7 ms·

"not fit for human consumption" is not a synonym for "unfancy". It describes the processes involved to arrive at the final food. Filet mignon can be unfit for h

"not fit for human consumption" is not a synonym for "unfancy". It describes the processes involved to arrive at the final food. Filet mignon can be unfit for human consumption, while pigs' feet can be processed correctly and be fit for consumption.

thinkloop 10y ago
Check this out: http://www.alive.com/health/fit-for-human-consumption/ http://www.alive.com/health/fit-for-human-consumption/ Animals that are sick or unhealthy are separated from the herd and slaughtered independently, then sold for pet food and livestock feed. This was partly what fostered the mad cow issue. There is higher risk for illness with non-human grade food. If you don't want higher risk for your pet than child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food.
- lsc 10y ago
  > if you care about your pet like you do your child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food. This is... an interesting generational thing, I think. To most older people, the idea of caring as much for your pet as you would for a child seems viscerally wrong. They even economize on pet healthcare. but... among those younger than me, your view, as far as I can tell, seems to be the norm. The very idea that you might be unwilling to go bankrupt paying for medical care for your pets seems abhorrent.
  - thinkloop 10y ago
    Great point, I have definitely noticed this in my own family. The elders are not only against "wasting" money above the minimum required for sustenance, but they get openly and visibly angry about it when someone else does. For some reason, this particular issue crosses over from "well I wouldn't do it, but to each his own", to seeing it as a fundamentally immoral act. It surprised me in the beginning. Personally I can't understand the logic. Who cares what species something is, it's just a question of level of consciousness. A dog is pretty much a 2 yr old child. Why have no concern for such a consciousness, whether it's an animal, android, human, or whatever.
    - hueving 10y ago
      >A dog is pretty much a 2 yr old child. So is a pig, so this logic really only applies to vegetarians. There is still something else that motivates meat eating people to care more for their pets.
      - thinkloop 10y ago
        > So is a pig, so this logic really only applies to vegetarians. The quality of life of farm animals should also be respected. If they live their lives in suffering, that shouldn't be taken lightly. At the same time all animals will die at some point, with or without human intervention. If that death happens at a slightly different time for the reality of the way nature works, that's not inconsistent. Keep in mind that wild animals don't generally die of old age gracefully on a golf course. More often than not they're ripped apart by some other animal, or starve to death from injury, or are consumed by disease, etc. Death by human hands is probably one of the less cruel fates. A free-range animal on a cruelty-free farm (if that really exists), with the benefits of human medicine, and a precisely implemented death, is probably one of the happier existences an animal can have.
        hueving 10y ago
        >that's not inconsistent Only if you put down any pet immediately when it becomes sick with something non trivial (what we do with farm animals). However, that's not the case when people spend thousands on a pet to keep it alive with complex treatments.
      - lsc 10y ago
        It's pretty clear that the mental abilities or atributes of the animal is not the primary differentiation between 'something like family' and 'something like food.' The differentiation is in the emotional attachment a person has to other animals that belong to the same class as the animal in question. I mean, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how most people see the matter.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
    > This is... an interesting generational thing, I think. Totally. Not too long ago, pets, and livestock, would be fed table scraps and glad of it. Like we've been taught - actually shamed - into using soap, deodorant and sundry other 'essentials' to the soap manufacturers well-being, so with pet care. Curious about what else they'll come up with next to mop up wealth and productivity. It's bound to be amusing.
    - thinkloop 10y ago
      Are we talking human grade table scraps? :)
- industriousthou 10y ago
  Are dogs able to safely digest some foods that humans aren't? I mean, does it really need to be pointed out that dogs have different nutritional and hygiene requirements than human children?
  - thinkloop 10y ago
    > does it really need to be pointed out that dogs have different nutritional and hygiene requirements than human children The most common dangers are onions (or things cooked in onions) and chocolate. They contain chemicals that are toxic to dogs and should always be avoided. Similarly, many humans are allergic to many foods, and not every human can eat all "human-grade" food. "human-grade" is only a measure of risk of unexpected contents (disease) in the food - not a recommendation that all humans should always eat it.
  - refurb 10y ago
    I was going to say. A number of friends have had their dog chow down on a rotten deer corpse to no ill effect.

thinkloop 10y ago

Check this out: http://www.alive.com/health/fit-for-human-consumption/ http://www.alive.com/health/fit-for-human-consumption/ Animals that are sick or unhealthy are separated from the herd and slaughtered independently, then sold for pet food and livestock feed. This was partly what fostered the mad cow issue. There is higher risk for illness with non-human grade food. If you don't want higher risk for your pet than child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food.

lsc 10y ago
> if you care about your pet like you do your child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food. This is... an interesting generational thing, I think. To most older people, the idea of caring as much for your pet as you would for a child seems viscerally wrong. They even economize on pet healthcare. but... among those younger than me, your view, as far as I can tell, seems to be the norm. The very idea that you might be unwilling to go bankrupt paying for medical care for your pets seems abhorrent.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  Great point, I have definitely noticed this in my own family. The elders are not only against "wasting" money above the minimum required for sustenance, but they get openly and visibly angry about it when someone else does. For some reason, this particular issue crosses over from "well I wouldn't do it, but to each his own", to seeing it as a fundamentally immoral act. It surprised me in the beginning. Personally I can't understand the logic. Who cares what species something is, it's just a question of level of consciousness. A dog is pretty much a 2 yr old child. Why have no concern for such a consciousness, whether it's an animal, android, human, or whatever.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >A dog is pretty much a 2 yr old child. So is a pig, so this logic really only applies to vegetarians. There is still something else that motivates meat eating people to care more for their pets.
    - thinkloop 10y ago
      > So is a pig, so this logic really only applies to vegetarians. The quality of life of farm animals should also be respected. If they live their lives in suffering, that shouldn't be taken lightly. At the same time all animals will die at some point, with or without human intervention. If that death happens at a slightly different time for the reality of the way nature works, that's not inconsistent. Keep in mind that wild animals don't generally die of old age gracefully on a golf course. More often than not they're ripped apart by some other animal, or starve to death from injury, or are consumed by disease, etc. Death by human hands is probably one of the less cruel fates. A free-range animal on a cruelty-free farm (if that really exists), with the benefits of human medicine, and a precisely implemented death, is probably one of the happier existences an animal can have.
      - hueving 10y ago
        >that's not inconsistent Only if you put down any pet immediately when it becomes sick with something non trivial (what we do with farm animals). However, that's not the case when people spend thousands on a pet to keep it alive with complex treatments.
    - lsc 10y ago
      It's pretty clear that the mental abilities or atributes of the animal is not the primary differentiation between 'something like family' and 'something like food.' The differentiation is in the emotional attachment a person has to other animals that belong to the same class as the animal in question. I mean, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how most people see the matter.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  > This is... an interesting generational thing, I think. Totally. Not too long ago, pets, and livestock, would be fed table scraps and glad of it. Like we've been taught - actually shamed - into using soap, deodorant and sundry other 'essentials' to the soap manufacturers well-being, so with pet care. Curious about what else they'll come up with next to mop up wealth and productivity. It's bound to be amusing.
  - thinkloop 10y ago
    Are we talking human grade table scraps? :)
industriousthou 10y ago
Are dogs able to safely digest some foods that humans aren't? I mean, does it really need to be pointed out that dogs have different nutritional and hygiene requirements than human children?
- thinkloop 10y ago
  > does it really need to be pointed out that dogs have different nutritional and hygiene requirements than human children The most common dangers are onions (or things cooked in onions) and chocolate. They contain chemicals that are toxic to dogs and should always be avoided. Similarly, many humans are allergic to many foods, and not every human can eat all "human-grade" food. "human-grade" is only a measure of risk of unexpected contents (disease) in the food - not a recommendation that all humans should always eat it.
- refurb 10y ago
  I was going to say. A number of friends have had their dog chow down on a rotten deer corpse to no ill effect.