People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

For other uses, see PETA (disambiguation).

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Logo used since 1980 Founded March 22, 1980; 45 years ago (1980-03-22) Founders

• Ingrid Newkirk • Alex Pacheco

Type 501(c)(3) Focus Animal rights Location •

• Norfolk, Virginia, United States

President Tracy Reiman [1] Senior VP, Laboratory Investigations Department Kathy Guillermo [2] Revenue US$85.7 million (2024) [3] Website www .peta .org

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ( PETA ; /ˈpiːtə/ PEE-tə ) isn't just an organization; it's a phenomenon, an American animal rights nonprofit that has managed to embed itself firmly in the public consciousness, whether you like it or not. Headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, this entity was initially steered by Ingrid Newkirk, a co-founder whose name has become synonymous with unwavering, often provocative, advocacy.

Conceived in March 1980 by the aforementioned Newkirk and fellow animal rights activist Alex Pacheco, PETA didn't dawdle in seeking attention. Their initial foray into the public eye came swiftly in the summer of 1981, during a saga that would forever be etched into the annals of animal advocacy: the infamous Silver Spring monkeys case. [4] From its very foundation, the organization has taken an uncompromising stance against practices it deems exploitative, including the relentless machinery of factory farming, the grim realities of fur farming, the often-hidden suffering of animal testing, and a host of other activities that, in their view, reduce sentient beings to mere commodities. [a]

PETA’s campaigns, frequently characterized by their audacious and often shocking nature, have undoubtedly been effective at snagging media headlines and, consequently, thrusting animal rights into the mainstream discourse. However, this notoriety comes at a price; these very campaigns have also drawn widespread criticism for their disruptive tactics and the discomfort they intentionally inflict. Adding another layer of complexity, PETA's controversial practice of euthanasia has not only spurred legal challenges but has also prompted legislative responses from Virginia lawmakers, demonstrating the profound and often polarizing impact of their work.

History

Ingrid Newkirk

Newkirk talking about herself and her legacy (11:27) Ingrid Newkirk

Ingrid Newkirk entered the world in England in 1949, spending her formative years first in Hertfordshire and later navigating the vibrant, complex streets of New Delhi, India. Her father, a navigational engineer, was stationed there, a detail that perhaps subtly hints at the structured, directed approach she would later bring to her activism. Educated within the confines of a convent, Newkirk, who now identifies as an atheist, recalls being the sole British girl in that particular institution. [6] Her journey led her to the United States as a teenager, where she initially set her sights on a career as a stockbroker. A rather conventional path, one might observe, for someone destined to become a radical figure. However, a pivotal encounter in 1969 altered her trajectory entirely: after taking a litter of abandoned kittens to an animal shelter and being utterly appalled by the squalid conditions she discovered there, she abruptly pivoted, dedicating her professional life to animal protection. [7]

Her commitment was swift and unwavering. She rose through the ranks, first serving as an animal-protection officer for Montgomery County, Maryland, before breaking barriers as the District of Columbia's first woman poundmaster—a title that, even then, carried a certain grim authority. By 1976, her dedication saw her at the helm of D.C.'s Commission on Public Health's animal disease control division. Her efforts did not go unnoticed; by 1980, she was among those distinguished as "Washingtonians of the Year", [8] a recognition that foreshadowed her burgeoning influence, though few could have predicted the scale of the impact she was about to unleash.

Alex Pacheco

The year 1980 marked another significant turning point in Newkirk's life, following her divorce. It was then that she encountered Alex Pacheco, a political science major immersed in his studies at George Washington University. [9] Pacheco, drawn to the cause, began volunteering at the very shelter where Newkirk worked. A connection formed, blossoming into both a romantic relationship and a shared living arrangement. [10] It was Newkirk who introduced Pacheco to Peter Singer's seminal work, Animal Liberation (1975)—a book that served as a philosophical blueprint for the nascent animal rights movement. Profoundly influenced, she persuaded Pacheco to join her in establishing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in March 1980. At its inception, as Newkirk herself would later describe it, PETA was merely "five people in a basement," a rather humble origin for an organization that would grow to command global attention. This small, determined group primarily comprised students and members of the local vegetarian society, but it also included a key figure from the UK: Kim Stallwood, a British activist who would go on to become the national organizer for the formidable British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, thus forging an early international link for the fledgling group. [11]

Silver Spring monkeys

PETA distributed images of the monkeys with the caption, "This is vivisection. Don't let anyone tell you different." [12]

The nascent group, barely a year old, dramatically burst onto the public stage in 1981, embroiled in what became universally known as the Silver Spring monkeys case. This contentious dispute centered around a series of experiments conducted by researcher Edward Taub on 17 macaque monkeys housed within the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland. The ripples of this case extended far beyond the laboratory walls, culminating in the unprecedented first-ever police raid on an animal laboratory in the United States. Its legal ramifications were equally significant, prompting a crucial amendment in 1985 to the United States Animal Welfare Act, and marking the first instance of an animal-testing case escalating all the way to the United States Supreme Court. [4] Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana State Court ruling, denying PETA's earnest request for custody of the monkeys. [13]

The genesis of this explosive case lay in Pacheco's decision to take a job inside a primate research laboratory at the institute in May 1981. His intention was clear: to gain firsthand, unvarnished experience of the conditions within an animal laboratory. [14] What he discovered was a grim reality. Taub's experimental protocol involved severing the sensory ganglia—nerve clusters—that supplied feeling to the monkeys' fingers, hands, arms, and legs, a procedure chillingly termed "deafferentation." Some of these unfortunate creatures had endured deafferentation of their entire spinal columns, rendering vast portions of their bodies numb. Following this, Taub employed a cocktail of harsh methods—restraint, electric shock, and the deprivation of food and water—to compel the monkeys to utilize these deafferented limbs. Despite the undeniable suffering involved, this controversial research inadvertently contributed to significant scientific advancements, leading in part to the discovery of neuroplasticity and the development of a novel therapeutic approach for stroke victims, now known as constraint-induced movement therapy. [15]

Pacheco, operating under the cloak of night, meticulously documented the egregious conditions. He captured photographs within the laboratory that depicted the monkeys living in what the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research's ILAR Journal unflinchingly described as "filthy conditions." [16] He then presented his damning evidence to the authorities, triggering the police raid and Taub's subsequent arrest. Taub was initially convicted on six counts of cruelty to animals, a landmark verdict that marked the first such conviction of an animal researcher in the United States. However, this conviction was later overturned on appeal, a testament to the complex legal landscape surrounding animal experimentation. Norm Phelps, a notable figure in animal advocacy, posited that this case, following closely on the heels of Henry Spira's highly publicized 1976 campaign against feline experiments at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and Spira's subsequent April 1980 efforts against the Draize test, collectively propelled animal rights onto the national agenda in the United States. [18]

The protracted, decade-long struggle for custody of the monkeys—a battle vividly characterized by The Washington Post as a "vicious mud fight" where both factions hurled accusations of deceit and distortion—served as an unexpected crucible for PETA. [19] It forged the organization into a formidable national, and then international, movement. By February 1991, PETA proudly boasted a network of over 350,000 supporters, a dedicated paid staff exceeding 100 individuals, and an annual budget surpassing $7 million, solidifying its position as a significant force in global advocacy.

PETA India

PETA India, a distinct affiliate, was established in 2000 and has since made its home in Mumbai, India. [20]

In a collaborative effort, PETA and the NGO Animal Rahat, operating under the official authorization of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), embarked on a rigorous nine-month investigation. Their focus: the conditions within 16 circuses across India. The findings were damning, leading to the assertion that "animals used in circuses were subjected to chronic confinement, physical abuse, and psychological torment." This extensive report directly contributed to a significant policy change in 2013, when the AWBI enacted a ban on the registration of elephants for performance, a clear victory for animal welfare advocates. [21]

Prior to the 2020 annual religious observance of Eid al-Adha, an event traditionally marked by ritualistic animal slaughter, PETA India strategically erected billboards. These billboards featured poignant images of goats, accompanied by messages like "I am a living being and not just meat. Change your view towards us and become a vegan," and "I am ME, Not Mutton. See the Individual. Go Vegan." Predictably, these direct appeals sparked considerable controversy, with Muslim clerics vociferously demanding their removal, arguing that the messages were deeply offensive to their religious sentiments. [22] [23]

In a similar vein, July 2020 saw PETA India launching another awareness campaign, this time with billboards proclaiming, "This Rakshabandhan, protect me: Go leather-free." [24] These consistent, culturally-targeted campaigns underscore PETA India's commitment to challenging traditional practices and promoting a vegan lifestyle within the diverse Indian context.

Locations

Initially, PETA established its base in Rockville, Maryland, a location it maintained until 1996. That year, the organization relocated its primary operations to Norfolk, Virginia, solidifying its East Coast presence. [25] Demonstrating its expansion and strategic reach, PETA opened a significant Los Angeles division in 2006, tapping into the influential West Coast. [25] Beyond these major hubs, the organization also maintains offices in Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California, further extending its operational footprint across the United States. [26] Moreover, PETA's influence is not confined to national borders; it boasts a network of international affiliates, reflecting its global commitment to animal rights.

Philosophy and activism

Two young women from PETA, body painted to look like foxes, protesting against the fur trade next to the Three Smiths Statue in Helsinki, Finland on March 25, 2010

Profile

PETA, at its core, is an uncompromising animal rights organization that vociferously opposes speciesism—the prejudice or discrimination based on species—and, by extension, any form of animal abuse or exploitation. This encompassing opposition extends across all domains: whether animals are being utilized for food, coerced into providing clothing, exploited for entertainment, or subjected to the often-hidden realities of research, PETA stands against it. [27]

As of 2025, PETA's digital presence claims a staggering 10.5 million supporters, [28] a number that, if accurate, speaks to a significant global reach. This widespread support translates into substantial financial backing, with reported donations reaching an impressive $80 million for the year 2024. [29] These figures underscore the organization's considerable resources and its capacity to fund its extensive and often controversial campaigns.

Campaigns and consumer boycotts

PETA's trademark "Lettuce ladies" in Columbus, Ohio

The organization has carved out a distinct niche for itself through its aggressive, often theatrical, media stunts. These attention-grabbing spectacles are frequently bolstered by a robust roster of celebrity endorsements. Beyond its official honorary directors, a veritable constellation of notable figures—including Paul McCartney, Alicia Silverstone, Eva Mendes, Charlize Theron, and Ellen DeGeneres—have lent their star power to PETA's advertisements, ensuring maximum visibility. [30] The strategic core of these campaigns is forged weekly, as The New Yorker describes, in what Newkirk presides over as a "war council." Here, two dozen of her top strategists convene around a square table in the PETA conference room, where, notably, "no suggestion [is] considered too 'kooky or unkind.'" [6] This uninhibited approach clearly informs the group's audacious tactics. In recognition of efforts aligned with their mission, PETA also bestows an annual accolade, the Proggy Award (a portmanteau for "progress"), celebrating individuals or organizations dedicated to animal welfare or those who distinguish themselves through their impactful work in the field. [31]

A significant portion of PETA's relentless campaigning has been directed squarely at large, multinational corporations. Fast-food behemoths such as KFC, Wendy's, and Burger King have found themselves in PETA's crosshairs, targeted for their sourcing and treatment of animals. Within the animal-testing industry, PETA’s consumer boycotts have zeroed in on prominent names like Avon, Benetton, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Chesebrough-Pond's, Dow Chemical, and General Motors, among others. Their operational strategy frequently involves a rather clever maneuver: acquiring shares in target companies, such as McDonald's and Kraft Foods, to gain a platform and exert influence from within the corporate structure. [32]

These aggressive campaigns, for all their controversy, have demonstrably yielded tangible results for PETA. Following sustained pressure, both McDonald's and Wendy's, for instance, introduced vegetarian options to their menus. In the fashion industry, Polo Ralph Lauren publicly announced its decision to cease using fur. [33] Further victories include Avon, Estée Lauder, Benetton, and Tonka Toy Co. all discontinuing animal testing for their products. Even the formidable Pentagon ceased its practice of shooting pigs and goats in grotesque wounds tests, and a particularly egregious slaughterhouse in Texas was ultimately shut down. [9]

As a central pillar of its anti-fur activism, PETA supporters have boldly infiltrated hundreds of high-profile fashion shows across the U.S. and Europe, and even one in China. Their tactics are often visually striking: throwing vibrant red paint onto the catwalks and dramatically unfurling banners to disrupt the proceedings. The organization is also renowned for its "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign, which has featured a diverse array of celebrities and supermodels—predominantly women, though some men have participated—posing in various states of undress. This particular campaign, however, has not been without its detractors, drawing criticism from some feminist animal rights advocates who argue it implicitly sacrifices women's rights for the sake of the animal agenda. The New Yorker further recounts instances where PETA activists have crawled through the streets of Paris, painfully encased in realistic leg-hold traps, or theatrically scattered money drenched in fake blood at the International Fur Fair, ensuring their message is both seen and felt. [6] Occasionally, their protests escalate to the more visceral act of pie-throwing. In January 2010, after Canadian MP Gerry Byrne controversially likened PETA activists to terrorists for pelting Canada's fishery minister Gail Shea with a tofu cream pie in protest of the seal slaughter, Newkirk dismissively characterized his comment as a "silly chest-beating exercise." She candidly revealed her strategy to Satya magazine: "The thing is, we make them gawk," she explained, "maybe like a traffic accident that you have to look at." [36] A rather telling admission, that.

PETA has also vigorously opposed the practice of mulesing, a procedure involving the removal of strips of wool-bearing skin from around the buttocks of a sheep. In October 2004, PETA escalated its efforts by launching a significant boycott against the Australian wool industry, a move that prompted several clothing retailers to ban products containing Australian wool from their inventories. [37] In retaliation, the Australian wool industry initiated legal action against PETA, arguing, among other points, that mulesing is a necessary preventative measure against flystrike, a debilitating and extremely painful disease that can afflict sheep. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through a settlement: PETA agreed to discontinue its boycott, while the wool industry committed to actively seeking and implementing alternatives to the mulesing practice. [38]

In 2011, PETA embarked on a rather audacious legal endeavor, naming five captive orcas as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against SeaWorld. The suit sought to secure protection for these animals under the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing their captivity constituted involuntary servitude. [39] A federal judge, however, heard the case and ultimately dismissed it in early 2012. [40] In August 2014, SeaWorld, perhaps feeling the heat of public and activist pressure, announced plans to construct new orca tanks, promising to nearly double the size of existing enclosures to provide more space for its whales. PETA’s response was characteristically unimpressed, declaring that "a larger prison is still a prison." [41] A significant revelation emerged in 2016 when SeaWorld publicly admitted that it had been clandestinely dispatching its employees to pose as activists, effectively spying on PETA and other animal rights groups. [42] Following an internal investigation by an external law firm, SeaWorld's Board of Directors issued a directive to management, ordering an immediate cessation of this highly controversial practice. [43]

PETA supporters campaign against Burberry in an anti-fur protest in 2007

In 2011, the accomplished actress Patricia de Leon lent her voice and prominence to PETA, serving as the Hispanic spokesperson for their impassioned anti-bullfighting campaign. [44]

Some of PETA’s campaigns have been particularly audacious, even controversial. A notable instance occurred in 2003 when Newkirk faced considerable criticism for dispatching a letter to Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat. The letter, penned after a donkey was tragically blown up during an attack in Jerusalem, implored him to keep animals out of human conflict. [45] One might wonder if Arafat had other things on his mind.

To actively discourage milk consumption, PETA cleverly crafted the "Got Beer?" campaign, a direct and rather cheeky parody of the dairy industry's iconic Got Milk? advertisement series, which famously featured celebrities sporting milk "mustaches." [46] The campaign took a particularly controversial turn in 2000 when Rudy Giuliani, then mayor of New York, was diagnosed with prostate cancer. PETA seized the moment, running an advertisement featuring a photograph of Giuliani with a white mustache and the provocative caption "Got prostate cancer?" The ad was designed to underscore their contentious claim that dairy products contribute to cancer, a move that, predictably, ignited a firestorm of public outcry across the United States. [47] Furthering their anti-dairy agenda, PETA placed advertisements in school newspapers, attempting to link milk consumption to acne, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and strokes. This particular messaging drew sharp condemnation from organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and various college officials, who argued it inadvertently encouraged underage drinking. The British Advertising Standards Authority eventually requested the discontinuation of these ads following numerous complaints from influential interest groups, including The National Farmers' Unions. [48]

In August 2011, PETA announced its rather bold intention to launch a soft pornography website within the then-new .xxx domain. Lindsay Rajt, a spokesperson for PETA, articulated the organization's strategic rationale to the Huffington Post: "We try to use absolutely every outlet to stick up for animals," she stated, adding, "We are careful about what we do and wouldn't use nudity or some of our flashier tactics if we didn't know they worked." This wasn't PETA's first foray into using nudity for advocacy; their "Veggie Love" ad, prepared for the Super Bowl, was famously banned by the network for its suggestive content. Unsurprisingly, PETA's employment of such tactics has drawn considerable ire from some feminist critics, who contend that the organization compromises women's rights in its zealous pursuit of the animal agenda. Lindsay Beyerstein, for instance, sharply criticized PETA, asserting, "They're the ones drawing disturbing analogies between pornography, misogyny and animal cruelty." [49]

PETA has also, on occasion, approached various cities with peculiar requests to change their names. In 1996, they targeted Fishkill, New York. [50] This was followed by a similar overture to Hamburg, New York in 2003, [51] and then to Commerce City, Colorado in 2007. [52] One can only imagine the bewildered expressions on city council members' faces.

