"Jim Swayze [log in to unmask] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" wrote:
>
> This may come across as sick (but no more sick that the discussion of bug eating
> from last week -- a prejudice I am afraid I will never overcome).  But, on one
> level, I am glad to hear that the bodies of these dogs and cats are being used
> in pet food.  Not cancerous growths, dog collars, packaging and the like, but
> why not use the fat and protein?

I agree.

I accept there are a number of other moral/ethical issues raised by the
site Sandra pointed out, but IMHO, once the decision has been made that
a dog or cat is to be euthanased, I have no problem feeding the carcass
to a carnivore/omnivore. This is quite different to feeding animal
protein to cattle - herbivores. (Again, I do agree there are other
issues in the way pet food manufaturers make pet "foods".)

> Maybe I'm just a little different, but I did not freak out a few years back when
> there was talk of kangaroo meat being used in Burger King burgers.  (Which was
> probably just a hoax).  But my reaction was, other than possible social taboos,
> is there anything inherently unhealthy about eating the meat of a kangaroo?

I hope not, I have a few kilos sitting in my freezer right now. I eat
Kangaroo as often as I can afford, and if it were not for the racist
Australian laws, would hunt my own 'roo on a regular basis. Kangaroo has
the National Heart Foundation "tick" of approval, (not that that means
much!) and is known for its low fat, low cholesterol, "clean"
(non-adulterated by chemicals) properties.

> If not, then why the big deal?

I believe it is purely cultural conditioning. The same thing that makes
people recoil in horror at the thought of eating dogs, cats horses etc.
We have been brought up to re-classify some of our food as "pets". This
creates the implied classification of "food" for those items that we do
eat. Now, rather than having a broad outlook for potentioal food sources
we tend to limit ourselves to those items that have traditionaly fallen
into our particular cultural "food" category, eliminating all others,
despite the fact that our natural food should include *all* available
animals. (IMHO)

> But back to pet food, what is much, much more harmful for dogs and cats is the
> addition of cereal grains.

Agreed!


Jim Walsh