PETA: 'Happy cows' ad is a lie - VeggieBoards

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 12-13-2002, 11:13 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
PETA: 'Happy cows' ad is a lie

By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY



The animal rights group PETA plans to sue the California Milk Advisory Board Wednesday over its award-winning "Happy Cows" campaign. PETA says the idyllic conditions portrayed in the ads amount to false advertising.



The two-year-old campaign features talking and singing cows discussing the pleasures of life in warm, sunny California. The slogan: "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California." The state produces 1.6 billion pounds of cheese a year, second only to Wisconsin.



The suit, which is expected to be filed in California Superior Court, says California dairy cows live on muddy, feces- and urine-soaked lots devoid of any vegetation, not on grassy hillsides as depicted in the ads.



"Our goal with the lawsuit is to let people know that if they're consuming dairy products, they're promoting cruelty to animals," PETA's Bruce Friedrich says.



Nancy Fletcher of the California Milk Advisory Board says she hasn't seen the complaint and can't comment. But she did point out that PETA filed a similar complaint with the Federal Trade Commission in April, and the FTC found that it was without merit.



The ads do portray an idealized and unrealistic view of the life of a dairy cow, but consumers know the difference between reality and fantasy, says Jim Reynolds, a professor of veterinary science at the University of California-Davis and chair of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners Animal Welfare Committee, an international association of veterinarians.



"I know when I buy a beer in a bar, I don't get two women in bikinis standing next to me," Reynolds says.



Still, a dairy cow's life isn't easy. At 2 years old the animals are artificially inseminated to keep them pregnant and producing milk. Calves are taken from their mothers within 24 hours of birth because calves drink only 1 to 3 gallons of milk a day, while modern dairy cows produce up to 10 gallons a day. The extra milk would be a potential source of infection, endangering the cow. The bull calves are either sent to veal pens or to feedlots, while the heifers are raised until they can be mated.



After three pregnancies and thousands of gallons of milk, the cows are sent to the slaughterhouse, where they're turned into hamburger and low-grade steak.



PETA, which advocates a meat- and milk-free diet, says the treatment is inhumane.



"For people who are concerned about cruelty to animals, they need to wipe dairy products off their shopping list, period," Friedrich says.



But Reynolds maintains that cows' lives aren't horrible. Forty percent to 50% of California dairy cattle are raised in dairies built in the past two to three years, in which cows are well cared for so they can produce more milk, he says.



"A new dairy would be a happy place to be a cow. They have roofs to protect from summer heat and winter rain, comfortable stalls and clean bedding," Reynolds says.



It's only in older dairies that cows might still exposed to the elements and live in the "urine- and dung-fouled dirt" referred to in the suit, Reynolds says. PETA's pictures are of such older dairies.



The suit doesn't seek a ruling on whether California cows are truly happy, but rather whether the depiction of the dairy cows' living conditions is unlawfully deceptive.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ppy-cows_x.htm
GhostUser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 12-13-2002, 11:26 PM
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
PeTA is nothing if not tenacious.



but if this is how they spend the money that is donated to them, i know for sure i'm not sending them one red cent.
Kreeli is offline  
#3 Old 12-14-2002, 06:42 AM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
I'm 100% for this. Kreeli and I don't agree on something. Mark your calendars.

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
 
#4 Old 12-14-2002, 07:23 AM
 
VealPrincess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 371
"I know when I buy a beer in a bar, I don't get two women in bikinis standing next to me," Reynolds says.



That is exactly correct.



This is total bs. But, then again, it is PETA at the helm. I really expect nothing less.
VealPrincess is offline  
#5 Old 12-14-2002, 08:52 AM
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
well, for the sake of clarity, i will...um...clarify. heh.



i don't like this because it seems "showy". PeTA knows and understands how our society works and how very little worth or value is ascribed to animals as living beings. they know that the lawsuit is a lost cause. they will be pouring thousands (if not more) of dollars into this when the money could be better spent on programs that actually HELP animals.



with this, and their ridiculous advertising campaigns, well...it makes me shudder. it seems to me that they are more about making a ruckus, than making real change.



i guess i just don't have much faith in the hoi polloi. most people nowadays have at least a rudimentary idea of how food animals are raised and treated. that doesn't stop them from eating meat and dairy.



and what about all the happy cartoon/cgi animated animals that are used in commercials for fast food chains, etc. is PeTA going to sue all of them too?
Kreeli is offline  
#6 Old 12-14-2002, 08:58 AM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
In time...

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
#7 Old 12-14-2002, 09:00 AM
 
Kreeli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,049
what a rebuttal! i'm reeling from your excellent use of logic and counterpoints!



shwew! better go lie down now.
Kreeli is offline  
#8 Old 12-14-2002, 09:04 AM
Banned
 
Max Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,612
Quote:
Originally posted by VealPrincess

This is total bs. But, then again, it is PETA at the helm. I really expect nothing less.



Hey that kind of rhymed!



Here's my question - does PETA have "volunteer" lawyers? I'm not totally against this is of isn't a significant financial investment. It's good publicity for a good cause without as much ludicrous fanfare that usually accompanies a PETA project. I mean, relative to those loonies running up on stage at the Vicky-Secrets fashion show, this is quite a productive endeavor!
Max Power is offline  
#9 Old 12-14-2002, 09:07 AM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
I've heard PETA has several lawyers on their staff. I think four but I'm not sure.

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
#10 Old 12-14-2002, 06:44 PM
 
Thalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,902
Quote:
Originally posted by VealPrincess

"I know when I buy a beer in a bar, I don't get two women in bikinis standing next to me," Reynolds says.



That is exactly correct.



This is total bs. But, then again, it is PETA at the helm. I really expect nothing less.



I think that quote from the article may be an illustration of the "reasonable person standard" oftne used in law. Would a reasonable person know absolutely without a doubt that what was presented in the ad was false? In the case of women appearing when opening a beer, sure. In this case, I don't think so, and I think that is the point PETA is making. It was also stated in the article that the humane treatment of animals has become a consideration for consumers. If so, it is doubly important that they not mislead people. I do think many are naive about industrialized agriculture.



People who donate to PETA can observe how their money is used and either continue or cease to support them. PETA has their own way of dealing with these issues, and although I disagree on much of what they do, I support this. It will educate the public.
Thalia is offline  
#11 Old 12-16-2002, 07:57 AM
 
Verbivore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,146
Quote:
Originally posted by Apple



The ads do portray an idealized and unrealistic view of the life of a dairy cow, but consumers know the difference between reality and fantasy...

"I know when I buy a beer in a bar, I don't get two women in bikinis standing next to me," Reynolds says.




I disagree. Most consumers grew up in urban and suburban areas and have no idea what farming is really like. And while it's true that few adults take ads literally, advertising does influence what people think, or else the California Milk Advisory Board woudn't bother advertising in the first place.



(I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on the legal details.)
Verbivore is offline  
#12 Old 03-29-2003, 01:16 AM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
Court throws out animal-rights suit against 'Happy Cows' ad



Quote:
A lawsuit charging that California cows aren't as happy as an ad campaign implies has been thrown out by a Superior Court judge.



People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had filed a lawsuit accusing the San Francisco-based California Milk Advisory Board, which is behind the "Happy Cows" ad campaign, of false advertising.

But Judge David Garcia ruled Tuesday that the government is exempt from the false advertisement laws that apply to private individuals.



The commercials show cows frolicking in green, rolling pastures, followed by the tagline, "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California."



The milk board said it was pleased with the ruling.



"We are the largest dairy state," Nancy Fletcher, CMAB's vice president of communications, said Wednesday. "Dairy farmers in California are very proud of their commitment to deliver a wholesome product."



PETA contended that, contrary to the ads, the state's dairy cows lead miserable lives in muddy fields devoid of vegetation, and endure chemical and genetic manipulation to produce abnormally high quantities of milk.



"Ads that try to get you to believe that cows are happy when they're really miserable should not be allowed just because they are sponsored by the government," said Matthew Penzer, PETA's legal counsel. "Whether it comes from the government or from industry, it is wrong to boost sales by deceiving the public."



The suit was not PETA's first unsuccessful attack on the ad campaign. In October, the Federal Trade Commission declined to take action on a similar complaint from PETA.



http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=222077&rfi=6



I like the comment someone left at the bottom of that page...



Quote:
Cows are not Smart Enough to be happy. It is no wonder we eat them.




Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
#13 Old 04-18-2003, 01:18 AM
Meo
 
Meo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,294
As much as I hate those misleading ads, I can't either agree or disagree with what PETA does. I really haven't followed them much. I do think it's nice what they do, but how they do it (showy, as Kreeli said) is not the smartest, IMO.
Meo is offline  
#14 Old 04-18-2003, 04:57 PM
 
*sprout*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 878
i think i am with peta here

bcuz tons of of people know whats going on behind the meat and dairy factories and that ad is just saying they are doing nothing worng to the cows the cows are happy and couldnt have a better life

maybe peta shouldnt be so showy and in your face but thier intention are right

IMO
*sprout* is offline  
#15 Old 04-19-2003, 11:06 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Actually, this dude, Matthew Penzer, came and spoke at the law school at my university.

(Max, he is paid by PETA, but purely subsistence. Not decent wages for someone who's been through law school. Additionally, he's a bit of a nut and gives all the money he doesn't feel he needs to the cause; says it's a very gratifying lifestyle.)



The way Penzer explained the campaign made it seem pretty sensible to me. The gripe is not false advertising in the sense that PETA expects the dairy board to portray real dairy cows living in dirt lots with swollen udders, etc. The gripe is that the ad campaign is deliberately misleading. The council portrays the cows as "happy", living in green pastures alongside their calves, encouraging people to buy dairy from CA to support this humane enterprise. It's akin to nike showing happy children singing and dancing in sweatshops in China and asking consumers to buy nike to support their workers.



Too bad it got voted down, I thought PETA really had a point this time.
GhostUser is offline  
#16 Old 05-03-2003, 08:26 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
i think this was one of the better things peta has done. still a waist of time and money
GhostUser is offline  
#17 Old 05-03-2003, 08:35 PM
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
I disagree, Drew. This was one of their few campaigns that was not only necessary, but right on the money.



I want to vomit every time I see one of those "Happy Cow" commercials. I live in California, and I'm disgusted by the lies.
epski is offline  
#18 Old 05-04-2003, 06:39 PM
 
Dirty Martini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,777
I think there are a LOT of people who think that dairy cows are happy, grazing on grass and spending their time in the happy outdoors.



All you have to do is drive through Tillamook County here in oregon to confirm that belief (yes, we have a lot of dairy farms here, and as you drive from portland to the coast, most of the cows are out grazing in the grass & appearing to be quite comfortable). My roommate is from WI and she recalls seeing the same thing there. So it's not surprising that those are the images we recall when we think of dairy farms - simply because we don't SEE the nasty muck that most cows are forced to spend their time in.



I'm glad that PETA has brought this issue forward; hopefully some curious people will actually see if PETA's claims have any truth to them and realize that dairy farms are a disaster.



amy
Dirty Martini is offline  
#19 Old 05-07-2003, 07:50 AM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
I must say I agree, I am A supporter of PETA but I must say that lately I have noticed that they do tend to ham it up. However I believe that they do so for the media attention and to put themselves out there and make people really think about the issue at hand and look into it more. Bottom line, I think they just want people to be aware of all the details no matter how big or little they may be. To me A good cause is A good cause and though their out there tactics seem a little pushy at times, at least their doing something to make a difference. Without being overly judgemental, there are plenty of people who are "for the cause" but do nothing but criticize the way the other person is doing something.



p.s. EP did I mis-spell anything? lol :P
GhostUser is offline  
#20 Old 05-07-2003, 10:08 AM
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
Elyssa,



Ha-ha, first of all. I know I can be anal about spelling, but for good reason.



Second, On MBs, I don't really care, for the record. But in letters to corporate CEOs, politicians, and the like, spelling, grammar, syntax and all the tools in our language arsenal are absolutely vital if we want to compete for their hearts and minds on that level. Any basic mistakes that might betray ignorance or lack of education (true or not) automatically discredits an author in the eyes of the reader, and they are such easy mistakes to correct.



Activists in particular need to be the most educated, most persuasive people out there if they want to convince people they know what they're talking about, because they are constantly having to prove themselves to the majority. We have to watch for anything that can be used to dismiss your argument, even something as simple as poor spelling.
epski is offline  
#21 Old 05-07-2003, 12:42 PM
 
veganinohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,645
PETA is trying to be "showy." That's the whole point. They are trying to get people's attention. You are using the word as a criticism, but I'm sure they would take it as a compliment.
veganinohio is offline  
#22 Old 05-07-2003, 07:01 PM
 
Peebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,748
PETA is right on with this one. Many people, including L-O-vegetarians, still eat dairy because they don't think it is harmful to the cow. Milk is just as cruel as meat IMO, especially because male calves born to the cows (months after the cow has been raped with a machine) become either beef or veal. People need to know that the dairy industry is deceitful and cruel.
Peebs is offline  
#23 Old 06-09-2003, 05:38 PM
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
PUBLIC BUSINESS MEETING AND CLOSED SESSION

(As Provided by Section 11126(a&e), Article 9 of the Government Code)

www.realcaliforniacheese.com



CALIFORNIA MILK PRODUCERS ADVISORY BOARD



Board of Directors Meeting



Wednesday, June 11, 2003 -- 8 a.m.

Thursday, June 12, 2003 -- 8 a.m.



Sheraton Gateway Hotel

Burlingame, California



AGENDA









Call to Order

Roll Call

Closed Session

A. Pending and/or ongoing litigation (pursuant to California Government Code 11126(e)

(1) Gallo Cattle Company v. Lyons

(2) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. CMAB

B. Appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of employee

(pursuant to California Government Code 11126(a)



Introduction of Guests

Minutes of Last Board and Executive Committee Meetings

Financial Report

Reports from Individual Districts

Report from Marketing Branch

Reports on Committee/Industry Meetings and National Dairy Board

Report From Chairman

Report From Chief Executive Officer

Guest Speakers

Program Review and Proposals

A. Communications Services

B. Advertising Services

C. Retail Services

D. Out-of-State Marketing Panel Discussion

E. Butter

F. Foodservice and Pizza



Other Business A. Previously Discussed or Tabled Agenda Items for Approval

B. Discussion of Ongoing Board Activities

C. Items to be Discussed at Next Board Meeting



Closed Session A. Pending and/or ongoing litigation (pursuant to California Government Code 11126(e)

(1) Gallo Cattle Company v. Lyons

(2) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. CMAB

B. Appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of an employee (pursuant to California Government Code 11126(a)



Adjournment

(Public comments are welcome on the above agenda items. Each speaker may address the state body with name, address, and concern and is limited to two minutes.)



(Some or all of the above items may be subject to Board evaluation and decision on the above dates. If you have questions concerning any item on the agenda, contact: Stan Andre, C.E.O., California Milk Advisory Board, 400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 220, South San Francisco, CA 94080 650/871-6455)





Public Business Meeting and Closed Session

(As Provided in Section 11126(a&q), Article 9 of the Government Code)

www.realcaliforniacheese.com



CALIFORNIA MILK PRODUCERS ADVISORY BOARD



Executive Committee Meeting



Tuesday, June 10, 2003

1 p.m.

CMAB Office

South San Francisco, CA



AGENDA









Call to Order

Closed Session A. Pending and/or ongoing litigation (pursuant to California Government Code 11126(e)

(1) Gallo Cattle Company v. Lyons

(2) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. CMAB

B. Appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of an employee

(Pursuant to California Government Code 11126(a)



Minutes of May 6, 2003 Meeting

Financial Report

Out-of-State Travel Requests

Other Business

A. Status of ongoing business

B. Special opportunity

C. Set date for next Executive Committee meeting



Closed Session

A. Pending and/or ongoing litigation (pursuant to California Government Code 11126(e)

(1) Gallo Cattle Company v. Lyons

(2) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. CMAB

B. Appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of an employee

(Pursuant to California Government Code 11126(a)



Adjournment

(Public comments are welcome on the above agenda items. Each speaker may address the state body with name, address, and concern and is limited to two minutes.)



(Some or all of the above items may be subject to Committee evaluation and decision on the above date. If you have questions concerning any item on the agenda, contact: Stan Andre, C.E.O., California Milk Advisory Board, 400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 220, South San Francisco, CA 94080 650 871-6455)
epski is offline  
#24 Old 01-16-2005, 02:15 AM
Administrator
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,872
They're not denying it, they're basically saying the government is above the law. Nice.



Animal rights group loses lawsuit against 'Happy Cows' commercial



Quote:
An animal rights group's challenge to a "Happy Cows" advertising campaign by a state advisory board was rejected by a California appeals court in San Francisco today.



The Court of Appeal said that a government entity can't be sued for false advertising under the state's Unfair Business Practices Act.



The law applies only to people, corporations and associations and not to government agencies, the court said.



Full story...



http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmate...ews/ci_2522810

Follow me on Twitter - @_jorts
Michael is offline  
#25 Old 01-16-2005, 02:44 AM
 
Stey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 192
Well I wouldnt be happy if I was covered in my own sh*t 24/7 and beat with metal prods not to mention killed at such a young age when naturally I could live up to 25 years, oh what a joyuss lifestyle....



Stey is offline  
#26 Old 01-16-2005, 03:00 PM
 
epski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
I sent a letter to the editor of the SF Chronicle when they published this story. I haven't heard back on whether it was published or not. I know L.A. Times calls to let you know it's going to run. It read as follows:



Quote:
Judge David Garcias ruling on the Happy Cow ads seems to prove what the neocons in Bushs administration would have us swallow: The government for the people, of the people and by the people, is not accountable TO the people. If the government cannot be sued for misleading the public, then we really are a nation in trouble.

epski is offline  
#27 Old 03-14-2005, 02:28 PM
 
katzykamikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14
THis is a fascinating one. I didn'nt know that much about the actual treatment of dairy animals. But I really think the lawsuit money could be better spent as someone has already commented above.



Although, this issue will be a raging one everywhere I go now, because in Montana, PETA is seen as the enemy by a lot of people. It's hard being vegan in a state where most of people's income comes from raising animals for butchering. But they are kept in nice big pastures here, not urine and feces soaked lots.
katzykamikaze is offline  
#28 Old 03-14-2005, 06:52 PM
 
Mycoolcats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzykamikaze View Post

THis is a fascinating one. I didn'nt know that much about the actual treatment of dairy animals. But I really think the lawsuit money could be better spent as someone has already commented above.



Although, this issue will be a raging one everywhere I go now, because in Montana, PETA is seen as the enemy by a lot of people. It's hard being vegan in a state where most of people's income comes from raising animals for butchering. But they are kept in nice big pastures here, not urine and feces soaked lots.



Its understandable.. Animals are still killed at poorly run slaughterhouses... it is a plus that they have the land to roam though. On the east coast say... land costs so darn much, they want as minimal as they can get by with.... non open lots like factory indoor farms are a great benefit to them making more of a profit. I myself lived "kinda" in the last part of countryish New Jersey. I went on all the farm equiptment and got to drive some of them and knew all the farmers.. And as i matured and grew past 12yrs old, i realized, these "farmers" i looked up to didnt do much more than purchase high priced farm equipment and sell off animals to be killed, even the "nice" people who the parents were friendly with stated they once would take their precious cow into the pasture and shoot it a few times in the head with a shotgun of some sort ..... old people have their ways and wernt inteligent enough to make money any other ways than just follow their parents ways and run a farm..... You can run a farm and sell milk or dairy products, and have the animals live a long time, in the end they all get killed though to maximize profits...... just no way to be a "good" farmer. They should actually BUILD something out in montana for people to do, create jobs other ways, all the farmers could still farm their land and harvest soy/wheat/corn crops to ship around the USA or other countries, its not like theyd LOOSE their incomes by not owning cattle or selling meat.
Mycoolcats is offline  
#29 Old 03-15-2005, 02:13 PM
 
*Star*Lass*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,360
Toughy!

But i think if an advert ever caused harm to a human by giving a false impression, then it would never be allowed. There are however a lot of adverts that give false impressions about the treatment of animals.
*Star*Lass* is offline  
#30 Old 03-15-2005, 02:17 PM
 
*Star*Lass*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,360
I just remembered an ad that was banned here years ago. It was a Tango advert where this orange guy went up to a guy in a street who was drinking Tango, and slapped him or something, you know the "you've been tango'd!" ads. Apparantly kids were copying it in the playground or something.



It's nothing in comparison.
*Star*Lass* is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off