The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat?

Pirsich, Wiebke; Theuvsen, Ludwig

doi:10.18461/pfsd.2017.1726

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This article makes an intervention into alternative food geographies, utilizing critical animal studies and critical pet studies to highlight the importance of research on pet food because of these impacts. Additionally, it contributes to the literature on pet food that primarily examines nutrition (Buff et al, 2014;Nestle, 2008), sustainability (Alexander et al, 2020;De Silva and Turchini, 2008;Okin, 2017), pet food as a by-product of the meat industry (Castrica et al, 2018;Pirsich and Theuvsen, 2017), and consumer behaviors and understandings of dog food (Dodd et al,2020;Heinze, n.d.;Higa et al, 2021;Kamleh et al, 2020;Rombach and Dean, 2021;Rothgerber, 2013).…”

Section: Bring Pets and Their Food Into Food Geographiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been considerable work within food geographies on commodity chain analyses (Cook and Crang, 1996;Guthman, 2004;Hartwick, 1998;Watts et al, 2005), critiques of consumption within AFM (Galt, 2017;Guthman, 2008;McClintock, 2018;Slocum, 2007), and critical analysis of certifications (Evans and Miele, 2019;Friedrich, 2015;Guthman, 2004;Mutersbaugh, 2005;Shreck et al, 2006;Spain et al, 2018;Stanescu, 2013). APFM value chains overlap with AFM materially and discursively (Castrica et al, 2018;Nestle, 2008;Pirsich and Theuvsen, 2017), yet have not been a significant focus in food geographies. Tracing the value chain of certified humane dog food evaluates what the APFM and premium pet food sector is telling us about commodity chains and consumption of AFM, especially regarding meat consumption in a movement concerned with animal welfare and sustainability.…”

Section: Bring Pets and Their Food Into Food Geographiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By-products of the meat-for-human-consumption industry still form the base for the premium pet food industry, except now, by-products are re-labeled as 'whole prey'. Recent literature (Pirsich and Theuvsen, 2017) describes pet food as the ideal outlet for by-products to keep humanely handled meat prices low (and therefore the industry sustained). In the context of APFM that seeks sustainability and welfare, farmed animals must be maintained as killable and necessary to sustain the meat and immensely profitable pet food industry, which is supplemented with framing the domestic as carnivorous.…”

Section: Entanglements With the Meat Industrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, the innocence and non-violence towards pets distracts from the non-innocence and violent relationships we have with other nonhuman animals. A stronger bond between the dog and the human results in an increased desire to feed a pet premium or super-premium pet food, which generally contain a higher percentage of animal-based ingredients than non-premium food (Pirsich and Theuvsen, 2017; Rombach and Dean, 2021). The intimate dog-human bond alters and reinforces distant human-animal relations resulting in collective killing for the individual bond in the form of pet food (Gibbs, 2020).…”

Section: Tracing the Certified Humane Value Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Humans make it possible for the dogs to enjoy their wildness. This creates a contradiction for dog food purchasers who are generally more concerned about animal welfare than the general population (Pirsich and Theuvsen, 2017): caring for their dog and being a 'responsible' pet owner means killing distant beings. Not feeding meat is understood to compromise the wellbeing of the dog while feeding meat jeopardizes the wellbeing of the farmed animal and the health of the environment (Rothgerber, 2013).…”

Section: Advertising the Domestic Dog As Wildmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Humane dog food? caring and killing in the certified humane dog food value chain

Baker

2023

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The marketing of dog food influences pet-owners to nurture the ‘carnivorous’ nature of the dog, keeping animal-based protein central to the industry. Alas, dog food has a significant impact on welfare. Consumers are aware of this impact, shifting the industry towards alternative pet food movements such as Open Farm, the first certified humane food. This article examines the material and discursive practices through which ‘humaneness’ is constituted as a quality within the humane pet food supply chain and how it reinforces embedded animal hierarchies. By reviewing the marketing and history of commercial dog food production, I show how ‘caring’ for the carnivorous dog lays the framework for killing. I use Open Farm's transparency tool to trace the value chain and compare it with the imagery, discursive claims, and material practices found within the Global Animal Partnership standards. I argue that instead of questioning animal-based protein, humane certification creates an alternative in which the pet owner could still ‘care’ for the wildness of their domesticated dog while simultaneously ‘caring’ for farmed animals. Thus, it reinforces the hierarchies of the industry. Additionally, the validity of the humane claims depends on the animals’ charisma and proximity to humans. In other words, marketing in the humane dog food supply chain creates animal–animal positionalities, in which the animals’ care or killability is mediated through the humans’ supply chain and marketing. However, as I show with interview data, the hierarchies are fragile and must be continuously reinforced, as animals can slip into different positions. Their proximity to humans alters their positionality and their killability.

show abstract