i'm not an ARA, my URL is a joke

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

This is a sideblog. Follows, likes, replies, and signed asks will come from @whileimhere.

Call me Fawn! i don't use that name anywhere else, so if you know another Fawn, it's not me.

i’m studying up (informally so far) on domesticated norway rats, in hopes of one day becoming a (pet) breeder. i have a lot of thoughts on the ethics of breeding animals as pets, which you will probably see here.

i'm an adult. any pronouns. white american. physically disabled. if anything else feels relevant to the point i'm trying to make, i'll say so in the post itself.

i care very much about humanity and civil rights, but this is a blog about animal welfare.

if you're a minor, i'd appreciate you steering clear, and i'll try to do the same. i'm not going to bother with the rest of a dni because i don't expect bigots to respect boundaries anyway.

feel free to let me know if i've accidentally reblogged from a minor.

if i linked to or reblogged your pro–animal-welfare post and it's getting you a lot of negative traffic, please let me know and i will delete it.

Tags:

1. Rats

2. Cats

3. Foxes

4. Domestication

5. Breeding ethics

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

for the love of god do not let your DOGS or CATS physically interact with your RATS, it is dangerous for ALL OF THEM

people pointing this out on a video of your dog sticking his head in the cage to lick and mouth at your rat are not "rude" or "petty" they are justifiably worried for your rat's life

animals aren't people. their instincts have much more control over their actions. cats and dogs both have prey drives. it takes one second for things to go wrong.

[mamoru]

February 2, 2023

CDC warns that a brand of eyedrops may be linked to drug-resistant bacterial infections

"Stop using" EzriCare Artificial Tears, the CDC warned, after one person died and other people were blinded after they used the over-the-cou

Drug-resistant infections in patients linked to artificial tears.

united states centers for disease control prevention (CDC) has announced that there are people getting sick, going blind, and dying after using eye drops that have been contaminated with extremely drug resistant bacteria. the reported number of people harmed by this so far is probably way lower than reality considering there has never been a reported outbreak of this particular contaminant in US products before, so doctors have not exactly been expecting to test for it. expect to hear more about this over the coming weeks. these infections are extremely difficult to treat.

"CDC is collaborating with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state and local health departments to investigate a multistate outbreak of an extensively drug-resistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The outbreak strain, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa with Verona integron-mediated metallo-β-lactamase and Guiana extended-spectrum-β-lactamase (VIM-GES-CRPA), had never been reported in the United States prior to this outbreak. The outbreak is associated with multiple types of infections, including eye infections. The investigation to date has identified artificial tears as a common exposure for many patients.

At this time, CDC recommends clinicians and patients stop using EzriCare Artificial Tears products pending additional guidance from CDC and FDA."

"Patients reported over 10 different brands of artificial tears and some patients used multiple brands. EzriCare Artificial Tears, a preservative-free, over-the-counter product packaged in multidose bottles, was the brand most commonly reported."

those other eye drop brands have not been named.

Eyedrops linked to infections and vision loss have been recalled by manufacturer

At least five people have had vision loss, and one person died, after using EzriCare Artificial Tears.

in addition to ezricare, delsam pharma artificial tears are also being recalled because they come from the same manufacturer, global pharma healthcare. this affects all lots within expiration date.

for more information about the recall, check out the FDA page.

Global Pharma Healthcare Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Artificial Tears Lubricant Eye Drops Due to Possible Contamination

Global Pharma Healthcare is voluntarily recalling all lots within expiry of their Artificial Tears Lubricant Eye Drops, distributed by /Ezri

"Risk Statement: Use of contaminated artificial tears can result in the risk of eye infections that could result in blindness."

[mamoru]

ANOTHER BRAND OF CONTAMINATED EYE DROP HAS BEEN NAMED: DELSAM PHARMA

updates on this, which are now reflected in the original post: the recall is now listed on the FDA website, and delsam pharma artificial tears are also from the same manufacturer as ezricare. if you went and checked your eye drops to make sure you do not use ezricare, you are also going to want to make sure you do not use delsam pharma, which are also contaminated.

below are pictures of the recalled product boxes.

side note: reports of infections due to contaminated eye drops date back to early 2022. this is not something that happened within the past few weeks, so do not count on older lots being safe.

[velvetedantler]

SLAY, an animal rights documentary on animals in the fashion industry, has to be one of the most poorly researched documentaries I’ve seen in awhile. Not only does the documentary go after fur (which is to be expected), but also wool and leather while making some startlingly false claims. 

First of the major claims against fur is that they state fur is not biodegradable, a talking point they admit to taking from Collective Fashion Justice (an animal rights clothing collective). CFJ claims that only 20% of the fur is biodegradable, which they took from a portion of this study. The actual statistic is that at the 30-day mark the mink had degraded by 25.8%, while the fake fur hadn’t degraded at all. 

According to the paper, “in the disintegration test, it was observed that the Undyed mink fur, Undyed fox fur, Dyed mink fur and Dyed fox fur partially disintegrated [after 30 days]: the skin fell apart and disappeared but the hairs remained. The fake fur did not show any disintegration, only discoloration” (Debeer). Fur is made of pure keratin which is hard to break down, this is why there are some hair follicles still left over from extinct animals! The part that is easier to disintegrate is leather part, even with the tanning process the material is biodegradable. 

The most irritating claim they make is that fur, leather, and wool have a higher carbon footprint. First, the carbon footprint doesn’t take into account the fact that cattle, sheep, and animal raised for fur produce multiple products. A polyester shirt is only a polyester shirt, the cow the leather is made out of also produced milk, meat, and important by-products. While animals raised for fur also produce important oils, biofuel, and eat animal waste products from other industries. 

[velvetedantler]

On the 12th of October a portion of this ‘documentary’, SLAY, was shown to European Parliament to support ban on fur farming and farmed fur product sales and imports. Members of the board for the EU’s Animal Welfare seemed to agree with the ban. Things are not looking good for the fur industry right now. 

If the EU bans fur farming it will not only be a huge economic blow to the Scandinavian countries raising these animals, many morphs will go extinct permanently. There would no longer be any Welfur certified farms to trace the supply chains. 

People won’t stop buying fur - instead the supply chains will get muddier and wild animal populations will suffer. The point of fur farming is to supply furs without harming wild population. This would be a terrible decision for the environment. 

[is-the-fox-video-cute]

Still angry about this. I hate how the animal rights crowd have made nuanced debates on fur completely impossible. 

If they’d been shown one of those ARA films about diary or meat production would they consider shutting down those industries? Of course not, because most reasonable people understand the nuance of these issues and that you can’t base an entire industry on a few minutes of staged/manipulated film. But this never happens with fur. People will instantly believe the ARA propaganda against fur without question and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds. Even reasonable people will see a picture of a sad looking fox in a cage and that will be enough to convince them that all fur is evil and must be banned. It’s infuriating. 

As I’ve said many times before, I don’t care if people don’t agree with farming animals for fur or don’t want to wear fur themselves. That’s fine, that’s your choice, but please try to at least see that it’s not a black and white issue and there are good arguments in favour of fur. I get that the idea of killing and wearing a cute animal can be hard, but there are positive environmental and practical reasons for it. If we want to protect the environment and reduce plastic pollution we do need to look at using more animal-based materials over synthetics. 

[velvetedantler]

SLAY, an animal rights documentary on animals in the fashion industry, has to be one of the most poorly researched documentaries I’ve seen in awhile. Not only does the documentary go after fur (which is to be expected), but also wool and leather while making some startlingly false claims. 

First of the major claims against fur is that they state fur is not biodegradable, a talking point they admit to taking from Collective Fashion Justice (an animal rights clothing collective). CFJ claims that only 20% of the fur is biodegradable, which they took from a portion of this study. The actual statistic is that at the 30-day mark the mink had degraded by 25.8%, while the fake fur hadn’t degraded at all. 

According to the paper, “in the disintegration test, it was observed that the Undyed mink fur, Undyed fox fur, Dyed mink fur and Dyed fox fur partially disintegrated [after 30 days]: the skin fell apart and disappeared but the hairs remained. The fake fur did not show any disintegration, only discoloration” (Debeer). Fur is made of pure keratin which is hard to break down, this is why there are some hair follicles still left over from extinct animals! The part that is easier to disintegrate is leather part, even with the tanning process the material is biodegradable. 

