Ask the Appeal: How Do Vegans Justify Keeping Carnivorous Pets (AKA, Cats)?: News: SFAppeal

February 09, 2012 More Feeds

News

Ask the Appeal: How Do Vegans Justify Keeping Carnivorous Pets (AKA, Cats)?

user-pic
  • 3 Comments
  • +1 Vote
  • Share
  • Email

So a question has been bedeviling me for a couple of weeks, but since I don't want to alienate or offend my veggie friends,...

These are the comments for Ask the Appeal: How Do Vegans Justify Keeping Carnivorous Pets (AKA, Cats)?

(3)

user-pic

Many cats can live healthy lives on a vegan diet. If there are cats who absolutely need to consume animal products, this is a good commentary by Prof. Gary L Francione (Rutgers Uni NJ) that offers some ideas http://bit.ly/JA5VU
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/follow-up-to-pets-commentary-non-vegan-cats/

Dogs absolutely thrive on a vegan diet. They live long healthy lives.

user-pic

I appreciate the thoughtful answer you posted from Steve, but I am confused by the "least harm" approach. Does "least harm" apply to all human choices equally or only to meat?

For example, if soybean farming consumes more resources (i.e. the energy that goes into growing, harvesting, transporting, cooking, consuming) than rice farming, then isn't rice a better "least harm" food than soybeans? In other words, I am wondering if the "least harm" rationale is something that Steve would follow until he is ONLY eating from the very bottom of the food chain? I also wonder if the "least harm" rationale extends to all other energy consumption choices such as clothing, transportation, use of technology, and so on. I suspect that this is not the case and that Steve makes "least harm" a goal, not an absolute, since the email he sent depended on technology that probably used fossil fuels, employed the services of meat eating people, and required hardware, the production of which was very polluting to the environment.

If indeed "least harm" is something you strive for within reason, then the line between meat and non-meat consumption becomes arbitrary. I can try to eat less meat. I can try to avoid soybeans grown on rainforest-destroying farms. I can try to ride my bike. I can do many things that cause less harm. Would Steve agree that "less harm" is the goal while "least harm" is impractical?

user-pic

Seems to me that if a vegan is distressed about having a carnivore for a pet, they should opt for a dog because they do fine on a vegetarian diet, though I'm sure they'd prefer meat.

I saw an episode of Animal Cops ("Dangerous Diet" - Season 2 Episode 13) where a lady was feeding her cats a vegetarian diet. Most of the cats were blind and the rest were in pretty bad shape. Cats need the amino acid taurine, which occurs naturally in meat, to keep healthy. All the cats on the show had big black discs for eyes. Very sad. There's no way to reverse the blindness. Cats are hunters not gatherers and should be treated as such.

From Wikipedia:
Taurine is an essential dietary requirement for feline health, since cats cannot synthesize the compound. The absence of taurine causes a cat's retina to slowly degenerate, causing eye problems and (eventually) irreversible blindness — a condition known as central retinal degeneration (CRD),[58][59] as well as hair loss and tooth decay. It was discovered in 1987 that taurine deficiency can also cause feline dilated cardiomyopathy.[60] Unlike CRD, the condition is reversible with supplementation. Taurine is now a requirement of the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) and any dry or wet food product labeled approved by the AAFCO should have a minimum of 0.1% taurine in dry food and 0.2% in wet food.[61]

Leave a comment

Have you read our comments policy? If not, please do.