New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Why Cats Don't Cotton to Sweets Explained

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The lure of sweets is the downfall of many a dieter. Cats, however, are indifferent to sugar, a trait that is rare in the mammal kingdom. Now scientists have figured out why. Felines apparently carry a defect in a gene that encodes part of the mammalian sweet taste receptor.

A lack of interest in sweets has been observed not only in house cats, but also in wild ones such as lions, tigers and jaguars. "One possible explanation for this behavior is that felines are unable to detect sweet-tasting compounds like sugars and high intensity sweeteners because their sweet taste receptor is defective," remarks Xia Li of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. Li led a team of researchers to investigate the genetics of taste in cats. They determined that the animals lack 247 base pairs in a gene called Tas1r2, which encodes T1R2, one of two protein subunits that make up the sweet receptor in most mammals. "This type of gene is known as a pseudogene and is somewhat like a molecular fossil," Li says. "It presumably once coded a functional protein, but no longer does so."

The other half of the sweet receptor, known as T1R3, is normal in cats. "What we still don't know is, which came first: carnivorous behavior or the loss of the T1R2 protein," notes senior author Joseph G. Brand of Monell. "With regard to the gene, is this a case of 'use it or lose it'"? The scientists describe the work in the July issue of the journal PLoS Genetics.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe