kitten in his school,” it begins. “Already litter-trained at two months old, Tony went on to double-major in neuroscience and environmental studies at Clamford University, eventually graduating with honours. When Tony is caught and fed to a precocious young child who, having eaten one mercury-filled sea kitten too many, falls to the bottom of the class, the irony is not lost on him”.
The big problem with this story and all this direct marketing is that the scientific evidence that eating fish is vital to children’s health and intelligence could not be clearer. And this finding takes into account the detrimental effects of mercury, which are far outweighed by the benefits accrued by the benefits of eating fish.
Last year, a British parliamentary report concluded that the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish formed an important part of human brain structure. It also found that a deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids has been “associated with certain mental and behavioural disorders, such as ADHD, depression, dementia, dyspraxia, greater impulsivity and aggressive behaviour”. It added that food-health campaigns should make explicit the role of omega-3s, “which appear to be crucial to children’s life chances, particularly in utero and in early childhood”. Another study showed that pregnant women who eat more fish have smarter children, despite the higher levels of mercury that they ingest—indeed, their mercury exposure can predict the intelligence of their children.
In America, the FDA has spent five years exploring this topic, and having the benefit of access to similar data, the final conclusions are unlikely to be radically different from the British report. At the very least, on the basis of what we know already, campaigning to frighten children away from eating fish runs a real risk of reducing the nutritional quality of children’s diets.
The case for promoting fish to children is clear; this campaign is wrong. Even by PETA’s own standards it is wrong. Humans are animals too. We should no more insist that a tiger be fed tofu than we should tell a child not to eat fish
