It's so funny, but when you ask doctors they tell you there isn't a single animal apart from us, humans, that should eat bread. Some animals can, at best, tolerate it in small amounts but always with the understanding that it's a treat that should be had very infrequently and in small amounts because it's neither safe nor nutritious.
That's because bread isn't safe or nutritious for us, humans, to have either. But it's become dogma that bread is the stuff of life and like all dogmas you're not allowed to question it.
But no one should be eating bread for the same reasons why all other animals shouldn't be having it either.
It reminds me so much of when investigative journalist Gary Taubes (author of Good Calories, Bad Calories) asked a doctor about the mechanism of obesity in animals. The doctor taught him that the way to fatten up farm animals is very well known: you just feed them lots of starches and carbs and it never fails to get them fat.
But when Gary asked him about the mechanism to get humans fat the doctor spewed out the usual bullshit about calories in calories out, i.e. people get fat when they eat too many calories and don't burn them off.
So Gary called him out on this, and said "Wait a second, you switched the mechanisms on me. How come when it's animals you say they get fat if they eat certain foods that are inherently obesogenic but when it's people all of a sudden they can eat whatever they want as long as they don't exceed a certain amount of calories, as if how much starch and sugar they're eating didn't matter?"
And that was the first time that doctor had even thought of that. Because when it's humans science doesn't matter, only upholding the vegan religion that says you can never eat too many plants, and suddenly bread - a food that is neither safe nor nutritious for any animal on Earth - becomes the stuff of life. When no species in the animal kingdom should be having bread, least of all humans.
