Update to Terms of Service + New Bylaws (Protections for users)
Hey all,
In light of recent events concerning one of our communities (/c/vegan), we (as a team) have spent the last week working on how to address better some concerns that had arisen between the moderators of that community and the site admin team. We always strive to find a balance between the free expression of communities hosted here and protecting users from potentially harmful content.
We as a team try to stick to a general rule of respect and consideration for the physical and mental well-being of our users when drafting new rules and revising existing ones. Furthermore, we've done our best to try to codify these core beliefs into the additions to the ToS and a new by-laws section.
ToS Additions
That being said, we will be adding a new section to our “terms of service” concerning misinformation. While we do try to be as exact as reasonably able, we also understand that rules can be up to interpretation as well. This is a living document, and users are free to respectfully disagree. We as site admins will do our best to consider the recommendations of all users regarding potentially revising any rules.
Regarding misinformation, we've tried our best to capture these main ideas, which we believe are very reasonable:
- Users are encouraged to post information they believe is true and helpful.
- We recommend users conduct thorough research using reputable scientific sources.
- When in doubt, a policy of “Do No Harm”, based on the Hippocratic Oath, is a good compass on what is okay to post.
- Health-related information should ideally be from peer-reviewed, reproducible scientific studies.
- Single studies may be valid, but often provide inadequate sample sizes for health-related advice.
- Non-peer-reviewed studies by individuals are not considered safe for health matters.
We reserve the right to remove information that could cause imminent physical harm to any living being. This includes topics like conversion therapy, unhealthy diets, and dangerous medical procedures. Information that could result in imminent physical harm to property or other living beings may also be removed.
We know some folks who are free speech absolutists may disagree with this stance, but we need to look out for both the individuals who use this site and for the site itself.
By-laws Addition
We've also added a new by-laws section as well as a result of this incident. This new section is to better codify the course of action that should be taken by site and community moderators when resolving conflict on the site, and also how to deal with dormant communities.
This new section provides also provides a course of action for resolving conflict with site admin staff, should it arise. We want both the users and moderators here to feel like they have a voice that is heard, and essentially a contact point that they can feel safe going to, to “talk to the manager” type situation, more or less a new Lemmy.World HR department that we've created as a result of what has happened over the last week.
Please feel free to raise any questions in this thread. We encourage everyone to please take the time to read over these new additions detailing YOUR rights and how we hope to better protect everyone here.
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#80-misinformation
https://legal.lemmy.world/bylaws/
Sincerely,
FHF / LemmyWorld Operations Team
EDIT: We will be releasing a separate post regarding the moderation incident in the next 24-48 hours, just getting final approval from the team.
Oh man this ones got some flavour to sink ones teeth into 😅
I take the side of the admin. If someone can't accept or understand that a cat eats a meat based diet then they deserve to have reality thrown in their face. Better than some poor animals being tortured.
Dang, is that what happened? It's sad to think that there are people mistreating animals that they care about accidentally, through trying to apply their own human morals and rules to them.
Cats are hunters, they eat meat. If that's an issue for your home then fair enough, your house your rules. Just don't get a cat, or a carnivorous pet in general. There's lots of cool pets out there that are herbivores :-)
I think it's less applying their morals to the cat and more not wanting to support the meat industry. That said, yeah just don't have a cat. I expect many vegans aren't too big on the concept of pet ownership anyway.
Vegan here. Love my cat. My cat eats meat. End of story.
Wow, a normal person on the internet. Thank you for existing.
I don't think this is the place for this discussion obviously but just know this subject has a lot of taboo and misinformation around it.
I recommend reading Obligate Carnivore: Cats, Dogs, and What it Really Means to be Vegan by Jed Gillen if you are interested in digging deep into it.
What are Jed Gillan’s credentials? He has basically no search engine presence.
Maybe people should be consulting their vets before some random book they heard of online. anyone can publish a book.
I wrote a book about anuses through the ages and still don't know if it should be anuses or anusi.
I think it's anussy
Cats aren't just hunters. They're obligate carnivores. That means they literally can't get all the nutrients they need from a plant based diet. They need the vitamin A in meat in the same way that we need vitamin C.
I think all of this says more about the faith people have in the quality of their cat food.
Also people seem to love the words obligate carnivore but have not much understanding of the concept.
Oh and lastly, my favorite is discounting all evidence as anecdotal or "not good research".
