from slate on the topic:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/...d_horses_.html
What’s less clear is why Luck’s horses are garnering this response. What makes the suffering of animals in the service of making television so much worse than the suffering of animals in the service of making steak or scrambled eggs? As TIME television critic James Poniewozik writes, “I eat too many hamburgers to pass judgment on Luck,” adding, “I can’t take the moral high ground—again, too many burgers—but logical or not, there’s just something more discomfiting about knowing that horses died so we can watch them in the comfort of our living rooms.”
and further down:
While I am obviously glad that the American Humane Association protects animals on set (they provide the “no animals were harmed” certification), the first thing to pass through my head after hearing news of Luck’s cancellation was the Onion headline “Many Animals Harmed In Catering of Film.” Yes, we make a distinction between animals that suffer for our nourishment and animals that suffer for our entertainment. But when we can get plenty of nutrition without making animals suffer, the justification for that distinction seems unclear.
i think he made some very good points. but i guess it's like dolphin-safe tuna. nobody cares about the tuna!