Dark chocolates are dairy free & WAX free!!

Good point! In the pre-vegan days, I remember that milk chocolate would make me feel sick.

It's a perfectly fair, honest depiction, Carol. Indeed, it doesn't even begin to describe what happens on a "typical" industrialized dairy farm. This is the mild view. Perhaps you were somewhat shielded from or not cognizant of all that was happening? It is simply not possible to make money as a dairy farm and keep all the calves alive and let them drink the very milk that you're trying to collect and sell. It's a matter of simple economics.

To be clear, the remark "Perhaps you were somewhat shielded from or not cognizant of all that was happening?" was not intended to be condescending. It's just that many people, including those who grew up on farms, manage to go a very long time before fully realizing the facts.

I would be interested to hear how things are done on your farm Carol - please add more details to your statement. While I have a hard time believing what you stated, I also encourage intellectual arguments. Thanks!

Yes.  It must be admitted that even the "organic" dairies send most of the animals, sooner or later, to the slaughterhouse.  Apparently, people think it more "economic" to kill the animals, rather than to pasture them until the natural end of life.  This latter alternative is, of course, conducive to a slower, more natural lifestyle, and most people  simply don't have the patience for it.  We would rather spend time sitting on jammed freeways and watching senseless violence on TV instead of doing the things that give life meaning, like gardening and contemplating the real meaning of life.    

Kyle, thanks.  My reasons for being vegan have everything to do with the animals, so no matter how "ethically" treated the cows may be, I still will not  go back to eating dairy.  But perhaps what you've said here will help others decide what is best for them.

ESC is one of my favorites because of where the money goes after I buy it....

Oh, and the taste.  ;)

Kyle, although I enjoy some of your products and clearly just promoted some of them (indeed, even because I just promoted some of them), I'm offended that you thought this was the place to advertise your milk chocolate. That you don't "instantly" kill the calves does not mean you do not still kill them and that the mother cows aren't ultimately slaughtered too. Whether you kill them at 2 days old, 6 months old, or 1 year, at some point they're killed in a slaughterhouse, just like their mothers, and again, I find it offensive that you're taking advantage of the fact that I endorsed your dairy-free products to advertise your dairy products--on an animal rights blog, where clearly the position is one opposed to killing, using, exploiting, and forcibly breeding animals.

And on the topic of cows who may or may not need to be milked beyond how much her calf can drink? Milking cows potentially for this reason is not an altruistic act. Any cow for whom this is true exists because we bred her into existence so that we could take her milk and sell it. People don't milk a cow because they're doing her a favor; they do it so that they can make money off her.

wow, and you know what I have purchased a lot of ES brand chocolate over the past few years, but this comment has pretty much convinced me to only buy chocolate from vegan companies now. I'm sort of amazed at coming onto an Animal Rights blog and trying to defend the use of "humane milk." Sorry, but there is no such thing!

Hi Kyle,

I'm a long-time consumer of your vegan products. Like Stephanie, I applaud some of your policies but am deeply troubled by others.

On your dairy operations, as in all dairy operations, you force cows to have calves - one after another - so they'll produce milk almost constantly and you can make money off that. When the cows can no longer produce enough milk, I presume you kill them, like all other dairy operations. The excess calves that you create, so you can make money from their mothers' milk, are also killed - though not "instantly."

You are right that modern dairy cows have been bred to overproduce milk, and that if they're not milked regularly, it can be painful for them. The humane thing would be not to keep breeding these cows and impregnating them, and forcing them into the predicament.

No matter how you spin it, commercial dairy farming consists of forcing cows to overproduce calves and milk, killing the excess calves, and killing the mother cows - or any cow - when they're no longer profitable. It's inherently and blatantly cruel, and cannot be defended by citing operations that are even worse. I suspect you know that you're profiting from cruelty but feel compelled to try to defend it.

Why not be truly ethical, rather than a mixture of cruel and ethical? Produce only high-quality free-trade dark chocolate and other products - something at which you already excel. Quit endangering innocent animals. Continue your laudable charitable efforts. I'd be happy to support and promote the new, improved, truly humane Endangered Species line, and would enthusiastically buy even more of your products than I do now.