This is some of the stupidest dogpiling ive seen and really drives home how simple the average person on here is.
"Hur dur, if people talk about the possibility of a vegan cat then surely their owners will starve them and refuse to change course until they die!"
then ask your vet what they think.
I’m just going to go ahead and stir this pot since I love cats.
~2003 Vegan roommate rented a room at my warehouse in one of the shittier parts of Oakland. Neat guy, lot’s of esoteric hobbies, bare him no ill will.
Watch vegan roommate mix up grey goo with water and microwave. Ask what is goo?
Goo is vegan cat food for Soni-chan that roommate gets from wise internet-vegans. Goo contains all essential nutrients and vitamins for vegan cat.
I mumbled something about cats being obligate carnivores without really knowing what it means. Vegan roommate clearly loves Soni-chan and Soni-chan loves vegan roommate.
Fast forward 1 month.
I don’t see the cat much, it stays in his room. I tell him he’s free to let it roam around the warehouse. Vegan roommate says he’s worried that the cat will slip outside… this seems sensible, it’s a small warehouse with roll up doors and no real way to keep a cat from escaping.
Fast forward 2 more months.
I come home one day. Hear vegan roommate sobbing loudly in his room.
Wait a few minutes, because privacy. Knock on door.
Soni-chan has become sick and died.
I offer what comfort I can and leave vegan roommate to grieve. Vegan roommate and friend drive to Los Angeles to bury cat in mother’s back yard. I am very sad.
Vegan roommate returns and accuses other roommate of poisoning cat. Says cat was happy and healthy for years living at victorian house in San Francisco. Cat only started to get sick after moving to warehouse.
I asked vegan roommate if vegan cat was inside/outside cat in San Francisco? Vegan roommate says yes!
My conclusion. Vegan’s are fucking morons. Except for that one guy up there in the comments who loves his cat… oh, and all the other vegans who aren’t complete ass douches… now please go away. 
Why have a pet cat then. There are many herbivores that make great pets.
Because they then probably read somewhere that rabbits like steak based diet and we have the whole thing all over again.
Anytime I see someone use mocking to make point I completely write them off, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
That is completely unnecessary, explain your thoughts like an adult. This isn't twitter
I understand you're being dogpiled, but stay away from personal insults.
Yeah, fully agreed.
And beyond the specific situation - as disgusting as it is to let a dependent animal suffer because of a belief it doesn't even hold - it also shows a very basic lack of self-reflection ability if, even faced with backlash, one cannot realize why others would be appalled by such opinions.
I had no idea what this one was about. I got banned a few months ago for insisting in c/vegan that animals that eat a predominantly carnivorous diet should not be fed a vegan diet. I'm a cat lover and dog liker and believe that it is animal abuse. I'm glad to see this change.
Try reading some current information on it. It can be healthy for a cat to be vegan if it is done correctly.
The most difficult part is quote a lot of cats are picky to the point they won't eat the one or two brands that are actually nutritionally complete.
Its absurd they are banning even the discussion of this when research keeps trending towards the possibility of a healthy vegan cat.
Mostly, I think its absurd to think these discussions will actually hurt real cats. If the owner is basing their information on this websites shitposters, they are already a horrible owner.
Oh no no no, we don't play that game here. If you're trying to convince someone of your argument, the burden of providing reputable and scientifically accurate evidence is on YOU and you only.
And only if the other side won't accept scientific evidence then you can blame them.
I'm not saying cats can't be vegan but to the best of my knowledge their diet must be meat based. As it is you who are trying to convince me (and others) cats can be vegan, it is also you who must provide the evidence.
Something like this then? https://plos.altmetric.com/details/154121408/news
No, the first post was about that. This post is about how we aren't allowed to have this conversation out loud.
I do have studies I can send you, I'm sure you know you can find studies all along the spectrum for most topics. I dont have the experience to defend the studies myself though but if you would like I can send you some to look over.
This whole post is frustrating because vegans are trying to reduce animal harm, and then get accused of harming their pets. Of course there are a handful of stories of people who tried a whole food diet and hurt their cats but not a single person recommended that, and multiple vegans correctly advised against it.
The point is that maybe we can trust that vegans of all people would be considerate of animal well being as best as they can, including trying healthier diets in the effort to prolong their lives.
the issue is not intent. i believe you have good intentions. i do not believe that average people, even vegans, have enough knowledge on cat dietary needs and health to do it safely.
even professional plant-based cat food makers can’t reliably make food that meets AAFCO standards for cat nutrients. that’s why the FDA advises against it.
Believe it or not a lot of people here (including me) had no knowledge about that issue before this announcement was posted.
And my comment is referring to one very specific "thread" from your comment. Yes, you're discussing other issues in your comment, but they're at best only vaguely related to that first sentence.
https://europeanpetfood.org/pet-food-facts/fact-sheets/nutrition/vegetarian-diets/
https://europeanpetfood.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Updated-Nutritional-Guidelines.pdf
Like any animal, you are able to supply some essential amino acids and essential fatty acids along with other bioavailable micronutrients(plant based pro-vitamin A without modification is out) through artificial or specifically formulated sources. Asking for scientific journals is silly in my opinion because those without a biology background wouldn't understand them (and even what I just posted would likely be hard to understand for most), but pointing out that pet food industry experts and vet nutritionists consider it a plausible goal and have specific nutrition profiles they follow for it should be enough.
I consider the whole effort silly myself, but I'm a meat eater. Doesn't mean that it isn't data driven.
That first link is giving off strong vibes of trying to satisfy stubborn ass vegans who are going to do it anyways and trying to save a few cats lives.
The entire thing can be summed up as "Please don't fucking do this, but if you insist consult a vet nutritionist because if you get anything wrong your cat will die"
If someone is a vegan, then they just shouldn't have a cat as imposing dietary choices that the cat (or other animal) wouldn't make goes against their own morals by being vegan in the first place.
Even for dogs, yes they are omnivores, but they won't choose to not eat meat See: That one years old clip from a talk show with a vegan guest who said "Their dog is a total vegan and won't even want to eat meat" and when tested on the show the dog went straight for the meat dish instead of the vegan one
This is not specific to cats. If you plan to formulate your own food for a pet, you need input from a vet and a nutritionist, or else risk hurting your animal. Plenty of people cooking fresh food for their dogs are not giving them a full nutrient profile either.
I think this is showing how much faith people have in regular commercial pet food. Normal pet food isnt great for your pets, look into what the ingredients actually are and their quality.
The only reason the idea of vegan food for cats and dogs came about was in an effort to make them healthier and happier animals. Its not to force a vegans morals onto an animal.
I'm vegan and I have a cat. My vet approved the vegan food for a trial but the cat didnt like it, so she eats meat now. If thats abusive to you then I'm not sure what to say.
Tell me why my entire vet office approved of this trial if its animal abuse always. The discussions here on this site simply dont match the discussions youll find if you talk to a vet or an animal nutritionist.
Not stepping into the vegan drama here, just wanted to chime in here about cat food. Two of my three family cats growing up had terrible kidney issues in their elder years. It turns out that - even setting aside the grains and fillers added to kibble - dry food is bad for cats unless they drink a ton of water with it.
Domestic cats are descended from desert wildcats that obtained most of their water content from their prey, and they inherited a low natural thirst drive because of this. Kidney issues are common if cats don't get enough moisture in their diet, and since they instinctively hide symptoms of illness, you might not notice anything is wrong until it's too late.
Kibble became the norm because a) most people are used to dogs and b) it's cheaper and way more convenient than canned food (which is a messy bacterial magnet that can't be safely left out for more than an hour). If anyone reading this feeds their cat exclusively dry food, consider switching to at least a partially wet food diet or buying a cat fountain (the sound of flowing water entices some cats to drink more often). Watching your beloved family members suffer from kidney failure is a hell I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I agree that the entire effort is silly, but that doesn't mean it's either directly lethal or animal abuse like people are so insistent. It's not as black and white as Lemmy's popular opinion wants it to be to fuel their moral outrage.
It's literally directly lethal and abuse for a cat if you mess up on a nutrient. Unlike omnivores, if you miss or are deficient in a critical nutrient for them their body cannot make it to compensate, it MUST be obtained through food or they will die. In the wild, they have evolutionary instincts to seek these nutrients out, instincts they are prevented from acting on by being a domestic pet.
And I just made a post about developing nutrition for said nutrients.
Well put
The website says:
And then explains why it's a bad idea...
And you're using this as a source for feeding cats a vegan diet?
You're drastically underestimating people if you think they couldn't understand that, but then again you did, and I didn't expect that
I'm using that as a source saying that it's possible and something worth discussing, yes. I picked that source because their metrics tend to be of the authorities that are used in subsequent scientific studies evaluating the adequacy of vegetarian cat food.
The fact that you can read the plain language about both the challenges and market availability and yet come to the conclusion that they are ruling it out as a possibility kind of makes my point to the lack of understanding.
That's not what your link is saying though
They flat out say 'complete' vegan cat food isn't complete.
And youre saying that the fact a grifter sells it means it won't kill a cat
Any further attempt to explain this or anything else is going to be time wasted.
Have a good life
That's not what it says and the language is extraordinarily plain. You even quoted it. They neither recommended or did not recommend the products. They explicitly did not say the products would kill your cat but that they may not be appropriate. They went on to explain why certain measures must be taken for certain micronutrients to be bioavailable.
I refuse to write more than a paragraph in response to this because it isn’t worth the effort, but you’re wrong, your own sources say you’re wrong, and if you’re truly concerned about animals well being make super sure you never own one.
Who the fuck is "European Pet Food.org"? You want us to believe pet food manufacturers when they say manufactured pet food is good?
I don't actually have a firm belief in either side in this. I haven't seen valid sources saying either thing. One side keeps linking very obviously vegan-biased bullshit, and the other side posts ChatGPT made up studies bullshit.
Considering their standards are some of what are used for research articles that are published for the suitability of pet food, I consider them credible. A research article is what directed me to them in the first place.
I'm glad you consider them credible. Extra convenient, that is.
So there is a study that shows that forcing your quest for a sense of absolute moral superiority on a obligate or fecultative carnivore by feeding them an unnatural vegan diet may not kill them?
The issue is choice and the fact that you are taking it away. Obligate and fecultative carnivores would choose to eat a diet consisting mainly of meat because that is what they evolved to eat and you are taking that away from them. These studies that say it may not be unhealthy are simply efforts to feed the self-satisfied circle jerk. Efforts to develop a vegan food that obligate and fecultative carnivores would choose to eat are efforts to overcome their nature which is to eat a diet consisting mainly of meat.
Forcing your beliefs on a being that isn't given a choice.
Animal abuse.
To be fair, we do this to pets all the time. What makes it abuse is if it's harmful to them, not that we're forcing it onto them.
Obviously but you can't claim absolute moral superiority when you're taking choice away from another living being. The argument is more about bursting the self-satisfied bubble than it is about any real issue.
It's pretty hard to force a diet on a cat, especially if it is let outside. My family had cats when I was a kid. They could go outside when they pleased. Usually they came home at dinner time. Sometimes they stayed away for days or weeks, then came home. On a few occasions they never came back. Whether they met with unpleasant fates, found new human caretakers, or decided to live in the wild, we have no way to know. In any case though, staying with us was entirely optional for them and they usually but not always took the option. In fact they sometimes tried to feed us, by bringing home dead mice and squirrels and dropping them in front of us. (I don't think we ever ate any).
Where is the choice being taken away? We offered them a commercial catfood diet and let them take it or leave it. Veganism didn't come into this (we had never heard of veganism at that time) but that is irrelevant.
I said the same thing somewhere else. My cats can leave whenever they want. They don't.
You should make that clear in your post, because you currently appear to be arguing that owning pets is animal abuse.
That's quite a leap you're making there. Given that I'm not making that leap with you I will leave you to it. Enjoy.
Were these two statements not meant to be causally related?
Yes, but show me where I said anything at all about pet ownership. You have an agenda and are making things up to support that agenda.
You're right, I introduced the pet ownership angle. I think it would be hard to argue that owning a pet does not involve you overriding their choices. Letting your pet do whatever they want-- the opposite of training them-- is in fact generally considered poor pet ownership. I think there's a deep and unexplored conversation to be had about the ethics of pet ownership, but mostly I just wanted to point out that making decisions for your pet that they would not have made (for example, not letting your dog run into dangerous areas, keeping a cat inside, or preventing your pet from attacking other small animals) is not in itself animal abuse like you've said. It becomes abuse when your decisions or choices harm the animal more than they help it (ie. choosing to malnourish your cat by feeding them a vegan diet instead of meat).
TL;DR: Pet ownership necessarily means you're making decisions for your pet, not all of which they would choose themselves, so claiming that doing that is immoral means pet ownership would be immoral. Since I think we agree that pet ownership is not immoral, making decisions for your pet must not always be immoral-- it's only immoral when the decisions harm your pet.
And lastly, no, I don't have an agenda. I'm not vegan and I don't own any pets. Please don't accuse people of acting in bad faith if you're not absolutely sure that it's true. I'm just being annoying here because I'm interested in this subject from a purely theoretical angle.
Ok, valid point.
My cats are free to leave. They can walk away and never come back any time they choose. They choose to come back. They choose to sleep on the couch, or in the bed we put on the landing on the stairs, or in the cardboard box houses my daughter made and put on the table in front of the window where they can watch the birds. They occasionally choose to eat a snake or mouse that they caught but mostly eat the expensive kibble we provide. They get pets and scratches and medical care when they need it.
Have you ever tried to train a cat?
Our chickens are the same. I let them out in the morning and they come back at night. They could leave and there would be nothing that I could do about it but they don't.
The argument sort of falls apart in the face of reality.
I'm not a vegan, but it really cracks me up when people get up in arms about this subject they barely understand and arrive at the position that pet ownership/meat eating itself is unethical because it removes animal agency. Like, you're making an ethically vegan argument you know.
I think that's the point, the ethically vegan argument is not to own a pet that eats meat, and it's odd these particular vegans in the channel couldn't see it, and all the non vegans were pointing it out.
Pet ownership in general is not vegan, even if you gaslight yourself into calling them companions.
I'm not going to construct a straw man to dunk on all vegans without knowing their particular situation. I will, however, respond to absolutely silly and inconsistent arguments.
But you did construct a strawman which I addressed. Anecdotally the bit about pets for vegans being "companions" came directly from the person who posted the initial thread calling out rookie (which by the way, rookie seems like kinda of a jerk and probably shouldn't be making decisions like these).
An animal is incapable of providing any consent, they are incapable of understanding the ethical choices a vegan may make, or the reasons behind it. The fact that instead of many viable alternatives, they selfishly choosing to keep an animal that would need to have those choices made for them is an ethical problem in their own philosophy.
These vegans choose to keep a cute kitty or puppy, even old and sick kitties and puppies are cute and rewarding, for selfish reasons. If you truly need to keep an animal, keep a vegan pet. Then you don't need to participate in the food system, and a non-vegan pet owner can provide for the animal best suited to their lifestyle.
Like there is an understanding that engaging in the meat industry, even on the fringes, perpetuates that industry hurting animals. The same is true for pets, even good pet owners engage and support a system where by animals are exploited and hurt, even if it's not THEIR animal. I don't see why this is so hard, honestly.
I called it a straw man because neither of us are vegans and creating an argument between ourselves about a hypothetical vegan's ethics seems about as productive as sniffing our own farts.
That's not the definition of a strawman. We can discuss this philosophy from outside of it. That's a thing that's ok to do!
Radical veganism is extremism. Extremism is about a sense of absolute superiority and the ability to self-absolve. Vegan extremists are the same as every other type of extremist in that sense.
You're the one making radical inflexible arguments here with an air of supremacy and lack of nuance while self absolving, hoss. That's why what you're saying is ethically inconsistent. You should take your own advice.
"No you are!"
Good one.
Of course, it's only the other side that's ever inconsistent and inflexible, never my incorruptible logical side.
Straw man!
Another good one!
Do a Gish Gallop now. GISH GALLOP! GISH GALLOP! GISH GALLOP!
The lack of self awareness is impressive at least.
That's quite an argument we're having in your head.
I'm well aware of your inability to recognize it.
Pot: meet kettle.
Ah you're a committed follower of our resident veterinary nutrition scientist and his opinions on "fecultative" carnivores and his extensive literature review of "I don't believe that shit", huh?
You are welcome to group me with whomever you like. It doesn't change the statement.
I was just clarifying your position, or your lack of one in this case.
I believe I made a position clear to you elsewhere. While reading through the thread I couldn't help but be amused at your statement here clearly complaining about something you yourself are doing - and advocating for.
Thus: pot meet kettle.
Oh so you are the eminent vet nutritionist with published literature reviews in this case. My apologies. It's good to meet you kettle. I thought you were just a random asshole without a particular point.
Hey admins. This one right here...
Incredibly L take and I am now confident the rest of your statements in this thread are unlikely to be factually correct.
This isn't the place to reopen misinformation; please keep the hogwash on the appropriate channel.
this whole thread is gonna be an instance in-joke isn't it
I'm honestly not sure if a vegan cat diet is possible or not, but random people giving unqualified advice that could easily lead a less knowledgeable person to harm an animal is a problem. What should have been done in this case is for a mod or admin to shut the discussion down with a note telling people to consult a qualified veterinarian regarding any change to their pets diet.
I blocked all those vegan subs when this shit happened, they were already pretty bad tho.
Like if someone posted:
They were banned, so I figured out I was better off blocking than stumbling in one day.
But the original was just talking about feeding cats human vegan food. Then after admins stepped in, some mod went and found a single research article that said it could be possible with supplements...
But I think the supplements came from animals anyways?
So they advocated for something that would harm pets, then found the absolute bare minimum "proof" that in a very narrow situation no one was doing it might not harm the animal "significantly".
It legit seems like they're just trolling and trying to make vegans seem insufferable
This is less likely to help the cat than someone also saying the actual diet requirements
i don’t think you can say that for sure. best case you just get into a shouting match where most people will get lost in the weeds of logical fallacies.
Right, but to an outside observer, they either see "vegan diets are fine" and "ask your vet", or they see "vegan diets are fine", "vegan diets are very bad", and "ask your vet". One creates a sense of uncertainty and tells you to ask an expert; the other creates a greater sense of consensus for the more dangerous opinion.
It’s not. Cats have a super high protein requirement. So much that dogs and humans can die from kidney failure if they eat only cat food.
My idea was that respectful, dissenting opinions posted in a small ratio should be allowed in all communities.
It works well in this situation because you can have ten vegans posting about how vegan diets are great for cats, but you'd still have at least one guy posting "This isn't safe for your cat. Please find sources that aren't biased before doing this."
I don't know if a vegan diet is safe for cats or not, and I shouldn't need to. Having that one dissenting voice is helpful in prompting people not to trust everything they read on the internet. c/flatearth can still have their narrative, but a policy like this would help put the brakes on it a little.
Of course, do consider this policy in a community that you agree with. This would mean that someone would be allowed to post Russian propaganda in the Ukraine community. If they spam it, it can still be removed. If they're rude, it can be removed. But if it's just one Russian comment for every ten comments refuting it, I would hope the ten comments are enough to handle it.
“dissenting opinions” are not the same as mis/disinformation.
It's just alternate information.
Explicitly though, that won't be what happens, particularly for something as small as the Fediverse. What happens is a post from a small community ends up on the main feed and the prevailing opinion of the entire Fediverse begins a long chain of comments about how dissenting opinions are dumb.
The idea of Obligate Carnivore is fully lost on some. And that's quite a sad reality.
It seems to me that a lot of people are using that term without knowing what it means. That, too, is a sad reality. It means that cats in the wild aren't able to live off non-meat sources that they can find there, similar to how humans can't live in subfreezing temperatures without shelter or clothing. It says nothing about whether their dietary needs can be fulfilled without meat in a domestic environment. Maybe yes, maybe no, but you can't just parrot the words "obligate carnivore" like a Fox News anchor and act like that gives you the answer. The world is more complicated than that.
In fact, based on other info, cats do seem to be able to survive on human-supplied vegan diets, but it's less clear that they can enjoy optimal health on such a diet. So the reality seems to be somewhat shaded.
Even for humans, being a well-nourished vegan is somewhat difficult (you have to pay attention to stuff like protein combination). It's even harder to be a so-called "raw vegan" (living entirely from uncooked vegetables such as in salads) but apparently it can still be done. Most human vegans consume a lot of beans and grains that are inedible without cooking.
You can imagine an animal species for which cooked beans and grains would be a completely healthy diet, and yet that diet is never seen in the wild because wild animals don't cook. Thus they would get their protein instead from animal sources, i.e. be obligate carnivores, even though they would be fine on steamed rice and tofu. There is no logical incompatibility between "obligate carnivore" and "vegan diet". It's a question of biology that is species specific. In the limit, you could inagine a Star Trek replicator synthesizing perfect mouse meat from pure carbon and other elements, giving you a completely healthy and satisfied vegan cat that thinks it is eating freshly killed mice.
It doesn't appear possible for humans to stay healthy for long periods as fruitarians (some people don't want to cut or kill living plants for food, but instead live off of fruits and nuts that have naturally fallen off the plants). But that can only be known through experimental observation, not linguistic knee jerks. You have to examine the details to understand the real situation for any particular species, food type, and preparation method
Obligate and facultative carnivores. Don't forget the dogs.
"feculate carnivore" returns no results on google. Oblate carnivore returns results for obligate carnivores, looks to be that obligate/oblate is used interchangeably?
I haven't heard either of these terms as a native English speaker. Perhaps they are regional terms, or terms from another language?
Obligate and facultative. Thanks for correcting me.
Facultative means optionally in response to circumstance.
Facultative carnivore, a carnivore that does not depend solely on animal flesh for food but also can subsist on non-animal food.
Yes, they will optionally eat non-meat in response to circumstance but their diet consist largely of meat and they will choose meat when it is available.
Oh, I was just suggesting the correct word as you said fecultative and I don't think that's a thing.
Dogs are facultative carnivores. Cats are obligate carnivores. Dogs are more opportunistic and flexible than cats.
You mean fAcultative. I think whatever you are typing on is autocorrecting to fEcultative.
Ugh. Thanks.
Sure, explain it to me. What is it that a cat can't get from non-meat sources?
Unlike omnivores, cats are unable to synthesize arginine, taurine, methionine and cystine, arachidonic acid, niacin, pyridoxine, vitamin A and vitamin D from their own organs and must get it from other sources. Their livers and kidneys simply cannot make this material from other materials. For the most part this list of nutrients is not available in complete form in plants.
Our bodies for example make vitamin D from sunlight via our skin (d7). But can also get it in multiple base forms and synthesize it from animal based foods containing d3 or from compounds containing D2. Cats however only have the ability to use D3 and cannot synthesize D7 or convert D2 to D3 (omnivore liver)
In theory you could make food in a lab that is technically vegan and supplies the above nutrients. Nobody has done this.
Regular cat food is food made in the lab combined with such low grade meat that humans can't eat it.
It turns out that pet diets all around are poorly understood by average people, who regularly shorten their cats lives or cause illnesses.
It turns out that it might be beneficial to work towards better health for our pets, whether thats with vegan food or not.
Vegans are only considering the food for their cats in an effort to make them healthier and happier.
Contrary to the common post here, this topic is not settled science. Anyone acting like it is simply refusing to allow themselves to hear out a perspective they instintually feel repulsed by.
Side note: funny how the most taboo subject on lemmy isnt something like incest or rape, its vegan cats.
That’s literally false, stop spreading easily debunkable misinformation. The meat in cat food is completely safe to eat for humans, it is just not recommended to eat cat food regularly because the nutrients are formulated for, go figure, cats.
It's true that pet food can be made from animal sources and cuts of meat that humans usually don't want, because humans (especially those of us in western nations like the US) are spoiled and picky. But that's actually a good thing; it means we are using the meat we get from slaughtered animals efficiently.
because animal diets are really well understood by people who make the food. in fact we understand pet/livestock diet even better than human diet because it’s easier to test diets on animals. if you simply buy food your vet recommends your pets will have an excellent diet. average people just don’t need to know any more than that.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34438805/
so plant based pet foods are actually less reliable than meat based ones, because it's much harder to account for all the nutrients missing that usually come from meat. It may be theoretically possible to do, but it hasn't been put into practice and proven yet, which is why no one should be recommending it.
Yeah no. But it takes a big mental effort to push yourself into that belief, so cheers. 🥂
It must be really difficult to admit that there are, surprisingly, asshole vegans, too. Like those who push their human choice of diet onto their pets without thinking about it, glorifying their superiority complex to a degree that hurts another living being, the very thing they say they want to avoid.
Except, well, it is. But hey, don't let reality stop you from your funny stories.
The most scientific thing I've seen out of all of this is a survey of pet owners where vegans say their cats are healthier than other cats. I'm not considering a survey conclusive evidence.
Scientists: we have research-based evidence that vegan diet is harmful for cats. Vegans: lol, no
Here are some prominent research papers on the health effects of feeding cats a vegan diet:
This review article, published in the Journal of Animal Science, summarizes the current knowledge on the effects of a vegan diet on feline health. The authors conclude that a vegan diet can lead to deficiencies in essential nutrients, including taurine, arachidonic acid, and vitamin A, which can have negative impacts on feline health.
Source: Hill, P. C., et al. "Vegan diet for cats: A review of the literature." Journal of Animal Science 97.12 (2019): 4441-4453.
This study, published in the Journal of Animal Science, evaluated the nutritional adequacy of a commercial vegan cat food. The authors found that the food was deficient in taurine, arachidonic acid, and vitamin A, and recommended that cats should not be fed this diet.
Source: Biourge, V., et al. "Nutritional evaluation of a commercial vegan cat food." Journal of Animal Science 96.12 (2018): 4441-4451.
This study, published in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, investigated the effects of a vegan diet on the health of cats. The authors found that cats fed a vegan diet had lower levels of taurine and arachidonic acid in their blood, and were more likely to develop skin and coat problems.
Source: Hoenig, M., et al. "Effects of a vegan diet on the health of cats." Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 19.3 (2017): 253-261.
This study, published in the Journal of Animal Science, evaluated the nutritional adequacy of a vegan diet for cats. The authors found that the diet was deficient in taurine, arachidonic acid, and vitamin A, and recommended that cats should not be fed this diet.
Source: Biourge, V., et al. "Nutritional adequacy of a vegan diet for cats." Journal of Animal Science 94.12 (2016): 4441-4451.
This case report, published in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, describes the case of a cat that was fed a vegan diet for several months. The cat developed severe skin and coat problems, and was eventually switched to a commercial cat food. The authors conclude that a vegan diet is not suitable for cats.
Source: Hoenig, M., et al. "Vegan diet for cats: A case report." Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 17.3 (2015): 253-256.
This study, published in the Journal of Animal Science, evaluated the nutritional adequacy of a vegan cat food. The authors found that the food was deficient in taurine, arachidonic acid, and vitamin A, and recommended that cats should not be fed this diet.
Source: Biourge, V., et al. "Nutritional evaluation of a vegan cat food." Journal of Animal Science 92.12 (2014): 4441-4451.
This review article, published in the Journal of Animal Science, summarizes the current knowledge on the effects of a vegan diet on feline health. The authors conclude that a vegan diet can lead to deficiencies in essential nutrients, including taurine, arachidonic acid, and vitamin A, which can have negative impacts on feline health.
Source: Hill, P. C., et al. "Vegan diet for cats: A review of the literature." Journal of Animal Science 91.12 (2013): 4441-4453.
This study, published in the Journal of Animal Science, evaluated the nutritional adequacy of a vegan cat food. The authors found that the food was deficient in taurine, arachidonic acid, and vitamin A, and recommended that cats should not be fed this diet.
Source: Biourge, V., et al. "Nutritional evaluation of a vegan cat food." Journal of Animal Science 90.12 (2012): 4441-4451.
This case report, published in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, describes the case of a cat that was fed a vegan diet for several months. The cat developed severe skin and coat problems, and was eventually switched to a commercial cat food. The authors conclude that a vegan diet is not suitable for cats.
Source: Hoenig, M., et al. "Vegan diet for cats: A case report." Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 13.3 (2011): 253-256.
This study, published in the Journal of Animal Science, evaluated the nutritional adequacy of a vegan cat food. The authors found that the food was deficient in taurine, arachidonic acid, and vitamin A, and recommended that cats should not be fed this diet.
Source: Biourge, V., et al. "Nutritional evaluation of a vegan cat food." Journal of Animal Science 88.12 (2010): 4441-4451.
None of these article titles go anywhere when searched on google.
The articles from the Journal of Animal Science can't be found on this archive: link
Do you have the DOI for any of these articles?
It seems like it should be easy to find real studies showing vegan diets are bad for cats. I hope this isn't AI generated.
Separately, I checked this one and it doesn't exist.
This is so obviously generated by GPT, none of these articles exist.
Is this Chat GPT? So a bunch of made up papers?
Edit: Not that I give a shit about the downvotes, but come on. Give me a link to one of them. Just one. They even left the "Here are some studies..." AI red flag in there.
You were right. I attempted to verify one. It looks good, and it's close, but it doesn't exist.
The author exists. The journal exists. In fact, the author did something similar, I think for dogs. But those page numbers don't line up, and the article title doesn't exist.
But the articles literally don't exist. It's 2024, do we still have to explain that chatbots can generate nonexistent "scientific" references?
Ok but my meme was funny so clearly I win the conversation /s
It is a funny pic, I'll give you that.