Carnism and Diet in Multi-Species Households

Chapter 12 On Ambivalence and Resistance: Carnism and Diet in Multi-species Households

Erika Cudworth

Introduction

Particularly in richer parts of the globe significant numbers of us keep a small number of certain species as companions in our homes. Sixty three per cent of North Americans live with a companion animal, and in 2006, spent $40.8 billion on food, bedding, toys, and recreational activities with their animals (Williams and DeMello 2007, 231–32). In New Zealand, the figure is even higher with 68 per cent of households including a companion animal—the highest level of companion animal guardianship in the world (New Zealand Companion Animal Council 2011, 8). In the United Kingdom (UK), almost one in two households include a companion animal (46 per cent, Pet Food Manufacturers Association, 2014) with the most popular companions being dogs (9 million) and cats (8 million) (Pet Food Manufacturers Association, 2014), which together account for around 45 per cent of animals kept as ‘pets’ (Pet Health Council 2008). Overwhelmingly, these non-human animals depend on ‘their’ humans for food. Until the late nineteenth century, domestic dogs were fed leftover food from human meals and stale or rotten food, and this is still common prac- tice in ‘developing’ countries. From the development of dog ‘biscuits’ in the 1860s, a global industry has emerged which utilizes enormous quantities of readily available corn, wheat, rice, potatoes and soy as well as huge quantities of blood, bone, skin and flesh from domesticate animals slaughtered for meat. In 2007, the pet food industry in the United States (USA) alone sold over $16 billion worth of ‘goods’ (Williams and DeMello 2007, 231). While there are various manufacturers of pet food, the industry is dominated by major food companies and pet food has become a lucrative market for extracting profit by recycling gluts of grain and animal parts deemed unsuitable for human consumption. Pet food is an important element of the global political economy of meat. In this context, this chapter explores the role of carnism in the feeding of companion animals.

Pet food is the subject of vigorous advertising encouraging human consum- ers to buy products that constitute a healthy, natural and/or economical diet for their companion cat or dog, and thereby demonstrate care and responsibil- ity. In such advertising, animal ‘actors’ make their preferences clear. In the cur- rent Iams cat food advertising campaign on British television, the feline actor is blunt: “I am not a vegetarian”, says the voice-over, “these teeth were made for meat” (Iams 2012). The consumption of this food is thereby naturalized for animal companions. Research on the relationship between ‘pet ownership’ and concern with the treatment of non-human animals more widely, is incon- clusive, although there is some evidence that living with a companion animal may encourage empathy to other kinds of animal (Serpell and Paul 1994). This chapter draws on an empirical study of human relations with companion dogs in which many human participants did demonstrate concern beyond ‘their’ animal, with the treatment of ‘pet’ animals (dog fighting, the use of dogs in baiting and hunting wild animals, animal breeding) and animals in agriculture (particularly intensive farming). Although the majority of interviewees in this study were meat-eaters, many did place some restriction on what they ate in terms of the creatures they would eat, or the methods of production involved in the animal foods they ate. Whilst many were troubled by the ‘what we love/ what we eat’ distinction, even the vegetarian dog ‘owners’1 and the lone vegan in the study all fed their dogs meat. Carnism was operationalized unproblem- atically in discussing dogs’ food and diet. Narratives of human choice infuse practices of dietary resistance to carnism, whereas biologism effectively repro- duces the ‘love/eat’ distinction when it comes to feeding animal companions. As one interviewee put it, ‘I’m a vegetarian, but she’s a dog’. This chapter proceeds through five sections. The first two sections set the context. First, a short mapping of the development of pet food, ending with a product recall which threw relations between humans, pets and those few species that are routinely eaten, into sharp relief. Second, I examine the nor- mativity of consuming a limited range of animals in contemporary (Western) cultures through the concept and practices of ‘carnism’. This, Melanie Joy

1 Interestingly, whether vegan, vegetarian or carnist, all interviewees referred to themselves and others as dog owners. None used the term ‘guardian’. While in Critical Animal Studies, the term ‘guardian’ is often preferred, I have come to wonder about this. In countries such as the UK where animal companions are legally property, the term ‘owner’ is both an accurate description and perhaps a continuous reminder of the vulnerability of animal companion under the law and dependent on the attitudes and behavior of their ‘owners’.