Have poor people been forced to eat pet food?

Great Debates
61

Thanks lucwarm, I am glad someone sees my point.

Squink, I am saying that just because a poor person did eat pet food that does not mean he was forced to eat pet food. I am not arguing whether some people might not take to eating pet food, I am saying they are not forced by outside circumstances. Maybe they like it or they are ignorant or stupid or crazy but there are no existing objective factors which would make eating pet food a much better choice than regular food. The fact that people might do it does not mean the reason is what you say it is.

I can say college students drink a lot of beer and that is a fact and the reason for that is that they are short of money and drink to forget their money problems. That college students drink is a fact and that many college students have money problems is also a fact but I have not proven there is a cause-effect connection between them.

Since most poor people do not take to eating pet food this is proof that poverty does not force one to eat pet food. BTW. your dog food works out at 45 cents a pound which is quite a bit more than I pay for bulk cereal and about what I pay for white bread in the DC area. I am sure in rural America prices are much cheaper.

But hey, if dog food is so good and healthy for a person then we should have people eat more of it and not less. Just repackage it and call it health food. The whole premise that dog food is healthier for humans and food destined for human consumption will kill you is so silly I can only say that if we have a class of people whose nutritional needs are best met with dog food then that is by definition human food and perfectly good for humans. Food is food. An apple is bird food and human food so you can say I eat bird food. If dog food is so admirably suited for a good human diet, then we should just all start eating it right away for health reasons.

Food is food whereever you find it. Some people go fishing, some people grow their own vegetables, some people raise chickens, and some people buy all their food in the store. The fact that some food items can serve to feed humans and animals does in no way detract from the fact that they are good food for humans. I am sure many people buy cheap meat at the store to feed their pets, the same meat I may buy for myself. The fact that it is used for animals does not mean it is not good for me. If pet food is so healthy and cheap as you say then we should be eating more of it, not less…

IIRC the fact is that Al Gore mentioned the story of a poor old woman who was forced to eat pet food so she could afford her insulin (or something like that) and when he was called on it he was not able to produce the poor old woman and had to admit the story was pretty much an exageration (i.e. made up) for effect.

I have a problem with groups which exagerate their cause and make it look as bad as they can to gain support. Groups that claim the facts about blacks being discriminated or women being raped or children going hungry or whatever are much worse than they really are. When presented with data that shows the situation is not as bad as they paint it you would think they would rejoice but instead they deny the evidence. They do not want to lose the enemy they are fighting and they will make it up if need be. I have a problem with that.

We are all against rape, poverty, hunger, discrimination etc. so let us fight real instances of those things and not make them up where it is convenient for us.

62

There you go comparing carbs to protein again. I guess a balanced diet for the poor just isn’t part of your worldview. Are you OK with the idea that some poor people are forced to eat cheap crap that ruins their health ? Or would that raise uncomfortable issues of the poor being trapped in a positive feedback loop ?

Yes, by all means let us close our eyes to those things which are inconvenient for us, and certainly to those things which our ideological foes have used against us. Maybe if we can believe hard enough, nature will come to conform to our predjudices, and all will be well in this best of all possible worlds.

63

Wow, white bread and Chef Boyardee’s and cereal and hot dogs are that bad for you? So people who do have money and buy the stuff are risking their lives? I had no idea. I guess the government should make everybody eat dog food as being healthier.

I think we have discussed this enough and the readers can make up their own minds.

BTW, if you happen to come across the old lady who eats pet food, please tell her Al Gore is still looking for her.

64

I used to eat my cat’s Tender Vittles when I was little.
And I’ve tasted cat food out of curiosity.

65

Sailor, from the way you keep bringing it up, it’s the Al Gore argument that really clinches the issue for you here isn’t it ? Even with your tortured definition of “force” and wholesale dismissal of various categories of poor folk who might be likely to eat pet food, you just don’t have enough to prove that it doesn’t happen. So you have to go with the old “but satan says it’s true”, so it must be false, ploy.
Despite this threads promising beginning in over GQ, the time for open, rational and objective discussion is clearly over.

66

Sailor– You’ve gleefully mentioned this Al Gore story in almost every one of your posts, using it to not only disprove the OP, but to rip into Gore’s credibility. But I think the story actually does more to question your credibility. I’m surprised no-one else has done this, so I guess I will: ** CITE??? **

I followed the election pretty closely, and I don’t remember this Al Gore/Pet Food story at all. I do remember him mentioning that animal medicine is cheaper than human medicine, and he admitted that was an exaggeration…but that would have nothing to do with the OP.

