Here’s a rhetorical tale for pet lovers.
Pic: Phoebe, designer mongrel.
Periodically the amount of money consumers spend on pets comes under media scrutiny.
Check out the title of The Australia Institute‘s July 2004 report: “Overconsumption of pet food in Australia.”
Nice title. Presents a position from the very first word: “overconsumption”.
But what is the standard for measuring, for determining “overconsumption”?
The Institute’s media release says: “More spent on pets than on foreign aid.”
Does the Australia Institute presume an acceptable measure of consumer spending on pets to be the Australian Government’s commitment to foreign aid? I see no reason why this should be so. It seems an apples and oranges comparison.
The report’s author adds, “Many Australians believe that they are struggling to make ends meet but prefer to put gourmet food in the pet bowl rather than nutritious food on their own dinner table, or any food on the tables of the world’s poor”.
Juicy quote. Strong on opinion and quite ridiculous.
What parents do you know who would feed their pets gourmet food, but their kids porridge? Only the criminal and the kooky. The author (in error) generalises and misapplies his data and conclusion to make a delusive point.
If there is evidence to suggest families are over spending on pets at the expense of their children, let’s see it. I don’t see it in The Australia Institute’s report.
Let governments be more generous with foreign aid.
Let consumers give more money and goods to charity (data not referenced by the report above).
And let people look after their pets. If we own them, we have obligations to look after them. Further, if you want to buy a sleeping bag for your ferret, or a jeweled necklace for your cat, who’s to say you shouldn’t?
Comments on this entry are closed.