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.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe