MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

House Considers Stupid, Unnecessary Bill Making It Illegal to Kill Cats and Dogs for Food

Americans don't eat their pets. Why does the Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act even exist?

Easton Chen/Dreamstime.comEaston Chen/Dreamstime.comThe House of Representatives will likely consider a bill this week that would make it illegal to kill cats and dogs for food.

The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act was originally introduced last year as part of a farm bill. But the legislation stalled in a conference committee and never made it out of Congress, the Orlando Sentinel reports.

Last week, two members of Congress from Florida—Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Alcee Hastings—reintroduced the bill. Their legislation makes it a crime to "knowingly slaughter a dog or cat for human consumption" and to "knowingly ship, transport, move, deliver, receive, possess, purchase, sell, or donate" any dogs or cats that have been killed for food. Violators can be fined up to $5,000, though the law doesn't apply to Native Americans participating in "religious ceremon[ies]."

Six states currently have laws on the books prohibiting the killing of cats and dogs for food. The remaining 44 do not.

The bill, which has received bipartisan support and is likely to be taken up on Wednesday, should pass easily in the House, according to the Washington Examiner. This is probably because Congress has already solved the rest of the nation's problems and has nothing left on its agenda.

Hastings says he wants the U.S. to serve as an example to other countries where people actually do eat cats and dogs. But eating American house pets is already vanishingly rare; The Washington Post reported in April that there are very few documented cases of this happening.

The existence of a law is unlikely to save the lives of any actual animals. Instead, the goal is to let a few congressmen showboat for specific constituencies in their districts. And, despite the explicit exception for Native American religious ceremonies, you can be sure the law will later be applied unpredicably, unevenly, and unfairly.

Remember, just because something is considered gross or bad by a large number of people (including me!) doesn't mean it should be illegal.

The government should stay out of our stomachs.

Photo Credit: Easton Chen/Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Can we spin this into an immigration debate?

  • grips||

    I see a possible Korean slant to this...

  • SQRLSY One||

    Korean "slant"!??!?!

    RACIST!!!!

  • Hugo S. Cunningham||

    Congress got nervous after Trump started palling up with Kim Jong Eun.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's Joe. He'll spin it into a "you should respect the decision of businesses and not criticize them for said decision, unless I don't like it. Then that's different for reasons that I'm not going to explain, because I don't have to Nazi"

  • SQRLSY One||

    If Americans don't eat their pets, then WHY does this song exist?

    "There's a cat in the kettle at the Peking Moon"

    http://www.streetdirectory.com.....he_kettle/

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Can we spin this into an immigration debate?"'

    Probably. Are American citizens eating their cats and dogs? No. Sounds more like a thing foreigners would do. So we must pass a law against it.

  • ||

    Legislators gotta legislate.

  • H. Farnham||

    "though the law doesn't apply to Native Americans participating in "religious ceremon[ies]."

    Leaves open a perfect opportunity for Elizabeth Warren to prove her heritage on national TV... balls in your court Senator.

  • Red Tony||

    "...balls in [Elizabeth Warren]..."

    eeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Why you gotta go around making people imagining Warren with benoit balls in her?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""balls in your court "'

    So someone is going to throw a hissy fit until they lose?

  • Jerry B.||

    So if breaded and fried calf testicles are prairie oysters, what are breaded and fried cat testicles?

  • Just Say'n||

    "This is probably because Congress has already solved the rest of the nation's problems and has nothing left on its agenda."

    When you libertarian so hard that you look to the government to solve problems or something

  • LynchPin1477||

    It would be nice if they at least solved the ones they made. Even if that just meant not threatening other people who try.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    What do you call a Vietnamese walking a dog? -- A vegetarian.

    What do you call a Vietnamese walking two dogs? -- A rancher.

  • ||

    Their legislation makes it a crime to "knowingly slaughter a dog or cat for human consumption" and to "knowingly ship, transport, move, deliver, receive, possess, purchase, sell, or donate" any dogs or cats that have been killed for food.

    So, the crime would be slaughter, not the preparation? I think I found a loophole. Course, they'll probably ban slaughter next and I'll just have to go back to killing them for sport.

  • ||

    If a bathe in the blood of a cheetah to make me faster does that count as consumption?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Aren't you already bathing in the blood of a cougar several days each month?

  • RoyMo||

    Roger Ward is completely underrated.

  • ipsquire||

    Six states apparently let perfectly good road kill go to waste. Hopefully this preempts them. Children are hungry.

  • ||

    the law doesn't apply to Native Americans participating in "religious ceremon[ies]."

    Then why not a carve-out for Koreans who want to "eat dogs for dinner?"

    Is there any meaningful moral distinction to be made between eating a dog and eating a pig?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yes. Pigs are filthy animals.

  • ||

    Pigs are filthy animals.

    But what if the pig has a charming personality?

  • Tony||

    That's why you clean them then eat them.

  • Just Say'n||

    No one is banning the eating of pigs? And I don't believe any religion requires the consumption of pig?

  • Just Say'n||

    A cultural practice is not the same as a religious practice. Most people do not hold that the inability to abide by their cultural norms will result in eternal damnation.

  • ||

    Most people do not hold that the inability to abide by their cultural norms will result in eternal damnation.

    Native Americans don't believe in damnation.

    A cultural practice is not the same as a religious practice.

    Which does our irrational prohibition on eating the flesh of dogs and cats come from?

  • Just Say'n||

    "Which does our irrational prohibition on eating the flesh of dogs and cats come from?"

    Cultural. Ergo, I don't understand the comparison that is being made.

    The government not affording an accommodation for religious practices is the government asserting that it knows better than your deity.

    The law is stupid, but the religious accommodation is not wrong

  • ||

    Be careful with the assertion that food prohibitions are somehow "cultural" without being "religious." American food prohibitions have pretty demonstrably religious origins, even if we no longer think about them that way.

    Not to say, of course, that the distinctions between "culture" and "religion" aren't perfectly clear and that there's anything there that could be categorized as a "black hole."

  • Just Say'n||

    When it comes to dog and cat consumption there really isn't any religious restrictions involved.

    Korea, where consumption of dogs and cats is most prevalent, is a heavily Christian country.

  • ||

    I didn't say "Christian." Biblical law is clearer about pigs than dogs, and Europeans have happily eaten pigs for centuries.

    Perhaps you can go more specifically into this distinction you make between "religious" and "cultural."

    What is the reasoning behind our cultural approval of pig-eating and our sense that it's okay to pass laws banning people from eating dogs?

  • Rat on a train||

    Do you want a civil war? Ban bacon.

  • Oli||

    For just a bit of an uprising, allow low-fat bacon only.

  • ||

    Is there any meaningful moral distinction to be made between eating a dog and eating a pig?

    Moral moral or 'moral'? Because pigs aren't Kosher/Halaal.

  • ||

    Because pigs aren't Kosher/Halaal.

    I don't believe dogs are, either.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Certainly not kosher. No cloven hooves, no chewing of cud.

  • Furd Turgeson||

    If we're not supposed to eat them then why are they made out of food?

  • Mickey Rat||

    American pet owners insanely anthropomorphize dogs and cats. Was there not a bit of pearl clutching over how Koreans view dogs around the Winter Olympics earlier this year. This is assuring couples with furry kids that their precious's siblings were not being shipped to Asia.

  • ||

    My brother ate a dog while he was in Korea. Said it was a lot like chicken, but tougher.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you have ever been to Puerto Rico, Pinchos are dog on a stick.

  • DiegoF||

    Ha!

    Seriously though, they are not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah, there are still too many dogs walking around for them all to be on a stick.

  • Just Say'n||

    "despite the explicit exception for Native American religious ceremonies"

    Religious liberty is a black hole, guys.

  • ||

    Indeed it is.

  • Just Say'n||

    Illiberalism is a hell of a drug

  • ||

    So is selective liberalism.

  • Just Say'n||

    Opposing religious accommodation makes one as liberal as a Frenchman. American liberalism has emphasized religious accommodation since the founding of the country. The founding fathers even included a few religious accommodation clauses into the text, including the prohibition of forcing federal office holders to swear an oath, which was done specifically for Quakers.

  • ||

    Opposing religious accommodation makes one as liberal as a Frenchman.

    I don't see how this is related to anything I said.

    I understand that the US Gov has a history of passing legislation with implications for people's religious practices for which the US Gov selectively provides carve-outs for when it comes to religions that are "officially recognized" by the US Gov.

    This is why there are carve-outs for Quakers and Native Americans, but not for Rastafarians.

    Your perception that "religious accommodation" is a perfectly simple question with clear answers is tied to your agreement to only recognize that which is defined as "religious" by the government.

  • Just Say'n||

    I mean that's some awfully bad historical analysis. Legislatively there have been carve outs for specific religions but since the 60s religious accommodation through the courts and after the passage of RFRA have benefited minority faiths more than any other.

    If Gary understood this he probably wouldn't have proposed a burka ban, before changing his mind, while maintaining his opposition to religious accommodation without a hint of irony

  • ||

    since the 60s religious accommodation through the courts and after the passage of RFRA have benefited minority faiths more than any other

    And this is why Rastafarians were exempted from marijuana prohibition, right?

    No - because this isn't actually a response to what I said. "The arbiters of what is and isn't religion have declared some non-majority religions okay" is solidly in the neighborhood of "freedom of religion for all legitimately government-recognized religions," which is kinda like "freedom of speech for all ideas recognized as legitimate by the government."

    Hey - no trouble with the First Amendment going on, right? I mean, the First Amendment has been used to defend some pretty unpopular ideas, right?

    I don't think it's so much "awfully bad historical analysis" on my part, which strikes me as an attack in lieu of a response, but your refusal to see that you privilege certain people's "religious practices" over others' "cultural practices" being why you think religious accommodation is a simple problem with obvious answers.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Great, now when the apocalypse hits we'll all have to choose between being criminals or starving to death.

  • ||

    Great, now when the apocalypse hits we'll all have to choose between being criminals or starving to death.

    Phbbbt. Like you've really got a choice.

  • Tony||

    Well that's just racist.

  • Just Say'n||

    The federal government banned horse meat about ten years ago, because a lot of people still wish they had a pony growing up.

    Horse meat is primarily consumed in southern Europe. That ban wasn't influenced by bigotry and neither is this one.

    It's based around the continued prevalence of sumption laws in our society

  • mtrueman||

    Horse meat used to be an ingredient of dog food but people didn't like the idea of their dogs eating horses. Turns out they also don't like the idea of people eating dogs either.

  • ||

    but people didn't like the idea of their dogs eating horses

    You mean people didn't like the idea of other people's dogs eating horses. Because it is easy to avoid feeding one's dog(s) horse meat: one simply doesn't do it, i.e. boycotts dog food made of or containing horse meat.

    These bans are always about outlawing other people's preferences.

  • mtrueman||

    Hell is other people.

  • ||

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.

    -- C. S. Lewis

  • Oli||

    Horse meat is banned in the US? You guys are missing out!

  • Jerry B.||

    Yeah. I met some folks who advocated for this because horses should be able to run free on the Great Plains just like they did before the white man came. They didn't seem to realize where the horses in the Americas came from.

  • RoyMo||

    I have always heard that cat tastes awful, but other than fish carnivores are generally disgusting, even when they taste good they are omnivores and it is always either ones specially fed, like pigs and dogs, or ones in a certain season like bear meat in the fall when they are eating mostly fruit.

  • RoyMo||

    In Chinese newspapers twenty or thirty years ago there were always stories about people eating cats and snakes, the cat eating was always considered abherant and it was always about gaining magical powers, which makes sense. When Cantonese people think a meat can't be made into something tasty I have never found them wrong.

  • DiegoF||

    I think I may have heard that snakes can taste somewhat metallic. Alligators and turtles are delicious, of course, but since the various sorts of "reptiles" are no more closely related to one another than any other tetrapods, probably doesn't tell us much. But you're right. If even the Cantonese think eating something is no fun, it's a good bet everyone else on Earth does too.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Rabbits taste awful. But people still eat them.

    And they are far cuter and softer than cats. We should ban eating them.

  • mtrueman||

    An adult male rabbit even with its eyes scratched out is more than a match for your typical house cat. And they don't kill a bird a day on average as I read somewhere.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I use to have a hunting partner who was Cajun. What he could do with wild hare, grouse and squirrel was simply devine.

  • RoyMo||

    Rabbit is delicious as long as you don't over cook it.

  • Bubba Jones||

    We euthanize millions of dogs and cats each year.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    We could feed the homeless.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    So it's still ok to kill them for other reasons, as long you don't eat them, right?

  • Tony||

    Especially if they get between a cop and a granny in the wrong apartment.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Congress cannot regulate intrastate consumption of cats and dogs.

    I for one, love to eat pussy and hot dogs.

  • Tony||

    Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?

  • Rat on a train||

    I am Booker!

  • Tony||

    ;)

  • Jerryskids||

    Oh bitch, bitch, bitch. You bitch when Congress does horrible stuff that ruins people's lives and then you bitch when they waste their time picking corn kernels out of turds. Count your blessings that they're not doing something "serious" and thank god this is probably the most meaningful piece of legislation Alcee Hastings has ever put his mind to.

  • mtrueman||

    'Hastings says he wants the U.S. to serve as an example to other countries where people actually do eat cats and dogs.'

    American law seems to be following Korea's model which has seen increasingly stringent laws against dog eating for some decades now, fueled in part by public embarrassment over being butt of the joke for the international ribbing.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    I have no problem with this law. Finally they get something right.

  • Ron||

    In this case besides eating dogs and cats which if thats all you have I'd be okay with but in Asia where thats all thats left they don't just kill the animals they torture them to death under the false belief that it improves the flavor, that is the horendous part, its not just about the eating. Yes the eating of dogs and cats is minimal in the U.S but with the increase in immigrants from those parts of the world I wouldn't put it past them to maintain that tradition. thats not a racist comment its a truth about a part of a culture that we don't want in this country.

  • Ornithorhynchus||

    Joe Setyon is muscling in on Baylen Linnekin's territory.

  • DiegoF||

    This is an immoral, disgusting, obnoxious, and dangerous law. Animals are property. They are property with feelings and well-being; but this bill has nothing to do with cruel treatment of living animals, only consumption of dead ones. This is coming at a time when animal rights activists, truly the most radical political agenda ever to have existed (even Pol Pot did not declare man equal to beast in Year Zero) and one of the cleverest and most effective, are making an alarming amount of incremental gains both in the political and cultural arenas. Similar to the radical environmentalists having similar success with an incremental strategy, we need to take a stand on both fronts and destroy them in both arenas before they destroy us, and human civilization as we know it out of their psychological perversions.

    However as this bill's support is revealing, animal rights' prospects are actually brighter than ecoextremism's, because while being an "environmentalist" is somewhat confined to the (albeit exploding in clout) cultural ghetto of the bougie Left (this has always been much less true in Europe), the same is not the case for being an "animal lover." And neither, of course, is our desire to impose our cultural traditions on our own populace at the point of a gun, or to declare it our mission to chauvinistically spread them about the world. (Again, let's just be glad we're not Europeans facing a ritual slaughter ban to really show 'em who's boss.)

  • DiegoF||

    ...In light of all this, it's nothing short of a miracle that in only a tiny number of states have our local yokels decided to use their statehouses to send a message to Southeast Asia. Apparently this stops now, though, because as with "human trafficking" alarmism no politician not named Ron Paul wants to be seen opposing this. (Look for Ted Cruz to proudly trumpet his support any day now.)

    The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., says dogs and cats "provide important companionship to millions of people and should not be slaughtered and sold as food."

    Says who, you fucking asshole? You? How the fuck does one thing follow from the other, except by your cultural chauvinism and thirst for power and self-promotion? Minks and pigs lead as rich an inner life as any pet. Seriously, I can't believe Congress is about to do this when not even the statehouses would touch it. We bitch about straw bans, but really it's the same general political culture--only given a broader-based manifestation of support in this instance. And until we defeat these general ideas, we will be forever susceptible to this kind of petty tyranny.

  • Longtobefree||

    No budget yet, but we get this?
    Typical.
    Please vote in November, and take a printout of this in the booth with you.

  • DiegoF||

    Vote for who? This bill will clear the House with voice vote. No one is against it. Everyone is parroting this same inane nonsense that "dogs and cats provide companionship to people, therefore no one should eat them and it's my business to force them not to." And again, not even the state governments--the laboratories of bad ideas--have deigned to pass any law so ridiculous. (Note that you cannot legally sell dog or cat meat in any state.) Contrast dogfighting which was a crime in 49 states and all territories when the Federal law passed.

    I can't believe this miraculous pocket of personal liberty actually existed; and more's the pity that I can't enjoy it while it lasts since Puerto Ricans do not eat doggies or kitties.

  • crufus||

    Will it still be OK to kill cats and dogs for fun as long as we don't eat them?

  • DiegoF||

    Carry on with caution my emotionally stable friend. It simply won't be a Federal crime. Potential bad news about the fur you bought your wife last anniversary too. I don't care how trustworthy Mr. Chang seemed at the time; there is no such thing as a tabby mink.

  • Oli||

    Next you want to tell me minks don't meow?

  • Agammamon||

    Got a few questions.

    1. How *specifically* did they define 'dog' and 'cat'. Is a coyote considered a dog? They can interbreed with dogs (and wolves - all three can interbreed with each other). They look like dogs. They act like dogs. Sometimes they eat dogs. If I ate one of them, would that be illegal?

    2. What about non-domesticated cats? Is cougar meat off the table? Tiger? Lion?

    3. What Native American *religious* ceremonies ever involved the eating of dogs? Which ones involved the eating of dogs and/or cats specifically, and not coyotes or wolves (and I'm pretty sure they don't eat any of them for religious purpose. Or even for non-religious purposes)?

    4. The sponsoring politicians have a large Korean minority in their districts, don't they? 'Cause everyone *knows* them chinks love 'em some doggie, amirite guys?! Gotta do something to stop them from snatching up poodles off the street. Its like people freaking out because the French have been known to, on occassion, eat horse - so we passed a bill making producing horsemeat for human consumption illegal. Idiots. Racists idiots.

  • ||

    I was wondering something similar. I would bet cash money that the Native American carve-out has to do with consuming wolf or coyote in some ritualized form. Hard to believe they'd have had time to develop officially-recognizable religious practices having to do with domesticated dogs, which they had never heard of before Europeans came.

    I wonder, also, whether if I tried to consume wolf as part of a Neo-Pagan Nordic ritual if I would be granted an exception, too. Somehow I think not.

  • DiegoF||

    The fact that no one has moved against ritual goat slaughter is a clear sign that, despite the veneer of democracy and racial progress, beneath it all we live in Augustus Sol Invictus's America.

  • SIV||

    Hard to believe they'd have had time to develop officially-recognizable religious practices having to do with domesticated dogs, which they had never heard of before Europeans came.

    *Face-palm*

    You're thinking of horses.

  • Bill Poser||

    Cats are not indigenous to the Americas. Native Americans did have dogs.

  • Rat on a train||

    Small cats are not native. Jaguar, puma, bobcat, lynx, ocelot and jaguarundi are all native.

  • DiegoF||

    1. Good question! Many states already have laws governing the killing of dogs, and (recently) enhanced laws against cruelty to them. Neither would presumably cover coyotes, which would almost certainly be covered by varmint laws. (Wolves would obviously be more complicated.) What about coywolves and coydogs? Is domestication the difference in that case? Weird.

    2. That reminds me that I take back this business about not wanting to eat kitty cats. Because Jared Diamond says lionburger is delicious, and I have to get me some of that before I die. (And laws governing keeping big cats are surprisingly more lax than one might think in the U.S.)

    3. Probably none. But they might start tomorrow for all we know. The specific "Indian" religious traditions (most Indians are Christians) are overwhelmingly rapidly and recently developing and spreading syncretic practices, not ones that are slow to change over the centuries like the Old World religions.

  • DiegoF||

    4. These various communities often have their own "betters" in local leadership who are deeply embarrassed about these types of practices and often take it upon themselves to speak for the entire community and stamp them out (often calling them "myths"). Some especially cohesive communities, like the Haredi Jews, are indeed good about keeping the government out of their business. But most are not, especially in these days when so many political classes worldwide seek an easy way to show their "sophistication" by some superficial gesture that impresses bougie Westerners. (But this elite hostility towards the "embarrassing" practices of your people is hardly new. Remember it wasn't Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Florida. It was Hialeah.)

  • lap83||

    "The House of Representatives will likely consider a bill this week that would make it illegal to kill cats and dogs for food."

    Yikes, maybe they know something we don't.

  • Alcibiades||

    Until today I never wanted to eat dog or cat meat.

    Now I do.

  • Alcibiades||

    Until today I never wanted to eat dog or cat meat.

    Now I do.

  • Tony||

    How about squirrel?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Hastings says he wants the U.S. to serve as an example to other countries where people actually do eat cats and dogs."
    Not to mention the fact that if I eat my dog it would be an act of cultural appropriation.

  • BYODB||

    Now do cannibalism?

  • DiegoF||

    Just leave the brain, scrumptious as it is. Say no to kuru.

  • Presskh||

    I guess all those Vietnamese refugees we brought over after the fall of South Vietnam are having an affect after all.

  • ||

    Because racism. Our culture doesn't eat them but others do, so we must stomp those cultures into the mud at all costs. There are cultures that are horrified by our eating bovines. There are people who keep llamas as pets.

    Just because some animals are pets somewhere doesn't mean they should be protected that way, especially when it originates in cultural discrimination.

  • Presskh||

    So, India is blatantly racist because they don't eat cows? Leave it to a lefty to tie everything to "racism". I think it's a dumb proposed law as well, but it has nothing to do with someone's race. Besides, I thought that our modern leftist schools taught that there is no scientific basis for defining someone's "race" - at least, that's what they taught in the public school my son attended.

  • Niferno||

    The problem from a safety standpoint is that vaccinations, euthanasia drugs and other parasite treatments etc aren't approved for human consumption. THAT is why it shouldn't be in our food.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Why do we call some animals pets and others food?

    We could really be eating all of them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some of us do eat all of them.

  • Bill Poser||

    I am fairly familiar with Native American cultures and I can't think of one in which people eat dogs or cats.. Domestic cats are not native to the Americas, so it could not be a long-standing tradition. Dogs were work animals. I have heard of people killing and eating dogs when they were starving, but not otherwise. The people I know of who eat dog are Koreans and Japanese (in some parts of Kyushu). The people I know of who eat cats are from southern China.

  • markm23||

    My daughter was engaged to a Cherokee once, but broke up with him when he insisted on the traditional wedding feast - dog. I suppose dogs were work animals most of the time, and occasionally a last-ditch food reserve, but when an event had to come off on schedule, it made sense to not rely on a hunter being successful at bringing in the main course.

  • Curly4||

    Yes that is a stupid law. Even if it passed and in the time of emergency the law would not be enforced. But if they are going to make it illegal to kill pets (cats and dogs) why not all pets? The every animal has been a pet at one time or another so no animal could be used for food.

  • Sevo||

    "...This is probably because Congress has already solved the rest of the nation's problems and has nothing left on its agenda...."

    We have a similar problem in San Francisco; idiot legislators with time on their hands.

  • mtrueman||

    Instead of solving problems as god intended.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

    Keep it up; your rep is secure.

  • CE||

    They're setting us up so we can't make a profit during the zombie apocalypse.

  • dpbisme||

    Silly BS.

    Not that I eat Dog or Cat but who are these jerks to tell me what I can and cannot eat?

  • 3sides||

    It is a persistent rumor that some cheap dog food brands contain rendered, euthanized dogs and cats. DNA testing is needed to evaluate this allegation. It is also sometimes asserted that poor people unable to afford food intended for people consume pet food. If euthanized, rendered dead dogs and cats are used in cheap pet food, we need legislation to prevent pets and people from eating dogs and cats.

  • ipatrol||

    As a matter of federalism, if the bill were to ban the interstate or international trade of dog and cat meat, and live animals for the purpose of slaughter, then I would not find that objectionable. We as a society have a certain right to limit practices that we see objectionable, as 44 of the states apparently already do. I'm not sure if the interstate trade of dog and cat meat is an actual issue, but I cannot see a compelling liberty interest that would weigh against the decision to enact this law. And unlike most federal laws, it covers conduct that most people already in the country are morally predisposed to avoid.

  • Niferno||

    Just an FYI, no one "wants" to eat dogs or cats. But we have seen horse meat find it's way into our food supply. The danger there is drugs used for horses that are not approved to be safe for human consumption. We are seeing a trend in euthanasia drugs showing up in pet food. That means euthanized dogs and cats are being rendered into (primarily) dog food. Giant food conglomerates often make human food and pet food (ie. Mars) Is it that far of a stretch that we could find rendered pet food in our own food supply? This is one small regulation among many that does not bother me.

  • markm23||

    I'm wondering how many of the sponsors of this bill praise "diversity"?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online