The most irritating claim they make is that fur, leather, and wool have a higher carbon footprint. First, the carbon footprint doesn’t take into account the fact that cattle, sheep, and animal raised for fur produce multiple products. A polyester shirt is only a polyester shirt, the cow the leather is made out of also produced milk, meat, and important by-products. While animals raised for fur also produce important oils, biofuel, and eat animal waste products from other industries. 

[velvetedantler]

On the 12th of October a portion of this ‘documentary’, SLAY, was shown to European Parliament to support ban on fur farming and farmed fur product sales and imports. Members of the board for the EU’s Animal Welfare seemed to agree with the ban. Things are not looking good for the fur industry right now. 

If the EU bans fur farming it will not only be a huge economic blow to the Scandinavian countries raising these animals, many morphs will go extinct permanently. There would no longer be any Welfur certified farms to trace the supply chains. 

People won’t stop buying fur - instead the supply chains will get muddier and wild animal populations will suffer. The point of fur farming is to supply furs without harming wild population. This would be a terrible decision for the environment. 

[is-the-fox-video-cute]

Bitten by fox, Rep. Bera introduces bill to reduce cost of rabies vaccine

Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation aimed at reducing the cost of the rabies vaccine for uninsured Americans months after a fox bit him as he was walking on Capitol Hill.

“Despite being a fatal disease, rabies is preventable if treated quickly,” Bera said in a statement Wednesday, which is World Rabies Day. “After being bit by a rabid fox, I was fortunate to have access to readily available and low-cost vaccines. But for too many Americans, the costs of treatment would break their banks.”

Bera, a physician, received a regimen of immunoglobulin and rabies shots in April after a fox bit him while he was walking near the Russell Senate Office Building. The lawmaker expected to see a small dog after feeling something lunge at the back of his leg. But when he noticed that it was a fox, he began attacking the animal with an umbrella before it fled in the direction of other Senate buildings.

Fox caught on Capitol grounds and euthanized tests positive for rabies

Animal control officials later caught a fox on the U.S. Capitol grounds after several people, including a Politico journalist, reported sightings, with some saying they’d also been bitten by the animal. It was not immediately known whether the fox that was caught was the one that attacked Bera.

Rabies can be a life-threatening disease. The Affordable Rabies Treatment for Uninsured Act would establish a program to reimburse health-care providers for providing post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to uninsured individuals.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 60,000 Americans receive PEP each year after possibly being exposed to rabies. Vaccine costs for the disease can range from $1,200 to $6,500.

Bera’s bill would allow for program-registered providers to submit claims to the secretary of Health and Human Services that would allow providers to be repaid an amount deemed appropriate for providing post-exposure prophylaxis to uninsured people subject to the availability of appropriations.

“My legislation would seek to reduce the high costs of treatment for uninsured Americans, ensuring that no one has to choose between receiving treatment or not because of high costs,” Bera said. “I encourage all Americans to remain vigilant around wild animals and to seek medical attention if bitten or scratched. Costs should never be a barrier for individuals seeking life-saving treatment.”

[knitmeapony]

Listen, I don’t want to be That Guy, but if every individual senator and congressperson gets a different expensive-to-treat medical condition, maybe we’ll finally get universal health care?

[naamahdarling]

“Rabies can be a life-threatening disease.”

………..It has a 100% fatality rate left untreated.

[headspace-hotel]

I WAS GONNA SAY

“Rabies can be a life-threatening disease” is an indescribable understatement

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

I have very mixed feelings about the idea of rats being great pets for children. Including in contexts where the parents have access to well-bred, pet-quality rats and are being as responsible as possible, supervising interactions with younger kids and making sure the cage stays clean if the kids lose interest or can't do it, etc.

Pros:

Pet-quality rats are very sweet and docile creatures, affectionate, highly trainable, and can tolerate a lot of handling but don't necessarily require it.

If the child goes to school or daycare etc, rats should do just fine keeping each other company and/or sleeping while their human is away.

They don't need to be walked, or let outside multiple times a day/night.

The short lifespan means less of a commitment in terms of specifically duration than with something like a dog or cat.

You (in theory) get to decide how much access the rats will regularly have to any areas of your home beyond their cage.

Cons:

Biting (imo) is never a non-zero risk. Sudden behavioral changes can come about in previously well-tempered rats due to things like pituitary tumors or hormonal aggression. And rat bites are powerful.

Pet-quality rats can tolerate a lot of handling, but not rough handling. They are tiny. They also have sharp little nails, which might scratch up a child even by accident, which in turn might cause the child to squeeze or drop the rat. Lots of potential for both sides to get hurt.

I cannot tell you the number of posts I have seen about someone's rats escaping from the cage, or during free-roam time, and disappearing into the house. The last post I saw about this specifically mentioned that a child let the rats out. This is an extremely dangerous situation for a rat.

Rats are not automatically a smaller financial commitment than other pets. They are very prone to health problems, and they're often more expensive to treat because they are so small and require a vet with exotics training. And you need at least two of them, ideally more. So you might spend the same amount of money (or more) in vet bills on a small group of rats over the course of 2-5 years as you would on a dog or cat over a much longer lifespan.

The health problems are also a thing the child will be subjected to repeatedly. Rats go downhill very fast. It can be quite dramatic and even traumatizing to experience, as the child in the worst-case scenario will not have time to adjust to the idea that their pet is very sick and might not pull through.

Personal Conclusion:

This is a cop-out, but I think it depends. It depends on the child(ren)—do they want rats? Would they be just as happy with some other pet? Are they able to understand the cons? Are they emotionally equipped for pets with such a short lifespan and so many health concerns? Can they be relied upon not to let the rats out of the cage unsupervised? Etc.

It depends on the parent(s)/guardian(s)—do you want rats? Are you emotionally equipped for pets with such a short lifespan and so many health concerns, and your child(ren)'s potential reactions to that? Can you afford to take multiple rats to the vet, potentially once a month or more? Are you comfortable handling rats if your children can't, to get them into a carrier, check them over periodically for lumps, etc?

It depends on the living situation—do you own, or rent? If you rent, what does your lease say about pets? Some specify cats/dogs only. Do you live near a vet who sees rats, and who isn't fully booked all the time? Are you planning to move within the next five years? How far? How will you transport the rats? What is the vet situation in the place you're moving to? Etc.

Just things to consider.

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

Hey, i'm literally months late, but this is that anon from ask a vetblr about having their rat put to sleep, and basically thank you for adding,even tho i know. that whole specific situation wouldn't have been as bad if it wasn't for the rat that had to be put down was a heart rat for me,and it was very unexpectedly. and thankfully i did trust that vet more than 24h emergency one that does give red flags. i guess my normal vet breaks the law tho bc she still lets me go back even with gas lol :')

Hi anon, thanks for writing. I hope you're doing okay. I've been there, things happen so fast with rats and it can be very stressful and upsetting. I'm glad you had access to a vet you could trust, and I'm glad your regular vet lets you be there.

I can't speak to the specific legality of that since I'm not in the veterinary field, but I suspect it might vary between locations and depending on exact methods? Or you're right and they are breaking the rules for you.

[blackbackedjackal]

I wanted a pet fox or wolf/wolfdog because I saw people with them online (in the ye olde early 2000s internet). I was thankfully in the mindset of wanting to learn everything I could about them before attempting to get one and in the process found all the weird gate-keeping shit in the exotics community. The whole “this isn’t a pet for everyone but I’m special so I can have one” or just full on ignorance about the species they had and also my favorite flavor, racism. The more I learned about them the more I realized not only do they make bad pets but people will jump through flaming hoops just to acquire the animal and end up neglecting them in one way or another. It’s utter insanity. Some of these owners will literally act like it’s their God-given right to own an exotic pet and I just got tired of seeing animals suffering due to selfish exotic pet owners. Then when I finally came across someone who was a good owner and did everything right for that fox, he was seized and euthanized on a completely baseless claim and it was absolutely tragic.

Nowadays, people want the clout and money that comes with owning an exotic canid while also lying and spreading misinformation about the animal to kids who were the same impressionable age I was when I had the same idea. It makes me extremely angry because that’s how all these issues started and why they’ve persisted and gotten even worse. It always seems to be careless and neglectful owners who garner the most fame and trying to call them out feels like chipping away at a mountain with a spoon. But goddamnit so long as I have a platform I will warn people about the issues ands terrible tragedies that have surrounded wild canid owners. I’m just tired of seeing the animals suffer.