I just realized that I referred to Kyle as Kevin in my original response. I have no idea where that came from. My sincere apologies for that, Kyle!

Is Endangered Species chocolate fair trade?  I've looked on your bars and have never seen a fair trade certification label (as labeled by TransFair).

It should be mentioned that milk cow culture originally was intended for producing milk,cream, butter, yogurt, curd, etc.  It wasn't intended for producing meat.  The milk cow produces more milk than her calf needs IF we feed her a small amount of extra grain supplement, such as corn, barley, oats, etc.  This extra milk we can take and satisfy ourselves with it.  When the cow and the ox (meant for plowing) and the bull are allowed to live out their natural life, then human society benefits in so many ways.  There are many things cows do for us even after their "working" years are over.  Do we kill our mother and father when they are too old to "work" for us anymore?  The cow and the bull are considered the mother and father of human society because they give us milk and plow the fields, thus producing food.  Should we then kill them?  This killing tendency ruins everything.  If you have excess animals, don't breed any more until you need them.  This is responsible animal husbandry.  Killing is unnecessary.

Hi Michael,

You bring up lots of good points. I'd like to expand on them.

Today's Holsteins and other dairy cows have been bred to produce much more milk than normal, which takes a toll on their bodies.

Furthermore, through artificial insemnation, we force dairy cows to have calves starting shortly after they're one year old; in the wild, they might not have their first calves until four years old.

Keeping the cows constantly pregnant and lactating, which is the practice on virtually all dairy farms, further stresses their systems and increases the risk of infections, swollen glands, and other health problems.

Of course it's not econmical for the dairies to support all the calves created by the forced pregnancies, so the "excess" calves (the ones who don't replace their mothers in the herd) are sold and killed for their flesh.

So modern dairy farming - organic or not - is cruelty upon cruelty.

If we could "un-engineer" cows so that their milk output was closer to normal, that would certainly be easier on the cows. But coaxing any increased milk flow from them still taxes their systems.

Also, it's better for the cows if they don't have so many pregnancies, and if their pregancies don't start so early. In that case, their milk production would be closer to something natural; they wouldn't always be producting milk, and their systems would get a rest.

But dairies are in the business of keeping cows "productive" and getting rid of them as soon as they're not profitable. They have no interest in caring for cows who are not producing "product" or profit. Excess calves from forced pregnancies, cows who aren't producing milk, cows who are injured or not thriving - almost all get killed.

Today we have an array of plant-derived milks that are healthful and taste good: soy milk, almond milk, rice milk, oat milk, hemp milk, and coconut milk. Furthermore, we have vanilla, chocolate, no added sugar, and other varieties. We're also just reaching the point where we can make very good plant-based cheeses at affordable prices.

So we can thank our friends the cows - maybe apologize to them for the suffering we've put them through - and let them live peacefully without us manipulating them. Although I have a feeling that if our intentions our compasionate, and we're respectful, the cows would still welcome friendly visits by humans. So we might still be able to be friends, enjoying each others' company, without any expectations that one has to work for the other. We can give the peaceful cows a retirement at long last.

"Stephanie should not be offended by the fact that she promoted them as vegan before researching further into the other flavors."

I didn't promote them as a vegan company. I pointed out that they sell vegan chocolate bars and, knowing that they also sell bars with milk in them, told readers to be sure to check labels to be sure the specific bars they're looking at are indeed vegan. I perhaps should have been clearer about the companies themselves not being vegan, but it should be obvious that I did know they weren't and didn't merely fail to do my "research."

"A company taking the steps to a more conscious consumer, as well as a more humane one is better than not doing anything at all."

I don't disagree. Otherwise, I wouldn't have referenced Endangered Species Chocolate at all or included thoughts such as this re: Cadbury--"although the company should absolutely be commended for its concern for cocoa farmers and its commitment to helping them via a switch to Fair Trade"--but that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't be challenged on what still needs improvement. And it doesn't mean I am (or should be) accepting of a company coming to the thread to clearly promote its dairy products. It wasn't just a single, one-line statement pointing out that they also sell dairy bars, Michelle--it was a long, drawn-out attempt to convince people that their dairy chocolate is humane and should be considered for purchase. I stand by everything I wrote and, moreso, by everything Gary wrote. I think he approached the issue perfectly.

