by Ali Berman
Categories: Animals, Film/TV
Tags: .
Photo: Paul Tomlin

British television chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall believes that no one can object to the idea of eating puppies as long as they are stuffing their faces full of bacon.

The chef and star of ‘River Cottage,’ a man known for eating unusual “foods” like placenta pate, curried fruit bat, giraffe and calf testicles, would not stand opposed to a “high-welfare organic puppy farm.” Yep, essentially a farm that sold puppies as meat.

He said about the ethics of eating dogs to British Magazine Radio Times, “You can’t object, unless you also object to the farming of pigs. It’s an artificial construct of our society, a cultural decision, to make pets out of dogs and meat out of pigs. Both animals could be used the other way round, although pigs probably do make better meat than dogs and dogs better pets than pigs, but it’s not a foregone conclusion.”

While Fearnley-Whittingstall makes the same argument that many animal protection organizations make, the animal organizations come down on the other side. They argue that if you wouldn’t eat a dog, you shouldn’t eat a pig. I’m sure if pigs could speak, they’d tell us the same.

When asked if he would try eating dog or cat, he said, “Not unless I was on the point of starvation. In principle, but not in practice, I have no objection to a high-welfare organic puppy farm.”

At least we know he’ll be leaving the dog and cat population alone…for now.

Via Fox News

About Ali Berman

Ali Berman is the author of Choosing a Good Life: Lessons from People Who Have Found Their Place in the World (Hazelden) and Misdirected (Seven Stories Press). She works as a humane educator for HEART teaching kids about issues affecting people, animals and the environment. Her published work can be found on her website at In early 2012 Ali co-founded flipmeover, a production company with the mission to use media to raise awareness of social issues.

View all posts by Ali Berman →
  • Kevin

    Well, pigs are highly intelligent, so I tend to agree. Also, it seems if you eat pigs, you can’t be against eating dolphins. And if you live in a country that eats pigs, you might want to focus on that activity prior to taking your cultural supremacy on the road and telling other people what they can and can’t eat.

    Pigs save human lives, after all!

  • Karina

    Agreed. What makes one animal “food” and the other friend?

  • herwin

    “pigs probably do make better meat than dogs and dogs better pets than pigs”
    so after all its not only an ethical decision but a very practical decision. After all, dogs were made partners a long time ago for practical reasons ; hunting and guarding.
    even now dogs are working like police dogs, helping blind people, guard dogs, and even being only a pet dog is contributing to human society.

    the logic is nothing new, animal rights organisations say it since decades, if you dont eat your pet dog, why would you eat a pig ?
    some meateaters who are “too far away”, rather argue the other way around..heaven forbid to give up their precious meat.

  • LittleMe

    The only difference is the methods used to kill the animals. For example, the killing process is often deliberately dragged out for dogs and cats. This is because in countries where it is the norm, the adrenaline produced through a slow and agonising death is believed to improve the taste of the meat.

  • Mark

    I think he raises an important point, which highlights the hypocrisy of many meat eaters. I wrote something on this earlier, elaborating on his comments, which is fairly long so I’ll give a link rather than cutting and pasting here: