E-mail Scott
Links to
other sites

1997 - 2002
2003 - 2004
2005 - 2006
2007 - 2008
2009 -

Big burger gimmick draws intolerant response

By Scott Tibbs, April 6, 2009

Some people, for various reasons, do not consume meat. This is a reasonable lifestyle choice and that choice should be respected. While I may not share the views of those who abstain from meat because of religious beliefs, I respect their right to make that choice. So why is it so difficult for militant vegetarians/vegans to respect the choices of those who eat meat?

Enter the West Michigan Whitecaps, who have offended an animal rights activist group that pretends to be motivated by concern for human health. After the Whitecaps offered a 4800 calorie cheeseburger as a marketing gimmick, the so-called "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" urges the Whitecaps to "post a warning label and refuse to sell such an unhealthy product to people under 18." PCRM then preaches that "baseball... must take responsibility for the habits it teaches to young people."

Please. The portion size is so extreme it is laughable. It's not about sending a message, it is about getting attention. How many people, realistically, are going to be able to finish one of these things? I doubt I would even be able to finish much more than 1/8 of this monster. We're talking about a marketing gimmick that brought national media attention to a minor league baseball team. The Whitecaps got free advertising from this gimmick that would cost a huge amount of money if they paid for the space.

This isn't an endorsement of an unhealthy diet or an encouragement to consume massive amounts of unhealthy food on a regular basis. It is an attempt to draw attention to a business that wants to put people in the stands. The ninnies running the so-called "PCRM" should mind its own business and look for legitimate areas where they can educate people about healthy diets. They won't do that, however, because this is not and has never been about human health. It is a poorly-hidden animal rights agenda.

I have no respect for this kind of dishonesty. PCRM has ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, yet pretends to be a nutrition group. As much as I loathe PETA, they are honest about the primary reason they oppose eating meat, which is a moral objection to using animals for food. That can't be said for the so-called "physicians" group, because the entire premise of the group is a fraud. The news media should not give the so-called "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" any credibility whatsoever, unless to mock them in the editorial pages. If the PCRM were to be honest about who they are and what motivates them, I might be able to respect them. As long as they lie about their agenda, they deserve no respect and have no credibility.