Hi Kyle,

I was not offended by your post, and I appreciate your candor.

I also appreciate your donations to worthy causes such as Vegan Outreach; I have some good friends there. I'm going to go out on a limb...I suspect that as much my friends at Vegan Outreach are grateful for your monetary contributions, what they would prefer is that you stop killing animals for profit.

I hope you'll give serious thought to transitioning away from dairy, and its inherent cruelty and suffering. Just expand the Golden Rule to include nonhumans, as much as practical and possible, and I think that will inevitably lead to veganism and a vegan company.

Thank you, Kyle, for your follow-up. I do believe that you had (and have) good intentions. And though I clearly was bothered and even offended, I hope you understand why, and it seems you do. Thanks for letting us know about ESC's support of vegan organizations and sanctuaries. But of course, I have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing Gary's idea come to life--an all-vegan ESC would be a beautiful thing. :)

Sorry Kyle, my reply to Stephanie got pushed back after yours. It was directed to her reply to me.

I am sure that I am not the only one NOT offended about your comment and did not take it as advertisement. I have enjoyed the ESC company for a long time and appreciated the information. Thanks. (I am happy to have the better choices)

Not all people are vegans on this site and the people who are should not be offended so easily by people who are making a difference in their own ways. Yes, we can all do better and challenge ourselves, but no one and no company is perfect.

Ryan, I think you touched on some very important points in this comment, many of which I agree with especially the "right intention" of Buddhism.  Coupled with Ahimsa, it's a good recipe for having a calm conscience.  I live by these practices.

I don't think, though, you'll find many of us vegans who don't acknowledge the fact that our dogs & especially cats are carnivores.  But animals don't live by a moral code, we do.  Though I will not force my cat to be vegan (in fact, this idea had never even crossed my mind until someone mentioned it to me once saying I was hypocritical for feeding my cat meat!) I will research the best products for him. 

I also don't "own" my cat.  He was abandoned along with the rest of his litter.  To me, it's more important to provide companionship, nourishment, shelter & love to him than to worry about if pets go against being vegan.  Again, this was a concept I'd never even known vegans were supposed to be "against" until I started posting here.  My duty is to care for my guy, not worry about if it makes me a bad vegan.  What would make me a bad vegan would be to feed him an inadequate diet or worse to have not adopted him into my home in the first place.

None of us are perfect, but like it was stated by Gary, we do what we can to the extent that it is practical & possible.

Caring for an animal, to me, is just an extension of my compassion, a small gesture I can make to the animal kingdom.

I'm on my way out the door and so do not have time to respond in full to this long comment, so perhaps someone else can do so in my absence. I will say only this: Ryan, your remarks about my being "pretentious" and "hypocritical" because I live with two dogs are absurd. The dogs who live with me were not bred into existence for or by me. They live with me because I rescued them after they were bred, abused, neglected, and abandoned. You write about so-called pets as if everyone who lives with cats and dogs must also support the breeding of cats and dogs when animal rights advocates who live with rescued animals actually adamantly oppose the breeding of animals. But we also oppose killing them or letting them languish for years in cold shelters. And so we adopt them; we give them homes; we show them love; and yes, often we are lucky enough to get love back from them too. And all the while, we speak out against breeding and purchasing animals.

Try getting your information straight before railing against people for being hypocrites.

And for the record, I know many, many vegetarian dogs. All are happy, healthy, and loved, and the ones I know are often better cared for and in better health than the dogs cared for (and on meat-based diets) in the average meat-eating household.

Lisa-

I love animals and certainly agree that adopting the abandoned little guy was the right thing to do. I used the pet analogy to make my point that as you said no one is perfect, and we all have our own contradictions. Although I am vegetarian, I absolutely feel that you make the right decision in feeding the carnivorous animal you have adopted meat. It's a choice we make when we decide to adopt or not adopt such a pet. Just as I absolutely think that Kyle supporting his company's efforts to make their milk more humane is absolutely something that belongs on an animal rights blog. It may not be as extreme as some would like, but every little bit counts, and that is the right intention. Thank you.

Like I said, I'd had no clue that people expected me to make my cat vegan - I always just assumed that because he was a carnivore, he needed meat.  After I became more aware of the pet food industry, I researched the best options FOR ME, including avoiding certain companies notorious for animal research & testing. 

Cats need a chemical called taurine which is produced by bovine liver.   So even though my cat loves certain vegetables (actually, he loves hummus!) and could probably make a meal of a plate of veggies, he can't survive on it.  And I know that. 

Although... I did adopt him many years before I became vegan, so...

Stephanie-

Please read my response to Lisa when you get a chance. I expected that there would be some getting rather upset over the points I have tried to make. You adopted the dogs and I applaud you for that, but the fact that you are a pet owner means that in some way you will always be contributing to an industry that promotes the breeding and killing of animals. Just like you or possibly it was another commenter said to Kyle that no matter how ethically the dairy cows are treated, it will always contribute to an industry built on the exploitation of animals. That's where the hypocrisy I mentioned of the discussions has come from, and that was my point. The fact that you are a bit defensive builds up my point that non-vegetarians and non-vegans seeing us in a negative light stems from our tendency to to defend our morals and ideals passionately, which is of course admirable, even when the issue may not be quite as clear to everyone as we think it should be. I simply think that we need to treat these opposing views with a bit more respect, and use less of a "talking down to" manner when discussing them. The pretentious tone I took from your comments had nothing to do with the fact that you have dogs, it had everything to do with your reaction to Kyle's comment. I don't feel that his comment was in opposition to anything that an animal rights activist should promote, it just may not be to the extreme that you would care to see.

As for the vegetarian dogs you know, I'm sure that they are well cared for, as anyone who would go to the trouble of making sure their animals are fed vegan food is obviously trying to be very conscientious. I'm sure that those dogs are as healthy as they can be on that diet, but that will never change the fact that their digestive systems evolved to eat meat, and that they are not ideally functioning on a vegan diet. Their health may be perfectly good, but it will never reach the peak of what has been made possible by millions of years of evolution. If you're not feeding a carnivorous animal meat, then you are not doing absolutely everything you can for its optimal survival. When you make the choice to adopt a dog, you are making a choice about what is ethical. When you feed a dog vegan food, you are selfishly adhering to your own principles and not putting the animals absolute best interests first. Anyone who can't see at least a little bit of truth in the fact that there is some hypocrisy in that choice is in denial. Our principles and beliefs are important, but they are also not as black and white as we would like to believe.

Once again, the main point I was trying to make is that no one is perfect, and that Kyle's comment absolutely DOES belong on an animal rights blog.

Hi Ryan and others,

It is with some trepidation but the best intentions that I enter this thread. Please be gentle. :)

These thoughts are in no particular order.

I don't have dogs myself, and I don't claim to be an expert on dog nutrition. But I do know some dogs on a vegan diet, and they seem not only healthy but thriving. Is it conceivable that with diligence, careful planning, regular veterinary monitoring, and access to a variety of foods year-round that we can now provide a vegan diet for dogs at a very high level of nutrition?

When talking about optimal care for a dog, I think we should look at exercise, mental enrichment, opportunities for socialization and bonding, veterinary care, the whole nine yards, and in that context perhaps - at least for some dogs, since each one is unique - well-planned vegan vs. omnivorous diet is a minor factor.

Perhaps people - at least some people - who decide to give their dogs vegan diets - with due diligence and careful attention to their health - are not merely trying to foist their diet onto another species but are trying to do what is best for the most number of creatures. It is a very difficult decision; like you say, not everything is black and white. Perhaps people make the decision to feed a vegan diet to their dog with much forethought and mindful considerations of pros and cons.

Perhaps on the subject of what to feed your dog, we can declare a temporary truce, and be glad that so many of us have such a high level of concern for our companion animals' health. Like some of you, I volunteer with rescue groups, and I think of all the animals who are neglected, mistreated, and abandoned. Would that they all had such caring people in their lives.

I used to run a forum and had to moderate comments, and it wasn't easy, let me tell ya! I think under the circumstances Stephanie has done an admirable job of balancing advocacy, presenting news and opinion, promoting rights and compassion for animals, letting others have their say, and responding to comments and a diversity of viewpoints. From my experience, it's impossible to please everybody all the time in that role. Nobody's perfect, but I appreciate how she runs this little corner of change.org, as I appreciate the sincere intentions of those who offer their commentary.

