Jake Shields, Kill It Cook It Eat It & Suing Fur From Magazines

• Jake Shields recently won Peta2’s most veg friendly athlete of the year! I interviewed Jake way-back-when, and it’s awesome to see his career is becoming so successful – and that someone who demands so much from his body does it without meat. When he fights GSP in April, he will become the highest profile vegetarian athlete in the world. Go Jake! For a glimpse into the life of Mr. Shields, watch the trailer for an upcoming documentary about him here:

kill it cook it eat it.jpg

• LA Weekly is reporting on a new BBC show that will premiere in the US on January 18th on Current TV, called Kill It Cook It Eat It. This show is certain to get a large viewership – but I wonder just how honest a depiction of the slaughter really is, and whether the viewers get to visit large factory farms and USDA slaughterhouses (where 99% of meat comes from) or just the small, killing-with-kindness farms that maintain the bucolic myth of where our food comes from. In addition, pay careful attention to the “It” in the title. It’s not “Kill Them Cook Them Eat Them”  – or “him” or “her” for that matter. They are careful to refer to animals as objects as opposed to individuals.  Current TV’s description is as follows:

” …a diverse group of participants is challenged to procure their main course the old-fashioned way: by hunting and killing their chosen prey, butchering it in the slaughterhouse, helping to prepare it in the kitchen, and ultimately sampling it at the dinner table. Some may enjoy the process while others recoil, but for each diner it’s an intense journey that just may change their perspectives — and appetites — forever.”

•Writer Jim Edwards, from CBS’s BNET website, is calling for Harper’s Bazaar to be sued over it’s fashion spreads – which could open a legal floodgate to help animals on fur farms. Long-gone are the days when fashion editorials were created for the sake of fashion-as-art. A list that was accidentally left in a hotel lobby revealed (what most fashion industry insiders already know) that paid-advertisers are given priority when it comes to shooting fashion “editorials”, which “…appears to be a blatant violation of the FTC’s new guidelines for advertisers.” Edwards c0ntinues, “If the FTC sued Harper’s Bazaar magazine for not disclosing that its advertisers influence its editorial features it would do readers of women’s magazines — and the fashion business in general — a huge favor…the legal framework exists to make it a possibility, and the FTC has shown interest in bashing the fashion biz before. Animal rights attorneys, pay attention!

“A fashion editorial is clearly an endorsement, but does Harper’s disclose the “material connections” between its fashion shoots and the advertisers who buy ads and provide the garments? Not online. In Harper’s December shoot with Iman, the items are identified by designer and price but it doesn’t say whether the Michael Kors fur scarf in shot 1 was selected because Kors is No. 2 on Harper’s list of advertisers.”

A large portion of the demand for fur originates from paid-advertisers, which explains why so much fur is in every fashion mag. Fur marketing organizations that represent independent farms have millions of dollars to play with, considering the exorbitant mark-up of fur garments. There’s a lot of legal jargon in the full article that I’ll leave to you lawyers, but when it comes to heavily-funded designers that use fur, their days gracing so many pages of editorials could be numbered. This also gives stylists something to celebrate, since their craft was hi-jacked in the early nineties.

“Of course, readers of women’s magazines know that most of the editorial is either made up or bought-and-paid for by advertisers, so it’s tough to argue that consumers are “damaged” by them. Still, wouldn’t it be nice if one area of the fashion world wasn’t complete fiction?”

Written by joshuakatcher

Joshua Katcher is an adjunct professor of fashion at Parsons The New School. His research focuses on sustainability and ethics in fashion production. He started The Discerning Brute in 2008 as a resource for men who want to make intelligent decisions concerning their lifestyles. With a focus on “fashion, food & etiquette for the ethically handsome man”, The Discerning Brute produces expert, essential content and boldly takes a stand. Brave GentleMan, the integrated, eCommerce brother-site of The Discerning Brute was launched in 2011 and features “principled attire” and “smart supplies” handpicked for informed indulgence.
The Discerning Brute on Facebook

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or create a trackback from your own site.

  • VeggieBrothers

    Watched an episode of Kill It. Cook It. Eat It. and was horrified at how “friendly” they made the slaughter process seem. Was completely put off by the one kid who chose to “go vegan” after watching a cow get slaughtered, and then wound up changing his mind the next day and eating that very cow. Disgusting. Good point about using the word “it” to describe the animals. Horrible. I do hope they start showing what slaughter is really like though.

  • Matt P

    “Kill It, Cook It, Eat It” was the show that finally encouraged me to go from vegetarian to vegan 3 years ago. There have been 4 series – the first I saw featured a studio audience witnessing the live slaughter of… various groups of young animals (calves, suckling pigs, lambs etc), which were followed from farm to plate.

    Although there were short clips mentioning factory farms and a few nods to some of the more unsavoury practices that go on, the show was ultimately pro-meat and perpetuated the myth that all farm animals spend their days frolicking in the sunshine. The slaughter was graphic but still misleading – clearly there is no comparison between a couple of hand-picked slaughter men killing half a dozen animals under the scrutiny of TV cameras, and a commercial abattoir slaughtering thousands of animals a day.

    Unsurprisingly the majority of the audience was reassured by the whole process and ate the meat served to them at the end. <>

    In its defence, it did try to encourage people to take more interest in where their meat comes from and there was an emphasis on supporting UK farms – which is always going to be preferable to importing meat from other countries that have less regulation or more dubious animal welfare standards.

    The latest two series took smaller groups of people and covered game and fast food production; from the clip on current.com it looks like you’re getting some or all of those episodes. There are a couple of people who provide the voice of reason (I think a female animal rights supporter in the episode on rabbits, and a vegan in the fast food series) but for the most part it makes for miserable and uncomfortable viewing – not just due to the content, but because of some of the bloodthirsty morons that took part.

    Ramble over!

  • Iamnickd