[robbedpeter]

If anything, if you had a dog 100+ years ago, it's because it provided value to you, in the arena of herding, hunting, work, and protection. Survival value, not anything close to modern notions of pets. That means your dog was a valuable asset, keeping you and your family from starving.

Royalty and rich people got food tasters, but only a dumb rat bastard would treat a dog like that. Plus, dogs have shorter intestines and more potent stomach acid, rendering safe many food sources humans cannot eat without getting sick. After seeing a dog chow down on a rotten carcass, you're not going to think of them for testing the edibility or safety of things.

That's not to say dogs haven't died like that through history, but it's not a thing people would do deliberately. Food used to be hugely more scarce than it is now, and a large majority of humanity got by with very little. To use a dog for testing new food would have been foolish or cruel.

[lurquer]

No pets in 1920?

Dog breeds specifically tailored for pets have been around for centuries. Go to an art gallery… you’ll find countless portraits of people from centuries past with their ‘lap dogs’, pet squirrels, pet cats, etc.