I wish we could discuss some of these things over a beer. With online communications, it's so easy to misinterpret a word or phrase, since there are no inflections, pauses, volumes, or body language. I try to presume the best intentions, although being human, I'm bound to misread those from time to time. I know there have been instances where I made a presumption based on reading a post or comment, only to find out later I was wrong.

Thanks, Gary. I appreciate that very much.

Thanks, Ryan- I think we agree. I have fought against attacking people in transition before, only to be "attacked" myself for defending people's right to their opinions. (We've been through this in former posts, so you just have to read back a ways) I won't go into detail.

Stephanie has explained many times how she is not here to make people feel good about their choices and that this is NOT an animal welfare group, but I was hoping to find people who also love animals and want to make a difference, so I joined up. (There was not another choice on change.org) I have to say that I have met more really great people who agree more than disagree, and am the better person for it. You just have to learn to search for the information that is right for you on a personal level and don't let people tell you that you are not welcome. Their opinions about others is something personal that they need to deal with and I will not coddle them when they are cruel, as others sometimes do.

To inform is one thing, but empowering people to continue to be cruel to others to get their point across is not my way, nor should it be for others.

I enjoy the posts and comments, and have complimented Stephanie many times on that, but I will not be an enabler. I don't like bullies. I like educators that have an understanding of people and know how the mind works. Ripping on people never helps them want to do better. Showing them the way...does.

I enjoy the information part of the site. I do not always enjoy the way that it is delivered. Being cruel to people won't bring them on your side. Stephanie said she is not here to pass out cookies or sugarcoat. That's fine, but if there were two sides to choose from and one is passing out cookies and the other is throwing stones....hmmm which would you choose?

Michele, I've had my fill of your condescension and your insistence that I'm "cruel" and a "bully," when I'm very careful to be neither, in previous threads. When you made your dramatic exit from this blog, and I encouraged you to stay, it was not so that you could carry on with these personal issues with me at every opportunity. Please don't make me close yet another thread because of this.

Why are you assuming that I meant that for you?

Because I stated what you have told me in the past about this not being an animal welfare group and that you are not here to pass out cookies (you have said those things), you are assuming that I am speaking of you.

I will say that you are not "careful" to be neither, as you say. Taking away the freedom of speech while others are conversing is a form of bullying. You have that right...so do as you must.

If "encouraging me to stay" was part of deleting or editing my comments or telling me to cease commenting for a while...I did not take that as encouragement to stay, but thanks anyway for the thought. 

Now I am being condescending. It was others asking me to continue to comment which made me want to continue. Not your "encouragement". Like you said before. We'll never be on the same page.

For the record,

No one MAKES you close a thread. That is your choice Stephanie.

When you take away our choice to converse by shutting it down...well. Our rights are denied. Again. Go for it.

You have, over and over and over again, Michele, come to threads, brought old arguments into them, and completely misrepresented what has happened in previous threads. And yes, I did encourage you to stay if you could manage to stay on-topic and move on from your personal issues with me. I encouraged you to stay both privately and publicly in comments. Please remember that as moderator, I'm able to go back and retrieve all comments, yours and mine both.

If this continues, here or in other threads--if you can't let go of your intense need to have the last word and to insert your condescending, passive-aggressive remarks about me regularly into threads--I will ask to have you blocked from this blog. I don't want to do that. You have provided thoughtful contributions on some threads. I would like to see those continue. But I am done playing host, on my blog, to your repeated comments of this particular nature.

I believe in free speech, Michele. But believing in your right to say what you want, even when I think you are distorting the truth or even when I think you're outright making things up, doesn't mean I personally have to host it here.

I will ask, one final time, that you willingly let this go, that you respect that this isn't merely an open message board but is a blog, a blog I write and manage, that you respect the position I hold with regard to this blog, and that you end this conversation in this thread now.

Respect is earned, not assumed. It is a give and take. You want cookies as well...here you go.

You are right. It is your blog. You may have the last word. Conversation over- from my end.

Goodnight to the all-powerful OZ.

Enjoy the sweets.

Thanks for the shout out.

I don't feel that I criticize your positions. No, I don't like the deliverance and the way you speak at times, but I won't take all of the credit for making you feel frustrated. No one can "make" you feel anything. That is your personal take. In reading the posts long before I started to comment, you were having the same reactions and losing patience with other people and other posts.

Sorry, Stephanie, but I can't take the credit for your frustrations and losing patience with people. I may have taken over where others have left off (in not agreeing with your deliverance), but this was going on long before I ever knew about change.org., and I'm sure you will be just as frustrated, long after I'm gone. Being defensive, taking things personal...that's something you need to look at for your own health and well being. You can't continue to blame others for your thoughts. We are only responsible for our own perceptions and decisions, and others can't "make" you do or feel anything.

This is another Stephanie agreeing with you, Stephanie. I completely did not understand how being the guardian of two rescued dogs (who would otherwise have been killed in a 'shelter') could make me complicit in the industry breeding/killing/etc animals. The arguments simply made no sense.

For the record, frequently the world's oldest dog, as listed by Guiness, is vegan. There was a terrier that lived to be at least 24 and in good health at the end and the current oldest dog is also vegan and in mid 20's. My dogs are 10 and 11 and my vets says they have the lab work of puppies. They are happy, healthy and thriving. Dogs are omnivores, not carnivores. They can easily thrive on a well balanced vegan diet.

I will try very hard to resist the urge to post anything else after this, it seems to be getting out of hand and that was never my intention.

Stephanie - I'm sure that you do not like the idea that you are the owner of the dogs you have adopted, but in the eyes of the law, you are. The only way you are not is if you live in one of the cities that has adopted the idea of pet "guardianship", which is not a protected right under the constitution, unlike the term "ownership". I do not wish to start a debate about the two. I know that you do not view animals as property, but no matter how you view your relationship with those animals the correct term for you is in fact a "pet owner." I'm sorry if my use of that term has upset you, but technically it is correct.

Also, when you rescued and adopted your pets I'm sure they were at some point given medications, checked by a veterinarian, and have had dog food and pet supplies purchased for them. These are things that would make up good care for the animal. Pet medicines are tested on animals, veterinarians and pet food/supply companies make their livelihood off of the pet trade, a trade built on the exploitation of animals. If you cannot see that you have in fact contributed to this trade through caring for the dogs then you are living in the same fantasy world that you seem to believe Kyle is living in for caring about so called "humane dairy practices."

I never said you were wrong to point out to Kyle that dairy practices are not as humane as he thinks, but I think you are wrong to get overly offended and to suggest that his comment does not belong here and to humiliate him for posting it. His comment belongs here, if for no other reason than because of the discussion it has sparked and the things it has made readers think about and evaluate.

Without Kyle's post it is likely that this entire discussion thread would have consisted of little more than several people who think exactly alike. If everyone keeps the same opinions and surrounds themselves with only others who share those opinions then how are we ever supposed to affect change, in others or in ourselves? Stop getting overly offended and welcome the discussion, because that is how we can promote the change we wish to see. That's what it is all about. If you are not prepared to discuss the issues you write about with people who do not think exactly alike then perhaps "change" is not the right name to have displayed on your blog.

For the record, I am quite aware of the difference between animal rights and animal welfare.

It is unfortunate for you that you are growing tired of similar conversations popping up in different threads, but I think that it is to be expected when the issues are as important as these. I certainly did not mean to open any old wounds between you and other commentators or for this to get out of hand. This was not my intention, and I will try not to post too much, but it has seemed necessary to explain my point of view. Stephanie, regardless of the criticisms I have voiced, I can certainly appreciate what you do by running this blog.

Finally I would like to say thank you to Gary here, your last comment was excellent. I agree that things always get lost in online conversation and that relaxing and discussing this over a cold vegan beer would be much preferable. I will agree to a truce on the topic of vegan pet food, because like you I am not an expert on dog nutrition, I was simply drawing from my own line of logic and a basic understanding of biology and evolutionary processes.

I certainly don't care that I have been called names for my dietary choices, otherwise I would be letting others run my life. Also you are right, intention is not an excuse, but I believe that right intention must be the underlying factor in any decision, whether that be a decision to eat vegetarian or a decision to yell and scream at meat-eaters. The problem with yelling and screaming is that although it gets you heard, it tends to close minds rather than open them. I will give those books a look when I next head to the local bookstore.

That was lovely. Thanks so much for posting this Luella.

The average lifespan of a cat is 15-20 years, although most live beyond 20. One of my cats lived to 30, although she was no record. I believe the oldest cat on record was 43 years old.

My cats are not vegan, nor do they want to be. My dogs (both large) lived almost to 20 years each. They also were not vegans. There are companies who make pet food that is not veg, but are "less cruel". Halo is a good choice, but is expensive if you have multiple cats.

Whatever you choose to feed them, if you give them a long, happy life, you are making the right choice, but remember that many animals are not meant to be vegans. Do what is best for them to keep them healthy. Feral (wild) cats cannot survive without eating other animals lower in the "food chain". Many plants are poisonous to them and vegetables can cause digestion or urinary tract problems.

Dee...so sorry about the loss of your kitty and canine companion. I am sure that they had long, happy lives and were fortunate to be rescued by you. 

I agree that if more people bought pet food consciously, they prices would drop and make it easier to buy better food. It's always good to check out the cruelty-free shopping guides before any purchase.

Companies that produce vegetarian food for pets also produce meat versions, but change the name, so you are still supporting the same company under it's "sister" name. Know where your money is going if you are going to feed a veg diet to them.

www.halopets.com is a good choice for pets, but is not vegetarian. (Whole grains, no meat by-products, no corn) But again, dogs and cats were really not meant to be plant eaters any more than cows and horses were meant to eat meat. It may be a personal choice for a human, but if you let your cat live wild...they would kill their next meal. Large wildcats and wolves need to eat meat. So do their domesticated/smaller versions.

I will not promote either way, as it is your choice, but if someone cares that much for their pets to want them to live a long, healthy life, then it is a good thing either way, just look for the cruelty-free brands or companies.

Working with wildlife rehabilitation, we had to feed our raptors mice and rats to keep them alive. Carnivores need to have their meat to survive. In order to save the owls, the snowy owl, hawk, or eagle... we had to feed them mice. It's a touchy subject and one that I have not heard the vegan point of view on yet, but would love to hear what people think of that. Maybe another day, as this thread is way off base now.

"The average lifespan of a cat is 15-20 years, although most live beyond 20. One of my cats lived to 30, although she was no record. I believe the oldest cat on record was 43 years old."

Really?! My family used to "adopt"/feed lots of stray cats, and I remember telling an animal-loving friend of mine when I was a kid that I didn't like animals because all they did was die. Most of them died or disappeared within 2-3 years, and in the end my mom's partner took them all to a shelter, where they may have died fairly quickly as well. We had 20 cats at a couple of points.

Indoor cats usually live longer lives.  My parents' cat lived to be 18 and only had health problems in the last few months, my in-laws' cat lived to be 16, I've had friends whose indoor cats all lived to betwen 15-20.  Our cat now is almost 10. 

Outdoor cats, unfortunately, don't enjoy these longer lifespans.  Just the amount of disease they can pick up, especially strays who aren't vaccinated, is staggering.

For the record, I'm not sure what facts or research the statement "most live beyond 20" is based on, but I've never seen that before either. My understanding is that the average (indoor) cat lives into his or her early to late teens, and yes, some reach 20 or more. But I've never read or heard anything indicating most live beyond 20, and I think that would be fairly common knowledge if true.

But I'm going to ask that folks interested in continuing this conversation please take it off the thread. It's way off-topic.

Luella, to be clear- I was speaking about our cats. The average lifespan is correct. 15-20 years. (for indoor and well cared for cats) What I meant was that most of "our" cats live past 20 years. I did not make that clear enough. Cats who live outdoors or are feral or strays do not have a lifespan of more than a few years on average. I was mearly speaking of our "indoor" cats at our sanctuary that has rescued hundreds of cats in the last 40 years. I spoke too quickly and in not enough detail, because we were "off topic". I apologize. Just wanted to clear that up.