Environmental friendliness is on the rise. From food to clothing, it is hard to escape the flood of love for Mother Earth. This is a wonderful attitude, and as more and more organizations and individuals jump on the eco-bandwagon, the world is becoming united under the banner of a clean and sustainable future. No family is without its black sheep however. In the fight for animal rights and sustainable food sources, one organization has shown itself time and time again to be set firmly in the militant side of radical. For years they have used scare tactics, attacks and misinformation to get their message out. They have rechristened fish as “Sea Kittens.” They are among the most irresponsible environmental activist organizations in existence. They are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

PETA is not an inherently bad organization. Their mission to end animal cruelty is admirable, and their many successes with regards to banning harsh animal testing and unnecessary slaughter are well deserved. It is the methods that PETA employs in order to reach these ends that are questionable. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk is a prime example of the extremist attitude that drives the organization. After PETA supporters flour-bombed a fashion show in 2006 as part of an anti-fur protest, Newkirk said, “We’re stunt queens. We have to be.” Any organization that condones invasive protests, including assault, is one that invites suspicion. Although PETA also employs traditional methods of publicity (leaflets, celebrity endorsements, etc.), its true claim to fame is its reputation for theatrics and public stunts. It seems that PETA has yet to learn that attention and action are not one and the same.

Although most of PETA’s activities rarely make news beyond the gossip pages, the organization’s members do not limit themselves to flour-bombing fur-clad fashionistas. The fact that it has been harder for them to pull off action-packed protests since the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act in 2006 has not made them any less sinister. According to a report in 2005, the FBI keeps PETA under surveillance as a possible terrorist group. While this could be seen as an overreaction, it does not change the fact that PETA is linked to notoriously violent environmentalist groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, both of which are listed as domestic terrorist groups by the Department of Homeland Security. With their many assaults on individuals and events alike, it is clear that PETA is on the warpath for animal rights.

The defining characteristic of any organization is its public image. Where most groups tend to unify themselves with a clear identity, the diversity of PETA’s many campaigns verges on schizophrenia. In browsing PETA’s website, one can find anything from photos of bloody animal carcasses to advertisements that sexualize everything from vegetarianism to faux fur and pleather. The newest members of this eclectic family are no less bizarre. The first is a rejected advertisement that was meant to be played during this year’s Super Bowl: a pornographic film featuring vegetables getting busy with women. Television networks rejected the ad due to its sexual explicitness.

As if watching a porn star pleasure a pumpkin was not disturbing enough, PETA’s second new campaign, while seemingly more tame, is discouraging on a whole new level. This campaign centers on the beloved “Sea Kitten,” a fuzzy new generalization for the diverse group of animals commonly known as fish, and smoothly blends child-friendly cartoons with misinformation. The premise: “Nobody would hurt a Sea Kitten.” One feature, playfully called Bedtime Stories, details the trying lives of Sea Kittens, featuring a suicidal farmed tuna, a clever trout whose flesh poisons his killer with mercury and a Sea Kitten who is driven mad with grief after seeing all of her friends dragged away on hooks. In a classic PETA move, this campaign takes an admirable cause, that of saving fish populations and ending bad fishing practices, and radicalizes it. PETA’s call to end all consumption of fish ignores many key facts, including that the destruction of the fishing industry would adversely affect thousands of people’s livelihoods. Furthermore, universal vegetarianism is an unrealistic goal. True, it is sustainable and arguably healthy, but not everyone can follow it safely. PETA makes living on vegetables alone seem easy, when in reality one must make doubly sure that his or her diet contains all the necessary vitamins and proteins. This radical approach greatly contradicts the fishing views of other conservationist organizations. Many, such as the Monterrey Bay Aquarium, advocate a middle road that discourages harmful fishing practices and informs the public about which fish to avoid eating due to endangerment or health risks. These groups use logic and public education rather than misinformation and scare tactics to convey their message. The Sea Kittens campaign exemplifies PETA in that it brushes aside compromise and reason in favor of an ultimatum.

It is impossible to deny that PETA is a powerful voice in the world of animal rights. Loud and flashy, PETA commands the attention of millions of supporters and non-supporters worldwide. However, the question must be asked whether attention and notoriety are the proper tools for facilitating change. A leaflet campaign may not get as much press as attacking celebrities, but in the end it attracts more support and less animosity. It seems that the only way to describe PETA is thus: there are responsible organizations, and then there is PETA.

—Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the staff (assenting: 48; dissenting: 0)