Animal rights organization Peta is once again at the center of controversy involving Nintendo, this time with a campaign calling for the removal of the “Cow” character’s nose ring in Mario Kart World. The group argues that the accessory, common in real animals, symbolizes cruelty by the meat and dairy industries, and its presence in a children’s game would normalize mistreatment. The online petition, which is already circulating on social media, raises questions about how games influence perceptions of animals – a debate that Peta has been having with Nintendo for almost 20 years, from criticism of Pokémon to violent parodies of Super Mario. But to what extent should virtual representations of animals reflect reality? And how can Nintendo respond to this pressure?

Peta’s history of campaigns against Nintendo

Peta is not new to criticizing Nintendo for its depictions of animals. Since the 2000s, the organization has used games and parodies to draw attention to its causes, often with controversial approaches. One of the most striking cases was Super Chick Sisters (2007), a Flash game that parodied New Super Mario Bros. In it, players controlled chicks trying to save activist Pamela Anderson from a villain inspired by KFC’s Colonel Sanders. The message was clear: denounce mistreatment in the poultry industry.

Years later, Peta hit back at Nintendo with Mario Kills Tanooki (2011), a response to Tanuki’s costume in Super Mario 3D Land. The game featured a bloodied Mario holding the severed head of a raccoon – a criticism of the supposed glamorization of the use of animal skins. The campaign sparked outrage among fans, but also put the discussion of how games portray nature on the agenda.

Another target was the Pokémon franchise, accused of promoting a “simulation of animal fighting” with Pokémon Black and Blue (2012), in which a Pikachu appeared to be beaten by a baseball bat. Peta argued that the game’s battle mechanics encouraged desensitization to animal suffering.

Impact on Players and the Industry

The question that remains is: do these campaigns really influence gamers’ perceptions? Experts in behavioral psychology claim that the representation of animals in games can affect the way people see them – especially children. A study by the University of York (2018) showed that games that humanize animals tend to increase empathy, while stereotypical representations (such as cows as farm “objects”) reinforce views that are disconnected from reality.

On the other hand, many players and developers argue that games are fiction, and not everything needs to be a faithful reflection of real ethics. “If we were to remove everything that could be interpreted as offensive, games would lose their creative freedom,” says a Brazilian game designer. Nintendo has so far not commented on the case of the cow in Mario Kart World, but its track record suggests that it is unlikely to change a character due to external pressure – as it did with the controversial Tanooki costume, which was kept in subsequent games.

Is PETA curtailing creative freedom?

I think PETA crosses a dangerous line when it tries to dictate how game developers should create their characters. It’s not about defending animal rights – it’s about imposing a militant vision on a space that, by nature, is imaginative and exaggerated. Mario Kart is a game where turtles fly, mushrooms turbo and bananas become weapons. Nobody plays with realism or animal ethics in mind. Wanting to remove the cow’s nose ring is like demanding that Yoshi doesn’t eat fruit because it “exploits farm labor”. It’s an absurdity that borders on the ridiculous.

The worst thing is that PETA doesn’t stop there. They’ve already run such aggressive campaigns – like the bloody Mario game – that they turn off even those who sympathize with the animal cause. Instead of educating, they shock. Instead of convincing, they irritate. And in the end, what do they achieve? Just more hatred from the gamer community, which is already tired of seeing games treated as ideological battlegrounds. If they want to change the meat industry, fine, but picking on Nintendo won’t save any real cows.

Find out more about the bloody Mario game, CLICK HERE

The “bloody Mario” case really did exist, and it was one of PETA’s most shocking campaigns against Nintendo. In 2011, when Nintendo released Super Mario 3D Land for the Nintendo 3DS, one of the game’s classic power-ups was the Tanooki Costume, which transformed Mario into a flying raccoon (inspired by the tanuki, an animal from Japanese folklore).

PETA, in its typical aggressive approach, decided to criticize Nintendo by claiming that the costume “glamorized the use of animal skins”. In response, the organization created an online protest game called “Mario Kills Tanooki”. In this game, which was a macabre parody of Super Mario Bros., the character appeared covered in blood, holding the severed head of a raccoon while running through distorted scenery. The message was clear: PETA wanted to associate the game’s cute costume with real violence against animals.

Why was this campaign so controversial?

Graphic extremism: PETA’s game was deliberately violent and disturbing, something completely out of keeping with the tone of Nintendo’s games, which have always been family-friendly. Many saw it as a disproportionate attack on a franchise that, at heart, just wanted to be fun.
Lack of cultural context: The tanuki is a Japanese mythological figure, often portrayed as a magical and playful animal. PETA completely ignored this cultural aspect to create a sensationalist protest.
Hypocrisy: Nintendo never encouraged hunting or the use of real fur – it was just a harmless power-up. Meanwhile, PETA has already been accused of sacrificing healthy animals in its shelters, which has left many people questioning its moral authority.

What was the result?

Nintendo completely ignored the campaign, and Tanooki’s costume continued to appear in later games, such as Super Mario Odyssey. PETA, on the other hand, only succeeded in further alienating gamers, who saw the campaign as yet another example of performative activism disconnected from reality.

In short: yes, “bloody Mario” existed, but it was just another backfire by PETA – an attempt to go viral through shock, without gaining any real support from the gaming community.

And there’s another problem: where will it end? If PETA can force Nintendo to change a detail of a character, what’s to stop other groups from doing the same? Tomorrow they might want to ban Donkey Kong because it “exploits primates”, or Bowser because it “normalizes the domestication of reptiles”. Games are art, and art needs freedom – even to be nonsensical, politically incorrect or simply amusing without needing a manifesto behind it.

PETA seems more interested in attracting attention than making a difference. Instead of investing time in campaigns against factory farms or real mistreatment, they prefer to fight over pixels in a racing game. It’s a waste of energy and a complete distortion of priorities. If they really want to help animals, they should stop boring gamers and focus on where cruelty really exists – in the real world, not in the Mushroom Kingdom.