A: I don’t know since I’m not a vegetarian. Anyone out there switch from carnivore to vegetarian or vice versa and can therefore offer an unscientific sample?
I am of course referring to PETA’s banned Superbowl ad, which, though rather over-the-top in its depiction of intimacy between human and produce, is hardly more explicit than what the networks routinely show in Victoria’s Secret ads (let alone Victoria’s Secret TV show) and is certainly not in worse taste than, say, half the network schedule. If our children can be subjected to a TV show in which the hero is a serial killer, or in which semi-naked models are dressed as angels or the torture-du-jour on 24, they can probably survive a model rubbing a pumpkin against her torso:
This may be the origin of the nursery rhyme:
PETA PETA pumpkin eater,
Had a wife but couldn’t keep her.
He put her in a pumpkin shell,
And there he kept her very well.
The Washington Post TV columnist opines that the ad was intended to be banned, to get the free publicity. Why not?
[Now you know the real reason I wrote the earlier post -- Scientific American: Beef contributes 13 times the greenhouse gas impact of chicken, 57x potatoes: to provide some minimal justification for this post.]