Our campaign to convince Lowe's to stop selling glue traps is stuck in high gear. Recently, a woman dressed as a mouse stuck on a glue trap stopped traffic in Yakima, Washington.

Then PETA member Stewart David requested that state officials in North Carolina investigate Lowe's bogus claim that its glue traps somehow "anesthetize" captured animals.

And in Charlotte, North Carolina, Lowe's shareholders gasped at the sight of our "dying mice," who were struggling to escape a giant glue trap beside a sign reading, "Lowe's: Stop Torturing Animals!"

Maybe pressure from shareholders will convince Lowe's to finally join Rite Aid, Safeway, CVS, and other big names that have taken the torture devices off their store shelves.

Written by Karin Bennett

Being a shareholder of a major company can come with perks. I once got a free pen for attending Smithfield Foods' annual meeting. I got a coupon (which I used for a veggie burger) at another shareholder meeting.

OK, so those types of perks aren't anything to write home about. The real "perk" for us—which is the reason that we purchase stock in animal-abusing companies in the first place—is the chance to have a voice in the inner workings of a company like Hormel Foods, the meatpacking giant based out of Austin, Minnesota.

This week, we cashed in on that perk, so to speak, by submitting a shareholder resolution calling on the company to include information on its packaging disclosing every piece of meat's greenhouse-gas "footprint" on the world. Doing more damage than all the automobiles and airplanes in the world combined, it's the meat industry that contributes most to global warming. And we're not the only ones who think it's smart to clue consumers in: Some food companies are already printing per-serving greenhouse-gas emissions levels on product labels.

Now, as a result of our resolution, all Hormel investors—from Joe Schmoe, who might own a dozen shares, up to the largest major banking firm, which might own five to 10 percent of the company—will be able to read about all the ways that producing meat contributes to global warming, and more importantly, they'll have a chance to vote on whether they feel that Hormel should own up to its devastating eco-footprint.

You can read the full text of the resolution here.

Written by Matt Prescott, assistant director of Corporate Affairs

Burberry representatives denied entry to Bruce Friedrich this morning, an action that we believe clearly violates the rules that govern publicly traded companies. Bruce, appearing as a proxy, had registered in time, confirmed his registration, and showed proper identification and a copy of his proxy voucher card to officials—but to no avail.

One might suspect that the problem here is that Friedrich is an outspoken opponent of the use of fur in Burberry’s clothing, and they don't want their shareholders to hear what he has to say.

Bruce was slated to speak and urge shareholders to end the company's use of fur, as stated in the shareholder statement that PETA Europe had sent directly to Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts as well as their chair and chief designer. Included with the statement was video footage showing fur-bearing animals caught in traps, animals chewing off their own limbs to escape, and animals on fur farms crammed in tiny, filthy cages until they were killed by gassing, anal or vaginal electrocution, or having their necks broken.

Since Burberry is based in the United Kingdom, where cruel fur farms are illegal, they have resorted to importing animal pelts from Finland. Says Friedrich, "Burberry might not want its shareholders to hear about the company's support for cruelty to animals so extreme that if the practices it supports were conducted in the United Kingdom, they would be illegal, but it has no right to shut out debate".

Posted by Sean Conner

So most people know PETA for our flashy naked protests and work with celebrities to speak out against cruelty to animals. If you live in the Norfolk, Virginia area, you may know PETA as the group that drives around the mobile low-cost spay/neuter clinic or delivers free dog houses to low-income areas.

But unless you’re the CEO or executive of one of the more than 80 unfortunate companies we target through our “shareholder advocacy” program, you may not know about the behind-the-scenes work PETA does to improve the lives of animals worldwide. Through this program, we purchase small amounts of stock in companies that abuse animals in some way—whether for food or clothing or in animal tests—and then use our position as stockholders to submit shareholder resolutions calling on the companies to adopt better animal welfare standards (or in the case of some companies, to adopt any animal welfare standards). We’ve won major victories for animals through using this tactic, like getting Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s to adopt improve their animal welfare practices and getting Dow Chemical to reduce the number of animals killed in its tests.

Our work in this area was recently recognized when As You Sow—an organization dedicated to promoting corporate responsibility—named PETA the most active group in shareholder activism…a title we’ve now held for the fourth straight year in a row. That means that PETA submits more of these shareholder resolutions than any other non-profit organization in the country, regardless of the issue.

These efforts were also discussed in a recent Orlando Sentinel article about PETA, which you might want to check out.

Oh, and don’t worry: while we may not show up to companies’ shareholder meetings in the buff, our “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign won’t be going away any time soon.

Just so I can complete the perfect trifecta of posts about quirky demonstrations today (see the shower girls and the DC dinosaur in case you missed them), here’s one that involves six businesspeople in one small cage. The purpose of this protest—which took place outside drugmaker Eli Lilly’s annual shareholder meeting yesterday—was to let the company’s shareholders know about its decision to outsource animal experiments to China and other countries where animal protection laws are virtually non-existent.

As a wise man once said, “A man’s crimes against nature aren’t any less disgusting when he pays the Chinese to do them for him.” OK, fine, a wise man didn’t once say that. But he should have. ’Cuz it’s true.