Can we please stop comparing eating dogs to eating cows and other herbivores? It makes no sense.
"An international team of researchers led by the University of Granada (UGR) has explained for the first time the scientific basis of the old Spanish saying 'perro no come perro' (dog eats no dog): for a carnivorous animal, eating carrion of another carnivore, especially if it is of the same species, increases the probability of contracting pathogens that could endanger its life. (...)
Prions such as the virulent kuru, which, in the 1950s, ended the lives of many natives of Papua New Guinea who practiced cannibalism rituals, are examples of such pathogens."https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/n ... seases.amp
Plus some interesting points raised on Quota on where we don't eat carnivores.
"1. The muscular structure of carnivores is usually tough and stringy because they recieve more excercise (trying to catch food) so not good for digestion
2. Usually all carnivores are full of parasites.
3. They are regarded as bush meat, and all of them are treated either as threatened or disease carrying animals, even if they are a heterogeneous group, with endangerement and disease risk varying much between species.
4. Scientific example :
Energy from the sun gets turned into food by plants. But we can't use most of that energy because our digestive system isn't designed for it. So we let buffalo eat the plants, and their digestive system breaks the plant matter into meat, which makes the energy way more available to us. In the process, energy is lost: the buffalo use some of it to move around and grow parts that we don't/can't eat, and some of it is lost to inefficiency. That buffalo meat is at the maximum of availability to humans already. Feeding it to a mountain lion doesn't make the energy easier for us to use, and all the same losses of energy that happened from grass to buffalo happen from buffalo to mountain lion. So you lose a lot but gain nothing.
5. Some poisonous things bioaccumulate. The easiest example is mercury in fish. Invertebrates like shrimp absorb the mercury as they eat, and it gets stored in their tissues. Then fish eat those inverts and the mercury gets stored in their tissues. Since the fish eat a lot of shrimp, they get a lot of mercury. Then bigger predatory fish like swordfish eat those fish and the mercury content just keeps accumulating. Since predators are at the top of the food chain, anything that can't be metabolized and removed ends up in their bodies. So sometimes carnivore meat can contain more toxins like mercury than meat from lower on the food chain, but it greatly depends on what animal it is. Fish are worse because there are usually more steps between the bottom and the top, where most land predators go from plant to herbivore to apex carnivore pretty quick.
6. As others have pointed out, carnivores are more likely to be "keystone species" - that is, a species that has a proportionally greater impact on their environment than others. For example, there are a lot of things that eat grass: rabbits, deer, tons of insects like grasshoppers... If you remove rabbits entirely, there will be plenty of things to eat the grass and keep it under control. But not a whole lot of things eat rabbits. So if you remove one of the main predators, like coyotes, the rabbit population is going to increase dramatically, which is not so good for all the things competing with them to eat grass.
9. Also Dog/ cat might be high in Purine which causes Gout but that is separate from them being carnivores.
As far as your health goes, the higher up the food chain you go, the more environmental toxins accumulate, too. Pesticide ingestion, mercury, lead, a herbivore absorbs a limited quantity of these. The carnivore eating the herbivores gets many times that amount, because the carnivore eats many herbivores."https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-hu ... s-wildcats