Beyond its structured campaigns, PETA frequently issues isolated statements or press releases, strategically weighing in on prominent current events to amplify its message. When Lady Gaga made headlines in 2010 by wearing a dress made of meat, PETA swiftly issued a statement expressing its strong objection to the controversial garment. [53] In 2011, after a fisherman in Florida suffered a shark bite, PETA proposed an advertisement featuring a shark devouring a human, accompanied by the chilling caption "Payback Is Hell, Go Vegan." This provocative concept, predictably, drew sharp criticism, particularly from the injured fisherman's relatives. [54] Perhaps most famously, in 2015, following Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer's admission that he had killed Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe, PETA’s president, Newkirk, released a statement on behalf of the organization that minced no words:

Hunting is a coward's pastime. If, as has been reported, this dentist and his guides lured Cecil out of the park with food so as to shoot him on private property, because shooting him in the park would have been illegal, he needs to be extradited, charged, and, preferably, hanged. [55]

A rather subtle suggestion, that.

Undercover work

PETA employs a rather effective, if ethically ambiguous, strategy: dispatching its staff undercover into industries and various facilities that utilize animals. The objective is to meticulously document and expose alleged instances of animal abuse. These investigators, often spending months embedded as employees, discreetly gather evidence, making copies of internal documents and utilizing hidden cameras to capture footage that forms the basis of PETA's exposés. [9]

1990s

• In 1984, PETA brought to light a 26-minute film titled Unnecessary Fuss. This powerful documentary was compiled from a staggering 60 hours of research video footage, controversially acquired by the Animal Liberation Front during a break-in at the University of Pennsylvania's head injury clinic. The footage graphically depicted experiments on baboons involving a hydraulic device designed to simulate severe whiplash. The ensuing public outcry and media attention triggered official investigations, resulted in the suspension of grant funding, led to the dismissal of a veterinarian, forced the closure of the research lab, and imposed a period of probation for the university.
• In 1990, two PETA activists, adopting false identities, posed as employees of Carolina Biological. While embedded within the company, they captured photographs and video footage, subsequently alleging severe mistreatment of cats. [56] Following the public release of PETA's tapes, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) launched its own inspection, subsequently charging the company with seven violations of the Animal Welfare Act. [57] However, four years later, an administrative judge ultimately ruled that Carolina Biological had not, in fact, committed any violations. [58]
• In 1990, Bobby Berosini, a Las Vegas entertainer whose act involved orangutans, suffered significant professional repercussions. He lost his wildlife license and, following an appeal, a later lawsuit against PETA. This outcome stemmed directly from PETA's broadcast of an undercover film, captured in 1989, which graphically depicted Berosini slapping and punching his orangutans. [59] [60]
• In 1997, PETA produced a compelling film, later aired on television, featuring footage obtained by PETA member Michele Rokke. Rokke had gone undercover to report on the activities of the UK company Huntingdon Life Sciences. Huntingdon, however, retaliated by suing PETA, and the organization ultimately agreed to cease its campaign against Huntingdon as part of a settlement. [61]
• In 1999, a North Carolina grand jury issued indictments against three workers at a hog farm. This action followed a three-month period during which a PETA operative was employed at the farm, secretly videotaping the conditions. The veterinarian overseeing the farm, however, vehemently disputed PETA's narrative, asserting that the video compiled from the footage was a distortion and that the operative had "lied during his employment interview." [62]

2000s

• In 2004, PETA released deeply disturbing video tapes, secretly recorded over eight months of undercover filming within a West Virginia slaughterhouse that supplied chicken to the vast fast-food industry. The recordings provided graphic evidence of workers stomping on live chickens and violently throwing dozens against a wall. The parent corporation, upon reviewing the footage, promptly dispatched its own inspectors and issued a stern ultimatum to the plant: implement immediate corrective measures or face the termination of their contract. Consequently, eleven employees were fired, and the company introduced a mandatory anti-cruelty pledge for all workers to sign. [63]
• For an extensive period of 11 months, PETA meticulously captured footage inside a facility in Virginia operated by Covance (now Fortrea), a contract research organization. The organization alleged that the footage revealed egregious instances of primates being choked, hit, and deliberately denied essential medical attention. PETA subsequently submitted the incriminating video along with a detailed 253-page complaint to the USDA. Following an investigation, the department imposed a fine of $8,720 on the company. However, in June 2005, Covance retaliated by filing a lawsuit against PETA and the investigator, alleging fraud, breach of employee contract, and conspiracy. [64] Ultimately, PETA agreed to a settlement, which included handing over all video footage and written notes to the company, and accepting a five-year ban on conducting any further infiltration of Covance's facilities. [65]
• In 2006, PETA captured footage revealing a trainer at Carson & Barnes Circus explicitly instructing others to inflict beatings upon elephants to enforce obedience. Following the release of this video, a company spokesman publicly stated that they had ceased using electrical prods on their animals. [66]
• In 2007, the owners of a chinchilla ranch in Michigan initiated a lawsuit against PETA. The suit stemmed from a 2004 incident where PETA operatives, pretending to be interested buyers, secretly filmed the ranch, subsequently producing a video provocatively titled "Nightmare on Chinchilla Farm." A judge, however, dismissed the case, offering a rather insightful justification: "Undercover investigations are one of the main ways our criminal justice system operates," he wrote, further noting that investigative television shows "often conduct undercover investigations to reveal improper, unethical, or criminal behavior." [67]
• In 2008, the renowned Spanish singer Alaska actively collaborated with PETA in a joint campaign alongside AnimaNaturalis. She boldly posed nude in a photograph, a striking visual designed to raise public awareness and protest against what she, and PETA, consider the cruel activity of bullfighting. [68]

2010s

• In 2013, PETA launched an investigation into angora rabbit farms operating in China, subsequently releasing harrowing video footage. The visuals graphically depicted farmers forcibly ripping out the wool from live rabbits, whose screams of agony were clearly audible. [69] The impact was significant: by 2015, Inditex, the parent company of Zara, announced its decision to discontinue the use of angora and, in a gesture of unexpected philanthropy, donated its existing inventory to Syrian refugees. This powerful exposé led to over seventy other retailers also ceasing the sale of angora wool, demonstrating the far-reaching influence of PETA's graphic video footage. [70]
• Between 2012 and 2014, PETA conducted an extensive investigation into sheep shearing sheds within the wool industry, spanning both Australia and the United States. PETA compiled detailed reports and film footage, which they submitted to local authorities, alleging that shearers routinely engaged in brutal acts: kicking and beating sheep, stomping on their heads, necks, and legs, punching them with clippers, violently slamming them onto the floor, and, disturbingly, sewing up cuts without providing any pain relief. In response, a spokesperson for the American Wool Council stated, "We do not condone or support the actions of anyone that results in the abuse of sheep either intentionally or unintentionally. Rough handling of animals that might result in the injury of a sheep is an unacceptable maneuver during the shearing process or anytime when sheep are handled." [71]
• In 2014, PETA undertook a significant undercover investigation into the horse-racing industry, capturing seven hours of footage that, as The New York Times reported, "showed mistreatment of the horses to be widespread and cavalier." The investigation specifically accused noted trainer Steve Asmussen and his top assistant trainer, Scott Blasi, "of subjecting their horses to cruel and injurious treatments, administering drugs to them for nontherapeutic purposes, and having one of their jockeys use an electrical device to shock horses into running faster." The newspaper highlighted the significance of this particular exposé, noting that it "was PETA's first significant step into advocacy in the horse racing world." [72] In November 2015, as a direct consequence of PETA's investigation, Asmussen was issued a $10,000 fine by the New York State Gaming Commission. Robert Williams, the executive director of the commission, publicly acknowledged PETA's role, stating, "We recognize PETA for playing a role in bringing about changes necessary to make thoroughbred racing safer and fairer for all." However, it's worth noting that while the New York State Gaming Commission's fine was for a minor transgression, the most severe charges leveled against Asmussen were ultimately deemed unfounded. [73] In stark contrast, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, which also received PETA's allegations, concluded that Asmussen had not violated any of its rules. [74] Following a thorough investigation, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission brought no charges against Asmussen, explicitly stating that the allegations "had neither a factual or scientific basis." [73]
• In 2015, as The Washington Post meticulously documented, PETA directed its investigative efforts towards Sweet Stem Farm, a pig farm that served as a supplier of meat to Whole Foods. The resulting video footage "featured images of pigs, some allegedly sick and not given appropriate care, crowded into hot pens and roughly handled by employees." This stark imagery directly contradicted both the farm's own sanitized video self-portrait and Whole Foods' widely publicized claims about "humane meat"—a term that PETA, with characteristic cynicism, consistently maintains is an oxymoron. The Post further highlighted the immediate impact, noting that "[i]n the wake of the PETA investigation, Whole Foods has removed the Sweet Stem video from its Web site." [75] Subsequently, PETA initiated a class-action lawsuit against Whole Foods, "alleging that the chain's claims about animal welfare amount to a 'sham'." [76] However, this lawsuit was ultimately dismissed by a federal magistrate, who ruled that the store's signage "amounted to permissible 'puffery'" and that "the statement that 'no cages' were used to raise broiler chickens was not misleading merely because Whole Foods failed to also disclose that poultry suppliers normally do not use cages in the first place." [77]
• Other PETA investigations conducted around this period cast a wide net, focusing on crocodile and alligator farms in Texas and Zimbabwe, [78] a monkey breeding facility located in Florida, [79] the controversial practice of pigeon racing in Taiwan, [80] and both ostrich slaughterhouses and tanneries operating in South Africa. [81]
• CBS News reported in November 2016 that PETA had captured disturbing footage from restaurants that engage in the controversial practice of serving live octopus, shrimp, and other marine animals. The group's video graphically showed "an octopus writhing as its limbs are severed by a chef at T Equals Fish, a Koreatown sushi restaurant in Los Angeles." PETA underscored the ethical implications, noting that octopuses "are considered among the most intelligent invertebrates" and "are capable of feeling pain just as a pig or rabbit would," challenging common perceptions of marine animal sentience. [82]
• In December 2016, PETA released video footage stemming from an investigation at Texas A&M University's dog laboratory, a facility that deliberately breeds dogs to contract muscular dystrophy. PETA's claims were stark: for "35 years, dogs have suffered in cruel muscular dystrophy experiments... which haven't resulted in a cure or treatment for reversing the course of muscular dystrophy in humans." The Houston Press highlighted the university's lack of transparency, noting that "Texas A&M has been less than transparent about the research, and in some cases has denied that the dogs experience pain or discomfort." Among other advocacy efforts, PETA erected a prominent billboard to publicly oppose what it deemed ineffectual research on animals. [83]
• Bio Corporation, a company specializing in the supply of deceased animals for educational study and dissection, became the subject of a November 2017 PETA undercover investigation. The resulting video footage allegedly depicted workers at the company's facility in Alexandria, Minnesota, engaged in profoundly disturbing practices: "drowning fully-conscious pigeons, injecting live crayfish with latex and claiming that they sometimes would freeze turtles to death." PETA subsequently filed 25 charges of cruelty to animals against the company. It's crucial to note that drowning is explicitly not considered an acceptable form of euthanasia, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, whose standards of humane euthanasia are mandated for companies certified by the United States Department of Agriculture, such as Bio Corporation. [84] However, on April 18, 2018, the case was dismissed, and all charges were dropped based on the Alexandria City Attorney's Office's assessment that the allegations of cruelty against either pigeons or crayfish lacked sufficient support. Daniel Paden, PETA's director of evidence analysis, stated that PETA was "reviewing its options to protect animals killed at Bio Corporation." [85]
• In 2018, law enforcement raided a PetSmart store in Tennessee, acting on video footage provided by PETA. During the raid, police confiscated six animals, including a guinea pig, mice, and hamsters. PetSmart, however, swiftly retaliated by suing its former employee, Jenna Jordan, alleging she was a paid PETA operative who had deliberately sought employment at PetSmart stores in Arizona, Florida, and Tennessee specifically to obtain recordings, which she then supplied to PETA. Jordan was accused of committing "animal neglect, theft of confidential information, unlawfully surveilled private conversations, and filing false reports with law enforcement under false pretenses in three states." [86] [87] In 2019, PetSmart further escalated the legal battle by adding PETA itself as a defendant in the ongoing lawsuit. [88]
• On May 1, 2018, PETA unveiled a damning investigation into the mohair industry. The video evidence presented was explicit, depicting "goats](/Goat) being thrown around wood floors, dunked in poisonous cleaning solution or having their ears mutilated with pliers... [E]mployees are shown cutting goats' throats, breaking their necks, electrically shocking them and beheading them." [89] The impact of this exposé was significant and immediate, prompting over 80 retailers, including major brands like UNIQLO and Zappos, to discontinue products made with mohair, demonstrating the powerful influence of PETA's investigative work.

Ag-gag laws

A concerning trend in several U.S. states has been the enactment of so-called ag-gag laws. These controversial pieces of legislation are specifically designed to impede animal rights and animal welfare groups from conducting crucial undercover investigations into operations that exploit animals. In direct response to this legislative challenge, PETA has actively engaged, often in collaboration with other advocacy groups, in bringing lawsuits. Their legal strategy consistently cites First Amendment protections for free speech, arguing that these laws unconstitutionally restrict the ability to document and expose animal cruelty. [90]

• In 2017, a federal judge delivered a significant blow to Utah's ag-gag law, ruling it an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. This landmark decision came in a case brought against the state by a coalition comprising PETA, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and Amy Meyer, the director of the Utah Animal Rights Coalition. [91]
• In 2018, Idaho's ag-gag law met a similar fate, being struck down as unconstitutional. This ruling was the result of a case initiated by ACLU-Idaho, the ALDF, and PETA, reinforcing the legal challenges against such restrictive legislation. [92]
• In 2019, a federal judge once again sided with free speech advocates, striking down Iowa's 2012 ag-gag law. This ruling emerged from a case filed in 2017 by a diverse group of co-plaintiffs: PETA, ALDF, ACLU-Iowa, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Bailing Out Benji, and the Center for Food Safety. [93]
• In 2020, in the case of PETA et al v. Stein, Judge Schroeder delivered a ruling that struck down four specific subsections of North Carolina's 2015 Property Protection Act. His judgment explicitly stated that "the law is declared unconstitutional as applied to them in their exercise of speech." The plaintiffs in this significant case included PETA, Center for Food Safety, ALDF, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch, Government Accountability Project, Farm Forward, and the ASPCA. [94] [95] These victories highlight a consistent pattern of courts upholding the right to investigate and expose animal agriculture practices, despite legislative attempts to silence critics.