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

i cannot stand pet groups with rules (written or just socially enforced) against giving people advice when you see bad practices

it's created a culture where people will gather and complain about the "toxic" ~other~ groups that are sooo mean to them for... keeping their rats in unsuitable cages with inadequate floor space/ventilation/hiding and sleeping areas/enrichment/etc.

leaving out the ENTIRE debate on whether or not norway rats are fossorial by nature and need a large floor area for digging—what is your plan if they get hurt? what is your plan if they get HLD? what is your plan for your rats as they age and can no longer climb?

if the answer is "put them in a different cage" please re-think that

it's really best to avoid putting an already stressed and physically compromised rat in a new environment that doesn't look, smell, or feel familiar

cage moves imo should be kept to the bare minimum - maternity cages, hospital cages if absolutely necessary (which is less often than some people will advise imo), moving house, upgrading if you've just realized your cage is unsuitable (we all make mistakes! and some people end up with rats unexpectedly and have to make do), intros, sudden aggression towards cagemates, that sort of thing

IF you want to have a retirement cage for whatever reason (keeping breeding and non-breeding rats separate, accommodating shifting social structures, etc) then it's best to plan it as far in advance as possible and introduce it to your rats when they're not already stressed about something else

i know this isn't always possible - two of my rats spent their twilight months in a completely new cage due to unforeseen circumstances. but i don't look at that as a good thing. it was a bad situation that we made the best of.

i know Online Rat Culture is comically quick to jump all over a new person with "he needs a friend" "they can't live in a tank" "that bedding isn't going to work" and so on, but that's because rats are delicate and have short lives to start with. most of us have made mistakes and we want to save other people (and their rats) time and hardship. and in some cases, money.

[scoutsmoocrew]

genuinely hate how people ignore that the majority of my cattle are the picture of health. It’s just dickish behavior

[scoutsmoocrew]

Genuinely if I’m so awful and neglectful why is it that no one over 4 months old is ever even sick, or lame, or underweight

[scoutsmoocrew]

Genuinely you know why people buy calves from me, when they’re weaned? Why there’s a demand for weaned calves?

Most of the time my customers tell me that they tried raising bottle calves, but the calves died easily, so now they only want calves past weaning age

I take over the hard part

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

I'm not a breeder and I super don't know where this line is actually drawn, but I just saw someone advise against breeding rats whose parents ever developed any kind of tumor (even at age 2.5)

and at some point, to me, that starts to sound like "never breed a rat if their line has a history of dying" but i am trying to pump the brakes on that snap judgment.

does anyone have input on this? what am i missing? i've had a vet outright tell me that most rats would develop tumors if they lived long enough, but i don't know if he was leaving out an implied "except the well-bred ones." the context would suggest he wasn't, but i could be wrong.

on the extremely anecdotal side, most of my longest-lived and healthiest rats eventually developed tumors, while my sickliest rat died at less than a year old from what seemed to be some kind of catastrophic organ shutdown, with no tumors visible or ever detected by a vet. so i might be biased in favor of the "live long enough to develop tumors" concept.

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

i should clarify that my surprise is specifically about disqualifying rats due to their parents (etc) developing tumors in their old age

i understand not breeding lines with a tendency toward tumors in their youth

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

I'm not a breeder and I super don't know where this line is actually drawn, but I just saw someone advise against breeding rats whose parents ever developed any kind of tumor (even at age 2.5)

and at some point, to me, that starts to sound like "never breed a rat if their line has a history of dying" but i am trying to pump the brakes on that snap judgment.

does anyone have input on this? what am i missing? i've had a vet outright tell me that most rats would develop tumors if they lived long enough, but i don't know if he was leaving out an implied "except the well-bred ones." the context would suggest he wasn't, but i could be wrong.

on the extremely anecdotal side, most of my longest-lived and healthiest rats eventually developed tumors, while my sickliest rat died at less than a year old from what seemed to be some kind of catastrophic organ shutdown, with no tumors visible or ever detected by a vet. so i might be biased in favor of the "live long enough to develop tumors" concept.

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

Do not bring home pet store rats for your children.

Do not bring home pet store rats for yourself as a first-time rat owner.

Do not bring home pet store rats if you are anything but an experienced rat owner (or at least someone with other relevant knowledge/experience) who is able and willing to work with traumatized, poorly socialized animals who may end up needing to be euthanized due to underlying temperament problems that will never let them relax and will always make them a bite hazard, and/or due to poor physical health that cannot be meaningfully or permanently addressed.

