Vegan Sociologist Speaks Out Against Animal Crackers Because Animal-Shaped Food Underscores 'Human Supremacy'

Jan 27, 2020

Updated on 30.04.2021: The headline has been changed for better clarity, links to additional information and sources, and more context have been added, and the text was updated.

Due to the power of social media, the movement toward veganism is continuing to grow. Many people across the world have decided to change their lifestyle to a plant-based one. In this spirit, activists at PETA lobbied for popular snack brand Nabisco to change their packaging for their animal cracker cookies. In 2018, PETA succeeded in demanding that the circus animal design gets an update.

According to the Vegan Society, "veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

A vegan sociologist, Dr. Corey L. Wrenn, has a critical view on a favorite treat that many people have enjoyed for decades: animal crackers. In one of her posts, she said: "Sociologists are critical of problematic symbolism in children's products because they socialize human primacy attitudes and normalize nonhuman otherization."

Dr. Wrenn, an American sociologist, specializes in human-animal studies and vegan studies and is presently a lecturer in the School of Social Policy, Sociology, and Social Research at the University of Kent. She is also the co-founder of the International Association of Vegan Sociologists. Previously, she served as a council member with the American Sociological Association’s Animals & Society section (2013-2016). 

In 2018, PETA succeeded in convincing Nabisco to change the package design for animal crackers, which used to portray animals in cages as they would see them in a circus. The new box design depicts the animals roaming wild in an African landscape. According to New York Post, PETA spokesperson Tracy Reiman expressed her approval of the new packaging. Reiman told New York Post: "The new box for Barnum's Animals crackers perfectly reflects that our society no longer tolerates the caging and chaining of wild animals for circus shows."

Vegans and animal advocates across the United States voiced their approval on social media after Nabisco changed its box design. The change in packaging has had some critics as well. Some people argue that the change in packaging design forced Nabisco and PETA to waste time and money on the symbolism of the animal cracker box when the effort could have been used for more pressing issues of animal cruelty. However, Mondelēz International, the company of which Nabisco is a subsidiary, had its own statement on the change. Jason Levine, Mondelēz's chief marketing officer for North America, said: "When PETA reached out about Barnum's, we saw this as another great opportunity to continue to keep this brand modern and contemporary."

While PETA only urged for a change in packaging, sociologist Dr. Corey Wrenn added her own take on the issue. In her essay, "New Package, Same Old Problem: Animal Crackers and Veganism," she argues that the shape of the cookies themselves promotes an ideology that changing the packaging alone can't fix. She wrote: "In the case of animal crackers...Nonhuman Animals are intentionally visible. Animal crackers are, as a result, functional in their ability to socialize children with ideologies of human dominance. The consumption of animal crackers reiterates to children their privileged access to the natural world and any subordinates who live within it. By being able to "collect" animals, pick them up, handle them, and eventually eat them, notions of human supremacy are underscored."

Some people said there might be too few foods allowed to eat if the list of restrictions keeps growing.

It's clear that there are many differing opinions on the topic. Some people believe that the actions will have a positive effect because children will be less likely to feel that humans should put animals in cages for entertainment. However, others are sad to see the traditional packaging go. Either way, the brand has changed its packaging, and the new version is here to stay.