Ok not picking on France here! This stat is probably similar in most developed countries.
So it goes like this, according to Statista:
2023 French Pet Food Market was €4.9bn
2020 French Budget for Child Welfare €8.9bn
8.9 / 4.9 = 1.81
A child equals 1.81 pets (including Goldfish)
It is not exact because the years don’t match. But it really illustrates our priorities. Not sure what my point is here exactly. However, as this is a forum dedicated to change and progress for the greater good, can’t something be done?
The three-year difference in these figures may not be overly consequential, but we are comparing two very different areas.
The budget for Child Welfare addresses the costs of relocating minors and related educational actions, not their food expenses. In addition to this, pet food is a consumer-driven market, unlike child welfare, which is a governmental responsibility. Therefore, both the scope and the funding sources are markedly different.
What does stands out from these numbers is the considerable spending on pet food.
This Forbes article provides some interesting numbers from the U.S.
$310 USD/year food cost for cats
$339 USD/year food cost for dogs
$58 billion on pet food in total per year
Interestingly, over the last five years, the cumulative spending on pets, encompassing food, healthcare, and insurance, has increased in the U.S. by 51.16%. This trend certainly indicates a marked shift in consumer behavior. And as you say, I’m sure these statistics would be relatively consistent across developed countries. We could ask a pet owner to weigh in on this, but I’m sure that these days the majority of dog and cat owners consider their pets to be members of the family, which would account for this changing trend in increased consumer spending.
@DarcyAdvisors Maybe they should ban Goldfish.
It is indeed a disgrace that animals are often better fed than children.
Your comparison is clearly well-meaning. However I would respectfully submit, as @Jo-CKC-Studio said, it is comparing two things that aren’t really related. It is sort of like saying the cost of a tin of caviar could feed a village for days, etc.
Perhaps a shocking headline is just what is needed to bring attention to a matter, but making the reader feel guilty could backfire.
@Nancy_Muellerhof Yes if you want to promote a cause it is a bad idea to try to make people feel guilty. It makes them cynical about your organization or movement or whatever.
But I do not think @DarcyAdvisors was doing such a thing. I do not think his comparison of money spent on child welfare against money spent on pets, it is not an apples and oranges thing. It is not exact but he said that in the OP.
The fact is that in France and in other countries too, people in general care more about animals in distress than people in distress. This is because when people are in distress people say that it is their own fault.
Here is another example. A “traumatized” bear was rescued from an abandoned zoo in the depths of the war zone, and taken across Europe to Scotland.
Great that the bear is safe. Really. But what does it cost to do something like this? How many little kids stood by and watched as this bear, which doesn’t look good, was carted away to safety?
Yes happy for the bear but considering the circumstances, and this was apparently not a rare endangered Panda or something, it comes off like a cynical application of vital resources.
