PETS CONTRIBUTE TO GREENHOUSE GASES LIKE US. HERE’S HOW TO REDUCE THEIR CARBON PAWPRINT

The idea that “pets are family” isn’t just a heartfelt notion—it’s shaping the way people feed their animals. Increasingly, pet owners are choosing foods that mirror their own diets.

Trends like refrigerated, “fresh,” or even “human-grade” pet meals are on the rise—but they come with costs that go beyond the wallet.

One of the most climate-intensive choices we make as pet owners is simply having a pet. Like humans, pets eat daily—and most consume meat. The environmental impact of meat includes the land used to raise animals, the resources required for their feed, the waste they produce, and other associated factors.

“What else do pets do? We have to feed them. I think that’s why it’s number one,” said Allison Reser, director of sustainability and innovation at the Pet Sustainability Coalition.

Just as with humans, a pet’s environmental footprint can vary widely depending on their diet.

Does human-grade mean better?

Higher-quality pet food is often marketed as healthier, but evidence that refrigerated, fresh, or human-grade options actually improve pet health is limited, says Alison Manchester, assistant clinical sciences professor at Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine.

“I think a lot of it is driven by marketing and the idea of treating pets as family members,” Manchester explains. She adds that traditional kibble and wet food can provide a perfectly balanced diet, often using animal parts that humans wouldn’t eat and that might otherwise go to waste.

Billy Nicholles, a pet food researcher with Bryant Research, notes that using human-grade meat in pet food increases its environmental footprint, because pets are now consuming cuts that would otherwise not be eaten.

“We definitely can’t dismiss these impacts by saying these are just offcuts or environmentally negligible,” he said.