Legal proceedings

A rather messy chapter in PETA's history unfolded in 2007 when two of its employees were acquitted of cruelty to animals. The charges stemmed from a disturbing incident in 2005, where at least 80 euthanized animals were discovered abandoned in dumpsters at a shopping center in Ahoskie, North Carolina, over the course of a month. The two employees were directly observed leaving behind 18 deceased animals, and a further 13 were found tragically inside their van. These animals had been euthanized after being collected from shelters in Northampton and Bertie counties. A Bertie County Deputy Sheriff stated that the two employees had explicitly assured the Bertie Animal Shelter that "they were picking up the dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would find them good homes," a promise that, clearly, was not kept. [96] [97] During the trial, Daphna Nachminovitch, who supervised PETA's Community Animal Project, offered a defense, explaining that PETA had begun euthanizing animals from some rural North Carolina shelters because they found these shelters were killing animals in ways PETA considered inhumane, specifically by shooting them. She also conceded that the dumping of animals did not align with PETA's established policy. [98] [99]

In November 2014, a resident of Accomack County, Virginia, provided compelling video evidence that two workers, identifiable by a PETA-emblazoned van, had entered his property within a trailer park and removed his dog. Tragically, the animal was subsequently euthanized. The incident was reported to the police, leading to the identification and charging of the two PETA workers. However, the charges were later dropped by the commonwealth attorney, citing the inability to definitively prove criminal intent. [100] It was later clarified that the trailer park's manager had initially contacted PETA after a group of residents had moved out, abandoning their dogs, which explained the workers' presence on the property. The state subsequently determined that PETA had violated state law by failing to ensure that the Chihuahua, which was not wearing a collar or tag, was properly identified and, crucially, for failing to keep the dog alive for the mandatory five days before performing euthanasia. Citing the "severity of this lapse in judgment," the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued PETA a first-ever violation and imposed a $500 fine. The contract worker directly responsible for taking the dog was dismissed by PETA. [101]

In 2015, PETA initiated a rather audacious lawsuit in a US court, acting as a next friend on behalf of a wild macaque monkey, whom they rather presumptuously named Naruto. PETA's central argument was that the monkey was legally entitled to the copyright of a selfie it had taken while manipulating photographer David Slater's camera, and PETA sought to be declared the administrator of any resulting copyright revenue. The ensuing monkey selfie copyright dispute was initially dismissed by Judge Orrick, who succinctly ruled that there was no indication the Copyright Act of 1976 extended to animals, therefore a monkey could not legally own a copyright. [102] PETA, ever persistent, appealed the decision. [103] However, the Court of Appeals ultimately found in favor of Slater, delivering a rather pointed critique: "PETA's real motivation in this case was to advance its own interests, not Naruto's." The decision referenced Cetacean v. Bush (2004), which established that animals cannot sue unless Congress explicitly clarifies in the statute that they can, and further clarified that "next friend" representation cannot be applied to animals in such contexts. [104] The court, with a touch of judicial disdain, also penned the following:

• "Puzzlingly, while representing to the world that 'animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way,' PETA seems to employ Naruto as an unwitting pawn in its ideological goals."

A rather blunt assessment of their altruism, wouldn't you say?

Video games

PETA, ever resourceful in its pursuit of public attention, has ventured into the realm of digital entertainment, creating a number of satirical video games. These games, with titles as provocative as How Green Is My Diet? and KKK or AKC? Spot the Difference, serve as unconventional vehicles for spreading awareness about animal rights and animal welfare, and for vigorously advocating vegetarian and vegan diets. Joel Bartlett, PETA's head of online marketing, explained the strategy: "We've found that parody games are extremely popular. By connecting our message with something people are already interested in, we're able to create more buzz." [105] A rather clever way to infiltrate the minds of the digital generation, if you ask me.

In 2017, Ingrid Newkirk herself dispatched a letter of complaint to Nintendo concerning their video game 1-2-Switch, which features a minigame where players simulate milking a cow. Newkirk, ever the purist, lambasted the game as "unrealistic," writing, "you've taken all the cruelty out of milking." She then, with characteristic directness, suggested that "instead of sugarcoating the subject, Nintendo switch to simulating activities in which no animals suffer." [106]

In March 2020, capitalizing on the immense popularity of Animal Crossing: New Horizons, PETA issued a "Vegan Guide to Animal Crossing." [107] Because, clearly, even virtual islands need ethical guidelines.

Person of the year

Each year, PETA, with its distinctive flair for public recognition, designates a "Person of the Year"—an individual deemed to have significantly advanced the cause of animal rights. A rather subjective award, but then, most things are.

• 2006: Eric Ryan and Adam Lowry (the visionary founders of Method Products).
• 2007: Robert C. Byrd (acknowledged for his passionate and enduring defense of animals throughout an impressive six decades of public service). [108]
• 2008: Oprah Winfrey (celebrated for leveraging her powerful voice to advocate for those without one). [109] [110]
• 2009: Tim Gunn (awarded Man of the Year) and Ellen DeGeneres (recognized as Woman of the Year), both prominent figures. [111]
• 2010: Bill Clinton (honored for his influential role in promoting the health benefits associated with adopting a vegan diet). [112] [113]
• 2011: Russell Simmons (applauded for his tireless advocacy for animals and for setting a positive example by promoting a vegan lifestyle). [114]
• 2012: Anjelica Huston (recognized for her dedicated efforts to ensure animals remain with their families in their natural habitats, rather than being exploited on production sets, fur farms, or for pulling carriages). [115]
• 2013: Ricky Gervais, whose sharp wit and outspoken animal advocacy earned him the title. [116] [117]
• 2014: Bill de Blasio (commended for his defense of tigers, elephants, and horses subjected to forced labor in New York, and for his promotion of vegan eating). [118]
• 2015: Pope Francis (selected for his influential encouragement to treat animals with kindness and to respect the environment, a rather unexpected but impactful choice). [119] [120]
• 2016: Mary Matalin (chosen for her advocacy for the humane treatment of farm animals and monkeys). [121]
• 2017: Naruto (the very monkey, blissfully unaware, who found himself at the center of a copyright case over his selfie). [122] [123]
• 2018: California Wildfire Heroes (a collective recognition for those who bravely saved animals during the devastating wildfires). [124] [125]
• 2019: Joaquin Phoenix, an impassioned and vocal advocate for animal rights. [126]
• 2020: Tabitha Brown, celebrated for her charismatic promotion of veganism. [127]
• 2021: Billie Eilish, whose commitment to veganism and animal welfare resonated with PETA. [128] [129]
• 2022: James Cromwell (honored for his outspoken opposition to the live export of pigs from Ireland and for pressuring Starbucks to eliminate its vegan milk up-charge). [130] [131]
• 2023: James Gunn, recognized for his strong advocacy and commitment to animal welfare. [132] [133]

PETA India

• 2011: Hema Malini (for taking a principled stand and speaking out eloquently for animals). [134]
• 2012: R. Madhavan (for his commendable efforts in making the world a more compassionate place for animals). [134]
• 2013: Shashi Tharoor, a prominent figure recognized for his contributions. [134]
• 2014: K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan (named Man of the Year for his landmark judgment that banned Jallikattu) and Jacqueline Fernandez (honored as Woman of the Year). [134]
• 2015: Kapil Sharma (for his unwavering dedication to championing the adoption of dogs from animal shelters or the streets, a truly selfless act). [134]
• 2016: Sunny Leone (for her advocacy and support of vegan fashion, vegetarianism, and the crucial initiatives of cat & dog adoption and sterilization). [134]
• 2017: Anushka Sharma (for her wide-ranging and impactful work for animals, from actively helping to protect dogs from the trauma of fireworks to passionately advocating for horses forced to endure pulling carriages). [134]
• 2018: Sonam Kapoor, a celebrated figure in the cause. [134]
• 2019: Virat Kohli, the influential cricketer. [134]
• 2020: John Abraham, the dedicated actor and activist. [134]
• 2021: Alia Bhatt (for her continuous and significant work in supporting an animal-friendly fashion industry). [134]
• 2022: Sonakshi Sinha (for her actions that helped spare the lives of animals killed for fashion, and her strong advocacy for cats and dogs in need, a comprehensive effort). [135] [136] [137]

PETA UK

• 2008: Leona Lewis (recognized for her prominent campaign against foie gras, a particularly cruel practice). [138]
• 2009: Roger Moore, the iconic actor and advocate. [139]
• 2010: Pamela Anderson, a long-standing and vocal supporter of animal rights. [140]
• 2011: Morrissey, the famously outspoken musician and animal rights champion. [141]
• 2012: Brian May (honored for his dedicated activism concerning badgers). [142]
• 2014: Tony Benn, the revered politician, recognized posthumously for his enduring influence. [143]
• 2016: Pamela Anderson, receiving the award for a second time, a testament to her consistent advocacy. [144]
• 2017: Roger Moore, also honored posthumously for his continued inspiration. [145]
• 2018: Lewis Hamilton, the celebrated Formula 1 driver. [146]
• 2020: Carrie Johnson (for her notable work in protecting endangered animals). [147] [148] [149]
• 2023: Paul O'Grady (recognized posthumously for his lifelong determination to cultivate a kinder world for animals, a truly fitting tribute). [150] [151]

Labels

PETA, in its efforts to guide consumers toward more ethical choices, offers certification for beauty and cosmetics companies through its distinctive bunny labels, categorized into two tiers. It's almost as if they're trying to make things clear in a world of vague marketing.

The first tier, designated as "Animal Test-Free," signifies that the entire company, across all its product lines, explicitly refrains from any form of animal testing. However, it's a crucial distinction that a company bearing this label may still produce non-vegan products, meaning they might contain animal-derived ingredients.

The second, more stringent tier is the "Cruelty-Free" label. This certification demands that the company not only be entirely animal test-free but also that it produces no non-vegan products whatsoever. In essence, a "Cruelty-Free" certified company is both animal test-free and fully vegan, ensuring that none of its offerings contain any animal-derived ingredients. For a company to earn either of PETA's bunny labels—whether "Animal Test-Free" or "Cruelty-Free"—it must also have legally binding agreements in place with all its suppliers, explicitly stating that those suppliers also do not engage in animal testing. [152]

Beyond cosmetics, PETA also extends a "vegan" label to individual clothing and furniture products, rather than certifying entire companies for these categories. This label confirms that the specific products are entirely free from animal-derived ingredients. However, it's important to note that the companies manufacturing these labeled products are still permitted to produce non-vegan items elsewhere in their inventory. [153] [154]

PETA labels

Label	PETA Animal Test-Free [155]	PETA Cruelty-Free [155]	PETA Vegan [154]
Visual label
Object certified	Beauty and cosmetics companies	Beauty and cosmetics companies	Clothing and furniture products
Meaning	All of the company's products animal test-free	All of the company's products animal test-free	All of the company's products vegan
Product vegan

Positions

Direct action

Newkirk is unequivocally vocal in her endorsement of direct action, articulating a philosophy that suggests no significant movement for social change has ever truly triumphed without what she provocatively terms the "militarism component." With a rather unsettling clarity, she writes: "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out." [156] Her support for direct action that involves the physical removal of animals from laboratories and other facilities is equally fervent. "When I hear of anyone walking into a lab and walking out with animals, my heart sings," she has declared, a sentiment that leaves little room for ambiguity. [9] In 1999, Newkirk's frustration boiled over into an even more incendiary statement: "When you see the resistance to basic humane treatment and to the acknowledgment of animals' social needs, I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I'd light a match." [157] A clear indication that her patience, much like the universe, is finite.

Euthanasia

PETA stands as a staunch proponent of euthanasia, a position that frequently places them at odds with other animal welfare organizations. They actively oppose the no-kill movement, arguing that while the sentiment is noble, the practical realities of managing vast numbers of unadoptable animals often lead to prolonged suffering in crowded, stressful environments. Rather than focusing solely on adoption programs, PETA champions the overarching goal of achieving zero births through widespread spaying and neutering initiatives. [158] They specifically advocate against the breeding of pit bulls, citing concerns about overpopulation and breed-specific challenges. Furthermore, PETA supports euthanasia in specific, often difficult, situations for animals residing in shelters, particularly those enduring extended stays in cramped cages, viewing it as a compassionate option to end suffering. [159]

Pet as a derogatory term

PETA, ever keen on reshaping societal perceptions, considers the widely used term "pet" to be "derogatory and patronises the animal," a rather strong stance on semantics. Instead, the organization expresses a distinct preference for the more respectful and egalitarian terms "companion" or "companion animal." Newkirk herself has succinctly articulated this position, stating, "Animals are not pets." [160] Because, after all, labels matter.

Hearing-ear and seeing-eye dogs

PETA maintains a nuanced, and perhaps surprisingly selective, stance on assistance animals. The organization expresses support for hearing dog programs, particularly when the animals are sourced from shelters and successfully placed in loving homes, emphasizing the rescue aspect. However, PETA vehemently opposes seeing-eye dog programs. Their primary contention is that "the dogs are bred as if there are no equally intelligent dogs literally dying for homes in shelters, they are kept in harnesses almost 24/7." [161] This position highlights their consistent prioritization of shelter animal adoption and their opposition to breeding for specific purposes, even for assistance roles, when adoptable animals are available.

Animal testing

PETA's opposition to animal testing is absolute, extending to all its manifestations—be it toxicity testing, fundamental or applied research, or even for educational and training purposes. Their objections are rooted in both profound moral convictions and a pragmatic assessment of its efficacy. Newkirk, in a rather stark declaration to Vogue magazine in 1989, asserted that PETA would oppose animal testing even if it miraculously yielded a cure for AIDS. [162] The group further argues that animal experiments are inherently wasteful, frequently unreliable, and ultimately irrelevant to human health, largely because artificially induced diseases in animals rarely, if ever, perfectly mimic the complexities of human ailments. They contend that such experiments are often redundant, lacking adequate accountability, oversight, and robust regulation. In lieu of animal models, PETA ardently promotes and champions alternatives, including promising avenues such as embryonic stem cell research and sophisticated in vitro cell research. [9]

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/White Coat Waste Project

The White Coat Waste Project (WCWP), an activist group operating under the premise that taxpayers should not be compelled to fund animal experiments—a staggering 20 billion annually [163]—uncovered that the [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases](/National_Institute_of_Allergy_and_Infectious_Diseases) had allocated 400,000 in taxpayer money to fund experiments. These experiments involved infecting 28 beagles with disease-causing parasites. [164] [165] The WCWP's investigations further revealed reports indicating that dogs participating in these experiments were "vocalizing in pain" after being injected with foreign substances. [166] Following a surge of public outrage, PETA issued a forceful call to action, demanding the immediate resignation of all members of the National Institute of Health (NIH). [167] They further stressed the "need to find a new NIH director to replace the outgoing Francis Collins who will shut down research that violates the dignity of nonhuman animals." [168] In 2019, the WCWP made another disturbing discovery: a USDA-funded lab in Beltsville, Maryland had been conducting toxoplasmosis experiments on kittens, resulting in the tragic deaths of nearly 3,000 kittens over a 36-year period. This revelation led to a significant policy change, with the USDA banning all taxpayer-funded kitten experiments. [169] Most recently, in 2024, the WCWP reported that taxpayer money was being used to fund beagle experiments in China, a finding that drew widespread condemnation and prompted PETA to issue a global call for the cessation of all taxpayer-funded animal experiments. [170]

Controversies

High euthanasia rates

PETA's practices regarding animal euthanasia have, for years, attracted intense scrutiny from lawmakers and drawn sharp criticism from other animal rights activists. The consistently high percentage of animals euthanized at PETA's shelter remains a perennial point of contention. [171] [172]

In 2008, the meat industry lobby group, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), issued a press release making a rather damning assertion: "[a]n official report filed by PETA itself shows that the animal rights group put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it took in for adoption in 2006," with a staggering kill rate of 97.4 percent. [173] By 2012, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services publicly stated that it had, in the past, considered reclassifying PETA's status from "shelter" to "euthanasia clinic." This consideration was based on PETA's stated willingness to take in "anything that comes through the door, and other shelters won't do that." [174] PETA itself openly acknowledged that it euthanized 95% of the animals housed at its shelter in 2011, a figure that continues to fuel debate. [174]

PETA, in defense of its practices, refers to its shelter in Norfolk, Virginia as a "shelter of last resort," asserting that it exclusively takes in animals that are old, terminally ill, severely injured, exhibiting extreme behavioral issues, or otherwise deemed unadoptable by other facilities. Operating on an open-admission policy, they accept animals "no one else will," and, in their perspective, consider death "a merciful end." In 2014, PETA euthanized over 80% of the animals that entered its shelter, consistently justifying its euthanasia policies as "mercy killings." [175] [176]

Fueled by widespread public outrage stemming from a 2014 incident where PETA workers controversially took a pet chihuahua directly from its porch and euthanized it on the very same day, coupled with documented evidence that of the 1,606 cats and 1,025 dogs accepted by the shelter that year, a grim 1,536 cats and 788 dogs were euthanized, the Virginia General Assembly took decisive action. In 2015, they passed Senate Bill 1381, a legislative measure specifically aimed at curtailing the operational scope of PETA's shelter. The bill redefined a private animal shelter as "a facility operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals," explicitly challenging PETA's "shelter of last resort" model. [171] [177]

Despite the very real risk to their legal access to euthanasia drugs, PETA has largely continued its established practices. [171] [172] In the aforementioned chihuahua case, PETA ultimately paid a fine and, three years later, settled a civil claim with the grieving family, bringing a legal, if not emotional, closure to the incident. [178]

Child targeted messaging

PETA has also drawn significant criticism for its deliberate targeting of young people with its provocative messaging. In the past, the organization distributed pamphlets with titles like "Your Daddy Kills Animals" and "Your Mommy Kills Animals," [179] both designed to alarm children by warning them against allowing their "addicted to killing" parents to have contact with their beloved pets. This particular pamphlet drew sharp condemnation from the Center for Consumer Freedom, which asserted, "There's going to be long-term psychological damage from these kids being exposed to the material that PETA puts in front of them on a regular basis." [180]

As a component of its 1999 "McCruelty" campaign, PETA attempted to distribute "Unhappy Meals" to young audiences, a direct and rather morbid parody of McDonald's iconic Happy Meal. Describing the contents of this unsettling package, PETA explained that "PETA's spoof of a McDonald's chicken sandwich box features the image of a knife-wielding Ronald McDonald, along with pictures of birds who have been mutilated and scalded alive. The inside of the Unhappy Meal box is stained with blood and and contains a blood-filled packet urging McDonald's to "Ketchup With the Times", a paper cutout of a menacing Ronald McDonald with PETA's parody "I'm Hatin' It" logo, a bloody plastic chicken, and a "Chicken McCruelty" T-shirt wrapped up like a sandwich." [181] The graphic and violent imagery inherent in these "Unhappy Meals" was vehemently decried by parents, with one stating, "I don't want my son to be around something like this." [182] As part of this same campaign, PETA attempted to install a large statue depicting a crippled, scalded chicken in front of a McDonald's in Little Rock, but their request was denied. [183] They also released a short, unsettling comic book titled Ronald McDonald Kills Animals, in which Ronald McDonald, Grimace, and the Hamburglar conspire to kill Birdie's parents, feed them to her unknowingly, and then proceed to eat her as well. [184] Charming.

A strikingly similar "Kentucky Fried Cruelty" campaign unfolded in 2004, where PETA directly criticized KFC and distributed "Buckets of Blood" to children. These buckets, designed to mimic KFC's ubiquitous chicken buckets, contained a gruesome assortment: a bag of fake blood, feathers, and bones; a bloody plastic chicken; and a cardboard caricature of a blood-spattered Colonel Sanders menacingly holding a butcher knife towards a terrified-looking chicken. [185] [186]

A 2013 advertisement, provocatively titled Traditional Thanksgiving Dinner from your Family Butcher, [187] utilized innovative lenticular printing technology. This allowed the ad to present a benign Thanksgiving promotional image to parents, while simultaneously revealing to their children a horrifying scene: a mother violently stabbing a live turkey as her offspring look on in shock. [188] [189] [190] One wonders if PETA considers childhood trauma a worthwhile price for awareness.

"It's Still Going On" campaign

PETA's "It's Still Going On" campaign is a particularly grim and controversial series, featuring newspaper advertisements that draw a direct, and often shocking, comparison between widely publicized murder-cannibalization cases and the deaths of animals in slaughterhouses. This campaign has consistently garnered significant media attention, provoked widespread controversy, and, perhaps most painfully, generated angry and distressed responses from the victims' family members. Ads were released in 1991, describing the horrific deaths of the victims of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. [191] In 2002, the campaign described the deaths of victims of serial killer Robert William Pickton, [192] and in 2008, it depicted the brutal killing of Tim McLean. [193] In several instances, the provocative nature of these advertisements led newspapers to outright refuse to publish them, demonstrating the extreme discomfort they caused.

"Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign

In 2003, PETA unleashed its infamous "Holocaust on Your Plate" exhibition—a series of eight massive 60-square-foot (5.6 m 2 ) panels. These panels, with a breathtaking lack of subtlety, juxtaposed harrowing images of Holocaust and concentration camp victims alongside stark scenes of factory farming, claustrophobic battery cages, animal carcasses, and animals being transported to slaughter. The accompanying captions were equally provocative, stating that "Like the Jews murdered in concentration camps, animals are terrorized when they are housed in huge filthy warehouses and rounded up for shipment to slaughter. The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps." [194]

The exhibition was, predictably, met with immediate and fierce condemnation. Abraham Foxman [195] and the Anti-Defamation League were among the first to speak out, unequivocally stating that "the effort by PETA to compare the deliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent" and "[r]ather than deepen our revulsion against what the Nazis did to the Jews, the project will undermine the struggle to understand the Holocaust and to find a way to make sure such catastrophes never happen again." While Alex Hershaft, a Holocaust survivor and animal rights activist, had made similar comparisons in the past, he sharply criticized PETA's specific execution as "careless and reckless" and impersonal. [196] Elie Wiesel, the Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, expressed profound shock and dismay upon discovering that his own image had been used in the campaign, calling it "possibly the greatest disappointment of his life." He reiterated his deep concern, stating, "I am not afraid of forgetfulness, I am afraid of banalization, of trivialization and this is part of it." [197] Other prominent detractors included the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [198] and Wesley Smith. [199]

In a rather audacious move, PETA responded to critics of the UK campaign who called for a ban or some form of censorship by accusing them of engaging in "book burning](/Nazi_book_burnings)"—a tactic that further, and rather offensively, implied a Nazi mentality on the part of their detractors. [200] In 2004, a formal complaint was lodged by Paul Spiegel and the Central Council of Jews in Germany, demanding that the German court order PETA to halt the campaign and threatening legal action. [195] In July 2009, the German Federal Constitutional Court ultimately ruled that PETA's campaign was not protected by free speech laws and banned it within Germany, citing it as an offense against human dignity. [201] This ban was subsequently upheld in 2012. [202]

Despite the overwhelming criticism, PETA defended the exhibit, revealing that it had been funded by an anonymous Jewish philanthropist [203] and created by Matt Prescott, who himself had lost several relatives in the Holocaust. Prescott articulated the campaign's controversial premise: "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." [203] PETA also asserted a direct intellectual influence from the prominent Jewish author Isaac Bashevis Singer, [204] whose grandson, Stephen R. Dujack, publicly supported the exhibition when it traveled to New York. Furthermore, quotations for the exhibit were drawn from the writings of the German philosopher Theodor Adorno, adding a layer of academic, albeit controversial, justification. [195] Notably, both Karen Davis and Gary Yourofsky, prominent figures in animal rights, voiced their support for the exhibition, highlighting the deep divisions it created even within the advocacy community.

"Are Animals the New Slaves?" exhibit

In 2005, PETA once again ignited a firestorm of controversy with its "Are Animals the New Slaves?" exhibit. This exhibition, with its deliberately provocative title, displayed images of African-American lynching victims and slaves, alongside Native Americans, child laborers, and women, juxtaposed with images of chained elephants and slaughtered cows. The NAACP swiftly and unequivocally criticized the exhibit. Lee Hall, then director of Friends of Animals, supported this criticism, pointedly asking, "While African-Americans have been systematically degraded by being compared with nonhuman beings, are we to think that angry responses to the pairing of man and monkey were unanticipated?" [205]

Vakiya Courtney, then executive director of America's Black Holocaust Museum, expressed profound outrage. The exhibit, she noted, disturbingly included an image taken at the very site of the attempted lynching of the museum's founder, James Cameron, as well as the successful lynching of his two friends. "How can you possibly compare the brutality that our ancestors experienced here, and the brutality that people like Dr. Cameron had to overcome, to animal cruelty?" she demanded. Cameron himself echoed this sentiment, stating, "They may have treated us like animals back then, but there is no way we should be compared to animals today." [206] The historical insensitivity and profound offense caused by this comparison were undeniable.

"Got Autism?" campaign

In both 2008 and 2014, PETA launched an advertising campaign that controversially sought to link milk consumption with autism. Their "Got Autism?" campaign, a rather blunt play on words mocking the dairy industry's pervasive Got Milk? ad campaign (which began in 1993), boldly proclaimed, "Studies have shown a link between cow's milk and autism." PETA further asserted a strong connection between milk and cancer, Crohn's disease, and other serious ailments. [207] [208] When pressed for scientific substantiation, PETA cited two research papers, one from 1995 and another from 2002. However, both studies utilized extremely small sample sizes of children (36 and 20, respectively), and neither conclusively demonstrated a correlation nor a causation between milk and autism. More recent studies conducted in 2010 and 2014 arrived at the same conclusion, refuting PETA's claims. [208] Despite these repeated scientific corrections, PETA's Executive Vice President reaffirmed their position in 2014, additionally stating that dairy consumption contributes to asthma, chronic ear infection, constipation, iron deficiency, anemia, and various forms of cancer. [209]

Steven Novella, a distinguished clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine, offered a scathing critique of PETA's campaign. He wrote, "This is clearly, in my opinion, a campaign of fear mongering based upon a gross distortion of the scientific evidence. The purpose is to advocate for a vegan diet, which fits [PETA's] ideological agenda. They are likely aware that it is easier to spread fears than to reassure with a careful analysis of the scientific evidence." [207]

PETA's campaign faced considerable backlash from the autism community. A 2008 PETA billboard was notably taken down by the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. In 2017, the British food writer, journalist, and hunger relief activist Jack Monroe publicly demanded that PETA remove their recipes from its website "with immediate effect coz I wrote them with my autism." PETA complied, removing the recipes, but the controversial "Got Autism?" article remained on their website until 2021. Critics have also argued that the prominent frowny face depicted in the campaign image negatively stereotypes autistic people, adding another layer of offense to an already fraught campaign. [210]

"KKK or AKC?" controversy

In 2009, PETA members, in a rather audacious and deeply controversial protest, donned full Ku Klux Klan (KKK) robes and demonstrated outside the prestigious Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. During this highly charged demonstration, they distributed brochures [211] that provocatively implied a shared objective between the Klan and the American Kennel Club (AKC): the pursuit of "pure bloodlines." [212] This profoundly offensive comparison was further extended into the digital realm with PETA's video game, KKK or AKC? Spot the Difference, [213] ensuring the controversy continued to fester.

Criticism of Steve Irwin

Steve Irwin at Australia Zoo

PETA has maintained a consistent and often controversial critical stance towards the late Australian wildlife expert and zookeeper, Steve Irwin. In 2006, when Irwin tragically died from a stingray barb, PETA Vice President Dan Mathews issued a statement asserting that Irwin had "made a career out of antagonizing frightened wild animals." [214] This comment, made in the immediate aftermath of his death, sparked widespread outrage. Australian Member of Parliament Bruce Scott expressed his disgust, demanding that PETA apologize to Irwin's family and the entire nation of Australia. He further challenged PETA, stating, "Isn't it interesting... how they [PETA] want to treat animals ethically, but cannot even think for a minute whether or not their outlandish comments are ethical towards their fellow human beings." [215]

In 2019, PETA reignited the controversy by criticizing Google for creating a slideshow Google Doodle posthumously honoring Steve Irwin on what would have been his 57th birthday. [216] PETA then launched a Twitter campaign against Irwin, releasing several tweets that criticized Google for promoting a "dangerous message." They reiterated their contentious claims, stating that Irwin was killed "while harassing a stingray" and that he "forced animals to perform." [217] A Washington Post editor, exasperated by PETA's persistent attacks, wrote, "PETA can add 'insulting a deceased cultural icon' to its infamous repertoire." [218] A rather fitting addition, one might observe.

Anti-carnivore sex strike

In 2022, PETA's German division, in a move that can only be described as bewildering, issued a call for a sex strike. The proposition was that women should refrain from sexual activities with men who consumed meat. Furthermore, they audaciously suggested that men who ate meat should be prohibited from procreating entirely. [219] [220] When pressed to clarify this rather extreme stance on the "ban," Laura Weyman-Jones, the marketing manager for PETA's Australian division, somewhat sheepishly explained that it was intended merely as a "conversation starter," rather than an actual request or threat. [221] [222] However, the organization did not retract its core position that meat consumption constituted a form of toxic masculinity, was detrimental to the environment, exacerbated male impotency, and, in their view, ought to be subjected to a sin-tax of an additional 41%. [219] [222] Because, clearly, nothing says "persuasion" like a mandated celibacy.

Human barbecue stunt protest

During Holy Week in the Philippines, PETA Asia orchestrated a rather shocking stunt protest. A member of the organization stripped down to her underwear and lay down on a grill, graphically depicting a "human barbecue" directly in front of Quiapo Church in Quiapo, Manila. The provocative performance was intended as a visceral plea, urging Filipinos to abstain from eating meat year-round, not just during the traditional period of Lent. The stunt, as intended, drew considerable attention and sparked widespread controversy among churchgoers. A formal complaint was subsequently filed by the church with the Manila Police District. However, as no formal complaint was ultimately pursued, the members involved in the protest were eventually released. [223]

Domain name disputes

• Main article: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney

In February 1995, a parody website, cleverly self-identifying as "People Eating Tasty Animals," registered the domain name "peta.org." PETA, predictably, initiated a lawsuit, alleging trademark violation, and ultimately prevailed in the suit in 2001. The domain is now, rather ironically, owned by PETA. [224] However, while PETA was still embroiled in legal proceedings over the "peta.org" domain, the organization itself engaged in a similar tactic, registering the domains "ringlingbrothers.com" and "voguemagazine.com." They then utilized these sites to launch accusations of animal cruelty against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus and Vogue, respectively. PETA later surrendered these domains under the threat of similar legal action over trademark infringement, a rather poetic turn of events. [225] [226]

Position within the animal rights movement

Within the broader, often fractious, animal rights movement, PETA occupies a rather unique and frequently criticized position. More radical activists within the movement often contend that PETA has become detached from its grass-roots origins, that it has grown "soft" on the fundamental tenets of animal rights, and that it should abandon its reliance on media stunts and the use of nudity in its campaigns. Furthermore, there's a recurring accusation that PETA is "hogging the spotlight at the expense of its allies in the movement," [9] [227] a sentiment of competitive visibility that can be rather unseemly.

Robert Garner of the University of Leicester has observed that PETA has undeniably injected a disruptive energy into the animal rights movement, both by fostering the creation of new groups and by radicalizing existing ones. [228] According to reviews compiled by Philanthropedia, "PETA paved the way for other national organizations to delve into what used to be controversial issues and are now more mainstream concerns," suggesting a role as a boundary-pusher. [229] Michael Specter elaborates on this dynamic, positing that PETA functions as the radical fringe that, perhaps inadvertently, enables more moderate messages to gain traction and succeed. [b]

However, PETA's consistently high euthanasia rates at what it terms its "shelter of last resort" have earned it particularly harsh criticism. Attorney Nathan Winograd, a prominent advocate for the No Kill movement, has gone so far as to famously label Newkirk of PETA "The Butcher of Norfolk," a moniker that speaks volumes about the depth of opposition to their practices. [230]

Gary L. Francione, a distinguished professor of law at Rutgers Law School and a staunch proponent of abolitionism in animal rights, argues that PETA, despite its public image, cannot genuinely be classified as an animal rights group. His reasoning stems from their perceived willingness to collaborate with industries that exploit animals, often to achieve what Francione views as merely incremental, superficial changes. Francione contends that PETA trivializes the movement with its "Three Stooges" theory of animal rights, inadvertently creating a false impression among the public that substantial progress is being made when, in his view, the changes are largely cosmetic. [231] He bluntly states, "Their campaigns are selected more for media image than content." [9] Francione has further criticized PETA for allegedly contributing to the closure of grassroots animal rights groups—groups he considers essential for the genuine survival and growth of the animal rights movement—and he fundamentally rejects the centrality of large, corporate animal charities. He elaborates that PETA initially established independent chapters across the United States but subsequently dissolved them in favor of a top-down, centralized organization. This strategic shift not only consolidated decision-making power at the top but also centralized donations, meaning that local animal rights contributions now flow directly to PETA rather than supporting local groups, a dynamic that has reshaped the landscape of animal advocacy. [231]

See also

• Direct Action Everywhere
• European Vegetarian Union
• International Vegetarian Union
• Mercy for Animals
• Women and animal advocacy
• List of animal rights advocates
• List of animal rights groups
• Open rescue
• Veganism

Notes

• ^ Some of the examples include eating meat, fishing, the killing of animals regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, beekeeping, hunting, animal testing, cruelty to pets, guide dogs, zoos, and bullfighting. [5]
• ^ "It has been argued many times that in any social movement there has to be somebody radical enough to alienate the mainstream—and to permit more moderate influences to prevail. For every Malcolm X there is a Martin Luther King Jr., and for every Andrea Dworkin there is a Gloria Steinem. Newkirk and PETA provide a similar dynamic for groups like the Humane Society of the United States, which is the biggest animal-welfare organization in the country and far more moderate than PETA. When I asked Newkirk why she didn't enter political campaigns for animal action and lobby more vigorously on Capitol Hill for her positions, she laughed: 'Are you kidding? Dear boy, we are the kiss of death. If we are involved, the legislation is automatically dead. We have members yelling at us, "Why are you not working on these issues?" But activists just beg us to stay the hell out.'" [6]