I have not read this book, but I have read
this review of it. Here is a paragraph from that review, of which I have bolded some sentences:
Gillen's basic argument – that the prolonged torment of countless "food" animals outweighs any loss cats may experience on a vegan diet – is not only compelling but fundamentally sound in the sense that it's the same basic reasoning most vegans would use to explain their own ethical viewpoint on human carnivorism. Yet most vegans remain skeptical when it comes to cats, citing health concerns and ideas of what is "natural" for them. In response, Gillen points out that it's unnatural to give cats vaccinations, identification implants, and commercial cat food (which, among other unsavory ingredients, can contain the carcasses of cats and dogs purchased from shelters and processed with deadly euthanizing chemicals still in their bloodstreams). It is known that without sufficient amounts of taurine (an amino acid found naturally in animal flesh), cats go blind and die of heart enlargement. However, the high temperatures used to render cat food totally deplete the meat of taurine, requiring that it be added back. Ironically, manufacturers typically use the same synthetic taurine found in vegan cat foods.
As far as I am concerned, the only argument against commercial cat food is that it may contain euthanizing drugs and flea collar remains etc., and as far as this, I have not seen any reliable study that says this stuff is actually in the food. I have only seen claims by vegan pet food proponents that this stuff is in the food. Even if barbiturates have been found in commercial pet food in some isolated case, it doesn't mean that this is something that routinely happens. If I were convinced that right now, I am feeding my cats barbiturates, flea collars and other cats, I would be motivated to switch to vegan cat food. Have any links that prove that?
The torment of the food animals is not a compelling argument against the cat food that I buy because the animals weren't bred for that purpose. If I were feeding my cats whole rabbit, chicken and duck carcasses like some people do, that argument would work - but I don't. All of the animals or animal parts used to make my cat food are by-products of the for-human-consumption meat and egg industries, and maybe the dairy industry too, if bob veal is used in pet food.
For example, I have heard that the chickens used in cat food are by-products of the egg industry. They are either baby male chicks, which the egg industry has no use for and would otherwise just be thrown away, or they are spent egg-laying hens. These animals are unfortunately ground alive, but they have to die somehow, and this death seems better than, say, putting the male chicks in garbage bags and throwing them in a dumpster to suffocate, which is often done, and these suffocated chicks only go into a landfill.
The beef, turkey, fish, organ meats, etc. are all cuts unfit for human consumption that are by-products of the human food industry. I am thinking along the lines that these parts would be thrown away if they were not used in the pet food. My cats need the acidity that animal protein has. The pH of plant protein is all wrong. It's way too alkaline, which causes all kinds of urinary tract problems.
So, as someone who has read this book, what is your response to that response?