In the recent August 2005 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine, she writes in her column, "What I know for Sure", about the menu she served at her Legends Ball. Unfortunately for the many veal calves, ducks and geese who suffer terribly to make so-called delicacies, Oprah states in this column: "What I know for sure is that when the foie gras brûlée was first presented that Saturday in March, I thought I was going to cry, it was so delicious."

Source (http://www.farmsanctuary.org/actionalerts/update.htm)

This really ticks me off, mostly because she's like an idol for so many people and supposed to be the "CELEBRITY THAT CARES!" but she obviously doesn't care about any animals and she's pretty much promoting it. I really wouldn't get mad if it was steak or something, most meat things don't bother me, but something like veal, which is extremly cruel is promoted because it 'tastes delicious' really ticks me off.

I might be out of line but :down:

I don't think that any type of dead animal is worse than another, but it is a pity that Oprah said this, and eats it. Disappointing :(

Source (http://www.farmsanctuary.org/actionalerts/update.htm)

This really ticks me off, mostly because she's like an idol for so many people and supposed to be the "CELEBRITY THAT CARES!" but she obviously doesn't care about any animals and she's pretty much promoting it. I really wouldn't get mad if it was steak or something, most meat things don't bother me, but something like veal, which is extremly cruel is promoted because it 'tastes delicious' really ticks me off.

I might be out of line but :down:

You are entitled to your opinion, but please remember that Oprah was the one who had Howard Lyman on her show and exposed the dangers of mad cow disease and the improper practices that contributed to it. For her troubles she was sued by the Cattlemen's association or whomever and probably had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending the suit.

So, I think she has done a lot for our "cause"--much more than most people--and it is a little unfair to just harp on the areas in which she does not agree with veg*nism. To me, the glass is half-full; to you, it is half-empty.

I sometimes wonder why anyone would choose to be a veg*n or support the veg*n cause in any way, given the extent to which so many people in the veg*n movement seem to focus only on the negatives, only on the ways in which people are less than perfect, seemingly always ready to pour a gallon of gall down their throats.

I also find it a bit odd that you would focus your anger on Oprah when that same Farm Sanctuary newsletter described how the American Veterinary Medical Association could not even pass a resolution to oppose the force feeding of ducks and geese in foie gras production. Why should Oprah be expected to lead the way on an issue in which the veterinarians can't even agree as to its cruelty?

Even though Oprah was famously sued for once declaring that she'd never eat another hamburger, the statement was made out of alarm for her own health, not animal welfare.
She has engaged in numerous other promotions that are very obviously animal-unfriendly, such as presenting every member of her enthralled audience with real mink slippers.
Like numerous other celebrities and individuals in general, Oprah simply does not care about animal protection issues. She has had ample opportunity to be informed by the many letter campaigns that have been launched regarding her by various organizations. In addition, some issues are common sense (most people are aware there is an ethical outcry against fur and that veal is made from calves), and one could hardly pronounce her as unintelligent or out-of-tune with the public.
Like many other people, she simply does not include any concern for animals in what she considers a "compassionate" and "caring" life. It's a shame that she has such a prominent platform from which to broadcast this blinders-on mindset, but it's hardly unique.

Maybe Joe, but she's still practically advertising foie gras.



She has engaged in numerous other promotions that are very obviously animal-unfriendly, such as presenting every member of her enthralled audience with real mink slippers.

:eek:

More so, Oprah is bad news for the animals.
She has engaged in numerous other promotions that are very obviously animal-unfriendly, such as presenting every member of her enthralled audience with real mink slippers.
Not to mention an entire episode dedicated to livestrong.

Even though Oprah was famously sued for once declaring that she'd never eat another hamburger, the statement was made out of alarm for her own health, not animal welfare.

That may well be true, but I care more about her actions and their effects
than about her motivations. I think it is very important that she and Howard won the lawsuit.


She has engaged in numerous other promotions that are very obviously animal-unfriendly, such as presenting every member of her enthralled audience with real mink slippers.

How many people do you know who eat foie gras? How many people do you know who wear real mink slippers? These are extremely marginal behaviors in our society, IMHO.

Now, compare these with how many people you know who eat hamburgers.

With all due respect, I think you are swallowing the camel, and straining at the gnat.

Like numerous other celebrities and individuals in general, Oprah simply does not care about animal protection issues. (Emphasis added).

Even if that is true, the first part of your sentence is why I see no particular reason to single her out for blame. I just don't see the focus on celebrities-who-disappoint as being very helpful toward promoting veg*nism.



She has had ample opportunity to be informed by the many letter campaigns that have been launched regarding her by various organizations.

Maybe then we should blame all these organizations and letter writers for failing to convince her. Maybe we should give Howard Lyman 100 lashes with a non-leather whip for failing to convert her to veganism.

I don't think playing blame games and guilt-mongering is going to win friends and influence people in favor of veg*nism.

Even though Oprah was famously sued for once declaring that she'd never eat another hamburger, the statement was made out of alarm for her own health, not animal welfare.

Oprah was sued for saying she wouldn't eat another hamburger? By who?

Oprah doesn't care about animal cruelty issues - the whole mad cow thing was because of her own health concerns, not because she cared about the way cows are treated. Here's part of the transcript:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oprah: "You said this disease could make AIDS look like the common cold?"
Lyman: "Absolutely."

Oprah: "That's an extreme statement , you know."

Lyman: "Absolutely. And what we're looking at right now, is that we're following exactly the same path that they followed in England: 10 years of dealing with it as public relations rather than doing something substantial about it. On hunderd thousand cows per year in the US are fine at night, dead in the moring. The majority of those cows are rounded, ground up, turned into feed and fed back to other animals....We should have them eating grass, not other cows. We've not only turned them into carnivores, we've turned them inot cannibals.... We've had a ban in the US of feeding sheep to cows for a long time, but when they went out and looked, 25 percent of the renderers admitted that they were paying no attention to it. Voluntary bans do not work....

Oprah: "Are they feeding cattle to the cattle?"


Dr. Weber: " There is a limited amount of that done in the United States. These are very -- hang on just a second. Well...

Oprah: "Mm-hmmm."

Dr. Weber: " The - the FDA..."

Oprah: "Because I have to just tell you ... that this is alarming to me."

Dr. Weber: "Yeah"

Oprah: "Dr. Hueston, you think mad cow's a threat to US cattle?"

Dr. Hueston: "...there's no evidence at all that we have BSE in the US."

Oprah: " What else are they going to say" Are they goint to say, 'Public, you are at risk. some of you may die and the cows are going to go crazy.' They couldn't have said that."

Lyman: "Why are we skating qround this when we know that [cease feeding cows to cows] would be the safest thing to do? Why is it? Becasue we have the greedy that are getting the ear of government instead of the needy, and tha's exactly why we're doing it....

Well, what it comes down to is about half the slaughter of animals is non-salable to humans. They either have to pay to put it into the dump or they sell it for feed, they grind it up, ... add to it all of the animals that died unexpectedly, all of the road kills and the euthanized animals -- add it to them, grind it up and feed it back to other animals....

We ended up feeding downed cows to mink; the mink come down with the disease, transfer it to animals. The animals came down with it. And you're sitting here, telling everybody that it's safe. Not true."

Oprah: " Well, [E. coli is another beef risk whick will kill 500 and poison 20,000 Americans this year. We'll talk about that awhen we come back...."

----------------------

I'm certainly glad she talked about this and went to court but her motives were not animal friendly at all.

In any case, perhaps a letter to her magazine about that comment is in order.

Oprah was sued for saying she wouldn't eat another hamburger? By who?

A short time later, some Texas cattlemen, led by billionaire Paul Engler, owner of Cactus Feeders, Inc., filed suit against Lyman, Oprah, Harpo Productions (which produces Oprah) and King World Syndicator (King World was released from the suit by summary judgement).


http://www.vegsource.com/lyman/lawsuit.htm

A photo of the court papers finally dismissing the case, and listing all the plaintiffs still involved at that time, is available here:

http://www.madcowboy.com/GUIMedia/Dismissed.011.JPG

Here's Howard Lyman's discussion of the case from his website, with many links to other articles about it:

http://www.madcowboy.com/01_BookOP.000.html

There's a good deal of information about the plaintiffs and their backgrounds in the following article:

http://www.electricarrow.com/CARP/agbiz/agex-65.html

See also the following Op-Ed piece about the litigation and the chilling effect of food disparagement laws on free speech. This article says that the case involved "millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees."

http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/winorloss.htm

I find that odd that Oprah would choose to eat veal. After the statement she made about never eating a hamburger again. You won't eat hamburger but you will eat veal? Some omnis don't eat veal but eat hamburgers because they think that eating baby animals is extremely cruel. This is the first time I heard of someone eating veal but no hamburger. Threadstarter, thanks for starting this topic.

Like Peace said, her reason for saying she would never eat another hamburger was concern for her own health, not concern for the cows. If she discovered she could some horrible disease from veal, she would probably stop eating that, too.

Unfortunately, I think Oprah represents the mindset of MANY people. I have been very active in animal rescue for over 20 years......and I can't count the number of people I've met who carry on about how a dog or cat is treated, but couldn't care less how a cow or calf or pig is treated. To them, some animals are just food.

I'm not blaming organizations at all for "failing" in their letter writing campaigns to Oprah. I think I made it clear that I feel that Oprah simply does not care, and has chosen to ignore all the information presented to her. That's not the fault of Mr. Lyman or any AR group. The only person to 'blame' for not sensitizing Oprah to animal cruelty is Oprah herself. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

I'm not blaming organizations at all for "failing" in their letter writing campaigns to Oprah. I think I made it clear that I feel that Oprah simply does not care, and has chosen to ignore all the information presented to her. That's not the fault of Mr. Lyman or any AR group. The only person to 'blame' for not sensitizing Oprah to animal cruelty is Oprah herself. Sheesh. :rolleyes:


So? Since when is every celebrity expected to listen to everything sent to them by a ****nut organization?

I already wrote a letter to the magazine regarding a comment in the Dr. Phil column where a woman going on a diet compares herself to a baby elephant chained up at the circus. Then I read the foie gras on the menu and I may have to write another letter. In fact after seeing the entire menu, I hoped that none of the guest attending were veggie or they would be seriously out of luck. Oprah lavishes so much love on her dogs and tries to present herself as a moral/compassionate person so you think she give a bit more thought to animals.

Oprah lavishes so much love on her dogs and tries to present herself as a moral/compassionate person so you think she give a bit more thought to animals.


Why? Maybe like most of us, they aren't that important to her.

Why? Maybe like most of us, they aren't that important to her.

Do you really like Oprah or something?

No, I just can't figure out why she always gets singled out by the nutters.

Hmm. I've never really noticed that. This is the first time I've ever heard anything bad about her. She seems like a pretty sweet person for the most part.

Happens pretty regularly. Seems every advocacy group for every movement that you can imagine is ready to jump Oprah if what she does doesn't follow their party line, even when she has never claimed to support them.

I know it is because she is popular has a wide reach, but it still baffles me that some are so convinced that she must agree with them whether she likes it or not.

The way I see it, Oprah has done a lot of good with her money, influence, and power, both in this country and in others. She's raised awareness about a lot of important issues. So what if she's not a vegetarian? I would venture that she's done a lot more for human beings than most of us have done for animals, and in my book, that deserves a lot of respect.

Why? Maybe like most of us, they aren't that important to her.

Funny, that's what most people here are saying. Animals are not important to her. Her stance on beef was about her health.

Also, when you say "like most of us," -- you aren't talking about most of us here. You, and others who don't care about animals, are in a minority here. It seems like you are trying to stir up ****; please bear in mind that this is a support forum and take it to the Heap.

Funny, that's what most people here are saying. Animals are not important to her. Her stance on beef was about her health.


No, most are saying she should be on the AR side, for some unexplained reason. Oprah has never given any reason other than health for her anti-beef stances, so why the outcry because she doesn't take the AR stance everytime?


Also, when you say "like most of us," -- you aren't talking about most of us here.

So? Considering Oprah isn't a veg*n, I think my statement pretty clearly indicates "us" as the US population as a whole.

You, and others who don't care about animals, are in a minority here. It seems like you are trying to stir up ****; please bear in mind that this is a support forum and take it to the Heap.

I haven't stirred anything up, and I resent the implication that because I am defending Oprah from smear campaigns that I am doing so. Support forum? Alright. I am supporting Oprah.

I don't see this as different from the J.Lo bashing threads, or from criticism of moral failings of other people in general.

No, most are saying she should be on the AR side, for some unexplained reason. Oprah has never given any reason other than health for her anti-beef stances, so why the outcry because she doesn't take the AR stance everytime?

This reminds me a lot of whenever I see a movie with my mom, she'll get outraged whenever something happens that isn't "Biblical." (i.e. premarital sex, whatever) She gets so upset about it that it ruins the rest of the movie for her. I've never understood why she expects secular media to uphold itself to a "Biblical" standard.

Just the same as people are expecting Oprah, a non-vegetarian, to uphold herself to an AR standard. It doesn't make any sense. To me, Oprah delighting over fois gras is no more newsworthy than if she were to order a chicken breast for dinner. It's to be expected.