So…please point me to an account of Al Gore admitting that he made up a story about an elderly woman being forced to eat pet food in order to save money for her medication. A legitimate news account…not a reference from a ditto-head webpage.

67

Mr. Frink, my arguments about the price of food and objective conditions which would force someone to eat pet food do not depend at all on the Gore quote having happened or not. I cited it just as a side comment and I said “IIRC” because it is a very vague thing in my memory. Whether it did or did not happen has zero relevance for the purposes of this thread so you can consider the whole thing like I never mentioned it. I think this thread has pretty much exhausted itself and is not worth investing any time on.

Aside: Sometimes I see threads that go on and on in circles and getting nowhere and I have this idea that when a thread gets to a certain point the mods should say: This thread wil be closed at X hour so make your final argumentsnow, then we will have a vote and have a poll to see who was more convincing.

68

What’s the big deal? As Mangetout hinted at before, pet food is essentially made out of the same quality products that you can expect from any fast food joint.

Pet food comes form the same cows, pigs, chickens, and fish. It has the same growth hormones, same antibiotics, same residual toxins, same fecal matter, same flavor and odor enhancers in it.

But you don’t see people all up in arms about poor people, or anyone for that matter, eating at McDonalds, do you?

Best,

TGD

69

Hi Guys!
Nice discussion, a little bit academic perhaps…
I’ve never been in USA, but the OP does not say USA, so I think I can put here some comments:

  • the poor in every country I have seen does not know a thing about how much they need protein. That goes for quite many pensioners also. They eat what they can afford and what tastes good enough, that’s it.
    My own view, withouth proof, is that the companies that makes the pet food are very serious to put only “good food” in it.
    They can’t afford that the e.g. dog-owners read somewhere that this or that brand has some “shit” in the food.

The people can have a short memory when it is about their own welfare, but if “Spotty” once gets diarea of the food it means; War, Courthouse etc.
They never forget and sees to that every dogowner in the neighbouhood will know it!

  • OK. So we know what to do: Most of us are well-educated, some of us have been taught in the Army hove to get food in the forest, even without a knife, etc.

  • 65 year old Agatha, have no idea about this and she is not living in the forest…
    OK, it seems like some of us would like to say to her: “Get a life, get a work!”. Nobody has said it here, I just wanted to remark that we are maybe a little bit far away, in our ivory towers, from the “subject”.
    Even alcholism is a sickness, but let’s first help those that are “really” sick.
    The social welfare is not a “liberal” thing. It is about helping people to recover from something, so that they can begin to work for their country again.
    Or in case of old people, it is the fact that they have created the base on which we, the strong ones, are living now.

  • In Finland there was a serious debate some 10 years ago: “Why does the pet-food factories sell better when the economy goes bad.”
    At that time the income was in average cut some 30% within a year, because of the bank crise and the export crise. Finland was bankrupt, and they bought military stuff from USA, Hawks etc., for the half of the total budget for a year, splitted up on 5 years though, and cut down the social welfare. (And got some nice international loans, that we so urgently needed).
    Now Finland is rich again…

Can someone find the statistics of dogfood-selling and US economy for the last 10 years? If You can, You have mostly certain got this debate somewhere.

But for me the interesting question is: can we afford to help these people in great need, in the world most rich countries?

  • in Russia when the roubel was devalvated 70 %, three years ago, the freerunning dogs and cats vanished within weeks.
    Now everything is a little bit better.

  • the rest of the world: well every 4th second dies a person, mostly a child, in hunger.
    OK, this was not the OP. Sorry.

Have You ever debated this here in Great Debates? If so, please inform me, and I jump there and do not mess around anymore.

70

In fact, if pet food is, in fact, healthier than human food then the FDA should be promoting the consumption of pet food by people.

What people consider edible food is very cultural and one thing may be a delicacy in one culture and disgusting in another. Think of insects, snails, barnacles, durian, etc. Chicken feet are a delicacy in China and they are exported by the full container from the US.

A couple of years ago I had a friend from China visiting in DC and we were at the supermarket looking at cans when one caught her eye and she put it in the cart. I took a closer look and it looked most unappetizing. It was labeled something like “meat food product” and the listing of ingredients was very vague. It sounded to me like a product made with meat plant leftovers. The kind of stuff they might use for pet food except they might have to add other nutrients so it was cheaper to sell it for human consumption. Anyway, being the nice guy that I am, I bought the can which went into a cabinet in the kitchen and was never used by her. A couple of months after she had left I found the can and, thinking about all the famine in Africa (and being the cheapskate that I am) I decided to eat it. I’m telling ya, pet food probably tastes better.

71

Sailor, sailor, sailor. I don’t think I quite understand your point. First of all, there is not one giant monolithic category “human food.” There are varying levels of healthiness in the foods we classify as “human foods.” Dog food, which is designed to provide a balanced diet all by itself, for dogs, would almost certainly be a healthier diet than white bread and hot dogs, although the nutritional needs of humans and dogs do indeed vary. This does NOT mean that ALL foods produced and marketed for humans by the food industry are inherently healthier for humans than those foods produced and marketed for nonhuman animals. That kind of thinking is just putting WAAY too much faith in the food industry. In fact, I would suspect that the opposite would tend to be true, because many human foods are produced with flavor in mind, just to excite the taste buds. (And much of what is considered “human food”, I would hardly consider to be “food” at all.) Pet food exists as a source of nutrition, although there are treats and such as well, but those too tend to have sound nutritional value.

There are plenty of ways to live healthy on human food. There are all sorts of tasty, nutritious prepared meals. Those require money. Also, if you have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats, a way to cook them, and such, you can also live pretty well. However, for the destitute, the desparetely poor, when every penny counts, pet food is probably, as has been demonstrated by previous posters, the simplest, cheapest way to obtain a more or less balanced diet. It requires no preparation, putting it a step ahead from the bulk grains, dry rice and beans suggested by other posters. But of course, since poor people are so stupid and lazy and don’t want to work, they sure have plenty of time to cook their food, right? :rolleyes:

And really, lay off the “the government should promote pet food for people now” drivel. No one is buying into this lame, frothing-at-the-mouth scare tactic. Admitting that pet food may be a more economical means of nutritional subsistence for the desparately poor is not going to result in our whole precious status as humans being lost, reducing us to eating generic pet kibble from plastic bowls. Besides, do the words “political suicide” mean anything to you?

As you astutely pointed out, many of the foods labeled for human consumption, such as canned mystery meats, and also those cheap hot dogs you promote so strongly, probably contain ingredients comparable to those in pet food. Just because there’s a picture of a German shepherd on the bag does not mean that no rational person would ever touch the stuff, especially with all the people out there scarfing down cheap hot dogs, which are likely less healthy. Of course, they would probably be more rational in your mind, since they are eating “human food.”

Your entire point, so far as I can discern is “Pet food?!? Ewww, gross!! Eat hot dogs instead! MMmm, hot dogs.” And of course, the occasional foray into incoherent ravings about the government and Al Gore.

Oh yeah, and as an aside, Ellen Cherry, I love your name. I have probably 20-30 pages left in Skinny Legs and All, and I can’t wait to finish it, and see what happens when that seventh veil falls!

72

Actually, this touches on a problem some have with cites like this.

The earlier part of your post mentioned that 10% of the US populace does not have access to enough food. Then this quote comes in, with its references to eating paper (a strategy that we all would agree is not a good idea), eating expired food (which many would argue is more like bargain shopping than a desperate attempt to ward off death by starvation), and then two other options that seem to contradict your original point.

Since when is eating left overs evidence of impending starvation? And if people are getting free food from food shelves, almost by definition they do have access to food. How are these evidence that anyone is mal- or under-nourished?

It is unpleasantly close to the “three million homeless in America” figure that Mitch Snyder made up off the top of his head. and which got repeated enough to be accepted by the Left as gospel. I get the feeling that so much of what passes for evidence about hunger in America is actually the politically motivated opinions of those with an ax to grind, or a grant to try for.

I have no doubt there are instances of people eating pet food, for a variety of reasons. Dare I confess it, I have done so myself, on a dare from my brother. But you can’t get from that to the claim that there are millions of starving people in America without a leap of faith that would boggle the mind of a medieval monk.

Has anyone ever eaten Alpo? Probably. Is the practice at all widespread in the US? Nope.

Obesity is more of a problem among the poor in the US.

Regards,
Shodan

73

>> Sailor, sailor, sailor. I don’t think I quite understand your point

joyofdiscord, you got that right. Let me put it in a nutshell.

Someone says some people are forced to eat pet food and that is an awful thing.

I say they are not forced to eat pet food because there is human food which costs about the same and I provide some examples of food that I eat often.

Someone then says that food is awfully unhealthy and pet food is much healthier for the same price.

So I say, ok, so if that (pet) food is much healthier, what’s so bad about people eating it?

You cannot have it both ways in the same argument. Is it a bad thing or a good thing? It cannot be a bad thing at the beginning of the argument and a good thing later.

So you have to make up your mind. Is eating pet food a bad thing? If so why?

74

Most likely true, but in any case, this acknowledges the fact that hunger is also a problem, although perhaps not as serious statistically. However, I’m sure most of us have seen a gaunt homeless person. In the homelessness thread also linked to above, there are plenty of examples of people having trouble getting food.
And sailor, as to whether it’s good or bad, it is just not that black and white. The OP was asking whether poor people being “forced” to eat pet food has happened. Well, you seem to be demanding that it be proven that eating pet food not only has happened by people in situations of survival (As with Mr. Cynical), but also, but also, you seem to demand that it be the ONLY option that will sustain life. People in desparate situations do have choices in front of them as well, although the choices are less desirable than those available to those that are better off. Some of those choices are eating dog food, eating day old bread and occasional McMeals (like Czarcasm in the above thread), eating hot dogs, bread, soup (like Harmonious Discord :slight_smile: in the above thread as well), and eating dog food (like Mr. Cynical, same thread). It would be quite presumptuous and insulting to decide whether each of these choices were “good” or “bad”, as each of those posters was in a situation of survival and doing it however they could. They all had downsides. Czarcasm said his energy was shot from living on bread. Harmonious Discord now hates hot dogs. I can’t specifically find anything negative about the Gravy Train in particular from Mr. Cynical, but the situation he was in was bad.

These people, like many other poor in the world, are forced by economic necessity, situation, and personal limitations, to choose between less desired options if they wish to ensure their survival. They make their choices. Some choose pet food. That has been established. I agree that the thread is not currently very productive, but that’s because you are demanding things from it that are unreasonable. You want to dismiss the proposition of poverty driving people to something like eating pet food, so you have brought down value judgments on the people that do it. You have jumped all over the issue of poverty, managed to trot out completely unrelated issues like welfare queens and pizza.

Actually, this is incorrect, because we have one example, at our fingertips, of Mr. Cynical, who not only described the situation, but provided the rational logical reasons he subsisted on pet food. 50 lbs cost next to nothing, so he could live on it as a staple. There ya go, question answered. You seem to think that if you can think up any other option, then it must qualify as a “better choice.”

And as for your mind-boggling demand of pet food eating being labeled universally “good” or “bad” across the whole debate, you might want to keep in mind that you’re the one that insisted that pet food was such a bad choice that anyone who did it must be “crazy, or ignorant or stupid.” Then, when it is pointed out to you that it can sustain the human body more or less adequately, and at least on a competitive basis with white bread and hot dogs and bulk cereal, you started suggesting that if this was the case, our government should endorse it, trying to paint the other posters here as being strongly in favor of the practice. Then, you are the one that complains of the cognitive dissonance, when you are the one that created it with your nonsensival extrapolations. And yes, a choice can have both good and bad parts. That’s part of living in the real world, where many things are complex, and cannot be boiled down into wholly good or bad. Want a breakdown of the value of eating pet food? Here it is:

It is good for the pet food company and its employees, the distrubution industry, and retailers.

It is bad for the animals that were turned into the pet food.

It is good for the people that eat it, if it keeps them from starving.

It is bad for the people that eat it if it takes away their dignity.

It is good for the people that eat it if it provides a healthier diet than other alternatives. (e.g. lots of white bread, most bulk cereals, especially the cheaper ones, for the reason of lack of protein. Probably also hot dogs. Hot dogs don’t keep as well, either, and cost twice as much per weight as the sack of dog food mentioned earlier in the thread.)

It is bad for the people that eat it if it provides a less healthy diet than other alternatives. (e.g. canned foods like beans, soups, tuna fish, which so far the thread and my own “perception of prices” tells me is much more expensive than sacks of dry dog food)

It is bad for pets, if it deprives them of food.

It is good for children in poor families if their parents eat pet food to save money to provide their children with healthier food. (A hypothetical situation that may never have occurred, but this is a complicated world we live in, yessirree, and choices like this are very real to many people. Surely, while someone in this situation wouldn’t be “forced” to eat the food, as they could probably all subsist as a family with food of midrange price and healthiness (this is your hot dogs and the like), but it may certainly be a better choice)

I could go on and on, coming up with more and more outlandish examples, but the bottom line is, this isn’t black and white. Real people, reasonable people, have been in dire straits, and forced to make tough choices. Sometimes those choices have included eating pet food. This has been demonstrated by example and its plausibility has been verified on mathematical and nutritional bases by all the facts and figures figures presented thus far. End of story. Why, sailor, do you have such a problem accepting that, and instead take the thread off on your own personal tirade against the poor and deride anyone who has to makes such a choice as “crazy, or ignorant or stupid”? The answer to the question posed in the thread topic is, by any reasonable interpretation of the question, a simple yes. You have decided to pile on many irrelevant conditions and demands, which can only be answered with more information irrelevant to the discussion, like demanding that the practice be classified as “good” or “bad”.

75

[hijack]

Wow. I didn’t realise this topic was such a bone of contention.

[/hijack]

76

A Milk Bone™ of contention, perhaps? Har Har.

Oh yeah, and just for the record, food stamp abuse does happen, and it can be used to buy alcohol, it’s just a real process. I used to be a cashier in a grocery store so I know how it happens. This is in NY, at least, and a few years ago. First, you get your stamps into as many 1’s as possible, since 1’s are the only stamps you can receive in change. They are the ones that circulate, and you don’t have to have a serial number that matches the book. (I’d suspect that they might have some value as a sort of black market currency, valued at less then face value, 50-75%, say. Then, you take the 1’s and buy the tiniest things you can, one at a time. Kool-Aid packets are popular. This gets you coins, in the area of 75-90 cents. Repeat a few times and you have your six pack. Granted, this is a time consuming process, and if you do it all in the same store, you are likely to get reported, but it does happen. People are resourceful, and that manifests itself both in creative abuse of any available commodity, as well as deriving nutritional value from pet food. :wink:

77

>> End of story

I am so relieved to hear that. The horse was dead quite a while ago.

78

…then why is OBESITY the No. 1 health problem among the poor?
I could understand the arguement that people were eating pet food, if they were too poor to purchase human food. However, according to the CDC, obesity is a major health issue among the poor population. This would argue that the poor are eating MORE than is necessary to sustain life.
Whenevre I visit a fast food establishement, I am struck by how much people (who are obviously overweight) consume of the unhealthy food. I don’t see how someone who is seriously obese can eat two big Macs, with fries and a shake, and not think that they are shortening their life.
But then, people are not logical!

79

There is one almost perfect food - baked beans…any nutritionist will tell you they are an excellent food source…they are about 1/4 or less the cost of canned dog food, especially the name brands (as was previously mentioned - an australian current affairs program some years back showed an elderly pensioner eating PAL - one of the more expensive brands of dog food). There are many foods that are cheaper than dog food… someone mentioned rice, others said they may not be able to cook it…you can “cook” rice by simply leaving it water for a period of time (some people “cook” rice in the fridge). I honestly can’t see how anyone could find it cheaper to eat dog food (especially brand name dog food) instead of people food…it doesn’t make sense… i’ve lived on a strict budget most of my life although, thankfully I’ve never had to live on the streets… i know how hard it is to eat decent food…and anyone who says “it’s cheap to eat healthy” should be shot…perhaps it was once, but at least here in australia, it isn’t anymore. but…baked beans are a perfect example of a very healthy nutritious food that can be purchased cheaper than dog food…sure, you wouldn’t want to live on it constantly, but there are other foods you can suppliment it with also

80

ralph, are you aware that there are degrees of poverty?

An 80-year-old woman living on Social Security in a tar-paper shack is a lot different than a 30-year-old able-bodied McDonald’s employee. Would you expect the former to be obese too?

Is a homeless guy in the same boat as someone living on foodstamps and Section-8 housing?

I know!