Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Rachel Ray is not an animal advocate

Like us on Facebook:

All the donations in the world can not make a non-vegan an advocate for animals. Rachel Ray may save time in the kitchen, but she’s certainly using more animals than she’s saving.

nj.com shared the story of a Woodglen Middle School student named Lillian Mikulski, and a National History Day research project that had her interviewing famous food personality and infamous garbage-bowl inventor Rachel Ray.

She titled her project “Two-Feet Versus Four-Feet: The Animal Rights Movement,” and highlights the $14 million dollars Ray’s organizations have donated to no-kill animal shelters and AR groups like the ASPCA. Ray’s designer dog food line was mentioned, along with her affinity for getting people to stop being speciesist towards pit bulls. Mikulski said she “spoke passionately about her animal activism” and helped her get a good grade…er…connect her research to the real world. But don’t worry, we’re not about to launch into criticism of an eighth grader. No, Rachel, this one is for you.

The idea that anyone can help animals while still using them is absurd. For Rachel Ray, that’s not just using them for her own meals, wardrobe, or entertainment – that’s also directly profiting off of their exploitation by building an empire off of animal product laden recipes, kitchen tools to cook animals with, endorsements of animal products directly, and yes, even her premium dog food is made up of animal products. We could go on, but it’s pretty evident that Ray is a non-vegan, and that her success is the result of making the world less animal-friendly, too.

We get it, you love dogs and think more dog lovers will tune in to your programs if you make it known (believable because again, her marketing team made garbage bowls a thing). We even agree that no-kill shelters and adoption is a great way to help the dogs human continue to selfishly breed into this world. But to call your efforts “animal activism” is as far off as calling The Food Network an educational channel devoted to teaching people to cook (we all know it’s only  competition shows now). Focusing only on the treatment of one species of animal, and pouring money into groups that do the same, doesn’t negate the millions of animals lost for the frivolous reasons you’ve wrongly deemed justified. Saying she is a pit bull advocate would have been more accurate.

The only way to advocate for animals is to start with veganism. Veganism demands the freedom from all use, whether that is in a dog-fighting ring or a chicken cacciatore instructional. The way Ray feels about pit bulls, vegans feel about all the forgotten farm animals. We should not worship the cheque-signing of non-vegan celebrities as meaningful change, as it doesn’t come close to the efforts of a single vegan. 

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments
  • Animals24-7

    To be an “animal lover” and a pit bull advocate are mutually exclusive concepts. Unlike any other domestic breed or species, pit bulls have been created & inbred for centuries to kill & maim other animals — and they do. About 31,500 dogs per year in the U.S. kill or severely injure other animals, including about 27,500 pit bulls (87%). About 10,000 dogs per year are killed by other dogs, 85% of them killed by pit bulls. About 11,500 dogs per year are disabled or disfigured by other dogs, 10,500 of them disabled or disfigured by pit bulls (92%). About 2,500 cats per year are killed by dogs, about 2,000 of them (80%) killed by pit bulls. About 7,500 hoofed animals, poultry, and wildlife per year are killed by dogs, about 6,400 of them (85%) by pit bulls. Authentic animal lovers do not choose to expose their dogs, cats, livestock, poultry, or wildlife to pit bull mayhem — or themselves, for that matter. Pit bulls over the past 35 years, while constituting less than 5% of the dog population, have accounted for 55% of the dog attack human fatalities and 74% of the dog attack human disfigurements.

    • Cenk Tekin

      Merritt Clifton, is that you?

  • The shocking statistic about Pit bull terriers is only one example of how unjust the institution of domestication is, and clearly not the animals’ fault. Just like every other breeds and species of domesticated animals, Pit bulls are the victims of domestication created by humans, and therefore humans have a moral obligation to clean up the mess they have created by not bringing more domesticated animals into existence and taking care of the existing ones the best way they can. Regulation or better treatment are not appropriate responses to injustice.

    The injustice will continue as long as people are paying for more animals to be produced. 98% of the population is creating the demand and paying for the injustice (and in most cases torture and killing) to continue. Vegans do not eat, wear or use animals for any purpose, and that includes not buying Pit bull terriers from breeders.

    It is mutually exclusive to love animals and eat, wear or use them for other purposes. Being vegan is not about being nice or compassionate; abstaining from causing injustice, torture and death is a matter of basic moral decency required from each one of us.

    • Cenk Tekin

      The only reason you are capable whining here about domestication is due to enjoying the fruits of civilization, for which domestication was vital.
      “Pit bulls are the victims of domestication created by humans, and therefore humans have a moral obligation to clean up the mess they have created by not bringing more domesticated animals into existence and taking care of the existing ones the best way they can.”
      Yes, we may owe domesticated animals a debt, but genociding domesticated animals isn’t the answer. It is cowardly and disgusting.

      • We enjoy the fruits of civilisation due to domestication along with conquest, enslaving, raping and pillaging. The fact that certain actions benefited us in the past and still do, does not make those actions neither moral nor beneficial for us to continue engaging in. No one defends any of these actions any longer except when it comes to continuation of eating, wearing and using animals for other purposes, equally unjust and unnecessary.

        The definition of genocide is “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group” with the emphasis on the word “killing”. Synonyms are: “racial killing”, “massacre”, “wholesale slaughter”, “mass slaughter”, “wholesale killing”, and “indiscriminate killing”. It is evident that rejecting to pay breeders to bring beings into existence who would depend on carers for survival and all their most basic needs until the rest of their lives has nothing to do with genocide. Rejecting animal exploitation is the morally right thing to do.

        There is nothing cowardly or disgusting about putting a stop on bringing more cows, pigs and chickens into existence with the purpose of torturing and killing them. It is a matter of a basic moral decency not to inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings by eating, wearing or using them for entertainment and other purposes.

        • Cenk Tekin

          “The fact that certain actions benefited us in the past and still do, does not make those actions neither moral nor beneficial for us to continue engaging in.”
          Benefits and necessity didn’t go away. You haven’t shown any to say otherwise.
          “No one defends any of these actions any longer except when it comes to continuation of eating, wearing and using animals for other purposes, equally unjust and unnecessary.”
          You can find someone defending each of these subjects. And Using animals, despite delusions of some people is far from unnecessary.
          “The definition of genocide is “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group” with the emphasis on the word “killing”.”
          Nonsense, forced sterilization with the aim of extinction is an act of genocide as much as poisoning to kill all. The reasons don’t matter, the end goal of making none exist at all do.
          “It is evident that rejecting to pay breeders to bring beings into existence who would depend on carers for survival and all their most basic needs until the rest of their lives has nothing to do with genocide.”
          And why depending on human are so bad? We humans depend on each other for survival and all our needs for all our lives too. Is this some nonsense about natural lives?

          • “…And using animals, despite delusions of some people is far from unnecessary…”

            If we agree that entertainment, pleasure and convenience do not consist of necessity, most animal use is unnecessary and can be only justified by the reasons of entertainment, pleasure and convenience.

            1. Using animals for sport hunting and entertainment are by definition unnecessary, yet these activities are protected by laws that supposedly prohibit inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals.

            2. It is not necessary to wear wool, leather, fur or silk, or use cosmetics and cleaning products tested on animals, especially when better alternatives are widely available.

            3. No one maintains any longer that we need to eat animal products for health. In the 21st Century, the scientific world is in agreement that a diet centered around animal products and processed foods such as oils, sugar, white flour and isolated proteins, and lacking in unprocessed fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds rich in vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients and fibre, in combination with sedentary lifestyle is the main cause of our biggest killers such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. There is nothing controversial about it.

            The American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) states:

            “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”

            The American Heart Association states:

            “Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They’re also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer.

            Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients. However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too many calories and/or saturated fat and not enough important nutrients.”

            The National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom states:

            “With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.”

            The National Institutes of Health and Department of Agriculture in the U.S. state:

            “People who follow vegetarian diets can get all the nutrients they need. However, they must be careful to eat a wide variety of foods to meet their nutritional needs.”

            Dietitians of Canada state:

            “A healthy vegan diet has many health benefits including lower rates of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer. It may take planning to get enough protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamins D and B12 and omega-3 fats from foods or supplements. A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.”

            It is logical that the most truthful answer would come from insurance/managed care companies whose monetary interest coincides with having healthy members. One of the largest ones, Kaiser Permanente, states:

            “Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods. We present a case study as an example of the potential health benefits of such a diet.”

            Add to this the fact that the animal agriculture is an environmental disaster; according to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, the animal agriculture is the number one cause for greenhouse gases emission, species extinction, deforestation, soil degradation, drinking water depletion, top soil erosion, pollution and the oceans dead zones. Additionally, only a small fraction of plant foods we feed to livestock would be enough to feed the world’s entire human population.

            What is our moral justification for eating, wearing and using animals? We have none. By eating animal products we inflict unnecessary suffering on them, we are destroying our health, the environment, and vote with our wallets for resources distribution that cause starvation of millions of children.

  • Cenk Tekin

    “Anyone that doesn’t join our pure cause is tainted!”

    Fire and brimstone preaching of puritan vegans never cease to amuse.

France’s ban of faux-meat branding won’t stop veganism

I’ll take “mycoproteinous food tube” over a tube of dead pig any day.

Concerned about endangered animals? Stop eating them

Methods of animal conservation that support the exploitation of animals don’t exist for the animals, they exist for human profit.

What you can do if live exports disturb you

The outcry should go further than importation and should be directed at the fact that the animals in question were on their way to slaughter in the first place.