Probably do not even bring home pet store rats for your snake. I don't know what kind of diseases can be passed from a rodent to a reptile, but a pet store sounds like a great place to brew them.

Don't go to PetSmart. Don't go to PetCo. Don't go to Pets At Home. Investigate smaller stores thoroughly before buying—where they source their animals, how they keep them, etc.

Look for a reputable breeder with some level of transparency about their standards and methods.

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

"You wouldn't eat your dog" this, "meat should only be accepted as a ~necessary evil~ for those ~very few~ people who actually need it" that, have any of you ever stopped and thought about the fact that nothing lives forever??

that most animals do not and cannot fear or even anticipate death on nearly the same level as you do, because they have no cultural baggage associated with the concept?

that all things considered, a pampered life of ease with plenty of space and companionship and enrichment followed by a quick, calm, painless death—which, no matter the age, will not feel unfairly early to the animal—is actually pretty good?

animals are going to die no matter what you do. ethical meat farming, at its best, is a financially practical system where human beings can closely monitor quality of life while the animals are alive, and even attend to the mental health of animals that may be grieving or confused after a loss.

the alternative is not "animals being happy and alive forever and never experiencing death or loss." the alternative is genetically domesticated animals dying slowly and painfully in the wild. or suffering in inappropriate "sanctuaries" and pet homes. or dying out completely.

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

like if your argument is "we shouldn't have domesticated these animals in the first place," I'm sorry but you're too late. They exist in their current forms, and I cannot truck with any ARA who treats that as some kind of shrug-off-able technicality in the face of their own Moral Enlightenment.

What are you going to do with the literal billions of sometimes huge, sometimes expensive creatures that have evolved over hundreds or thousands of years to coexist with humans?

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

"You wouldn't eat your dog" this, "meat should only be accepted as a ~necessary evil~ for those ~very few~ people who actually need it" that, have any of you ever stopped and thought about the fact that nothing lives forever??

that most animals do not and cannot fear or even anticipate death on nearly the same level as you do, because they have no cultural baggage associated with the concept?

that all things considered, a pampered life of ease with plenty of space and companionship and enrichment followed by a quick, calm, painless death—which, no matter the age, will not feel unfairly early to the animal—is actually pretty good?

animals are going to die no matter what you do. ethical meat farming, at its best, is a financially practical system where human beings can closely monitor quality of life while the animals are alive, and even attend to the mental health of animals that may be grieving or confused after a loss.

the alternative is not "animals being happy and alive forever and never experiencing death or loss." the alternative is genetically domesticated animals dying slowly and painfully in the wild. or suffering in inappropriate "sanctuaries" and pet homes. or dying out completely.

[ithinkratsshouldvote]

I know there are militant vegans out there who do genuinely believe meat should be available to people who medically need it, but I can't fathom how they think that would work in a world where no one else eats it.

Like, first of all, I assume there is no widely available lab-grown meat in that scenario, because otherwise... there's nothing for them to object to in the first place.

So in a world where lab-grown meat hasn't panned out, how do we decide who "really needs" traditional meat? Some sort of medical card? Honor system? Somewhere in between?

Disabled people are considered liars by default, or at least wrong about our own conditions and needs. You need painkillers? No, you need to lose weight. You need that wheelchair? No, you need more exercise. You need government assistance? No, you need a better attitude.

You need meat? No. You need this long list of supplements.

Absolute basics like a diagnosis are frequently a nightmare to get. And look at existing medical cards—there are patients right now who can't access medical marijuana because their doctor "doesn't believe in it." And switching doctors often leads to gaps in vital medical care, isn't always possible in the first place due to insurance, and comes with no guarantee that the next provider won't also screw you over.

And what about availability and cost? You think ethical small farmers, who already have a high suicide rate because it's so hard to make a living, could stay afloat with such a drastically reduced customer base? No.

You think corporate factory farms, with the means to produce large enough volumes and distribute their products widely enough to keep making money in this scenario, are going to charge affordable rates out of the kindness of their hearts?

No.

Look at the price of gluten-free food. Look at the price of goddamn insulin. When a company is catering to a smaller market, but a market with few or no alternatives, they can and will charge through the roof.

Legislating "inability to be vegan" into a disability in its own right under the social disability model would kill people. Full stop.