Do Human and Companion Animal Food Needs Intersect in Low-Income Households?

Background: The benefits of having pets are well-documented (Hodgson et al., 2015). A smaller research literature describes the risks e.g. delaying medical care, refusing to evacuate or leave an abusive relationship (Ascione et al., 2007; Hodgson et al., 2015). Less researched are the challenges in keeping pets and humans fed in low-income households.  Food insecurity has a negative impact on the physical health and well-being of humans and pets (Colman-Jensen et al., 2015). Studies suggest that humans share food with pets when pet food is unavailable (Author, Rose, Chen, & Martone, 2017; Fink, 2015). The research question in this exploratory study was: Are pet owners more or less food secure than non-pet owners?

Methods: This study used a mixed method design: cross-sectional, self-administered survey of food pantry users (n=392) and in-depth telephone interview of a purposive sample of survey participants (n=15). Fifteen pantries were randomly selected from 30 pantries with pet-food. The (blinded) food bank supplied the names of 15 food pantries believed to be similar.  A convenience sample was surveyed at the 30 food pantries. The survey included demographic questions, the USDA Household Six-Item Food Security Module (Blumberg, Bialostosky, Hamilton, & Briefel, 1999), strategies for securing human and pet-food. The telephone interview included questions about pet ownership, the benefits and challenges of owning a pet, strategies for feeding and physical and emotional benefits. Logistic regression models were run with food security as the dependent variable. NVivo was used in analyzing interview data.

Findings: Respondents were female (70%); the average age was 57. There were slightly more dog than cat (44% to 37%) households and 19% had more than two species. More than three-fourths reported yearly incomes under twenty-thousand dollars per year. Eighty percent were un-partnered, and over a third (37%) were African-American, 56% were Caucasian and 6% identified as other. In model one, pet owners were 61% more likely to report being food secure than non-pet owners, although race and gender were significant with women and minorities experiencing lower food security. The second model included the type of pet; cat households had greater odds of being food secure (OR=.31, p=.015). The third model included whether the pantries had pet food; individuals were 62% more likely to be food secure when owners used these pantries. The last model included the type of pantry and found that pet owners using pet food pantries had a 57% more likely to be food secure, with cat households the most secure. The interviews suggested pets motivated owners to shop, use the pantries, and prepare food. Financial  risks were the cost of veterinary care.

Implications/Conclusions: Individuals with pets, controlling for other factors, were more likely to be food secure. Although they use human food when lacking pet food, pets motivated seeking food for animals and humans. The implications are that pets are an under-utilized health motivator. From a perspective of social justice, social work can help to re-frame the conversation from “they can’t afford pets” to “companion animals are an activator and motivator for self-care”.