An
article in the Mail Online Is
the pet food you are serving up killing your four-legged friend?
(and making your vet rich) tells us about the case of pet owner
Fiona MacMillan who was anxious to do the very best for her cat,
Jaggers. Fiona asked her vet for some advice on feeding and was
directed me to a well-known brand of dried food. “I was happy
to take her professional advice” says Fiona.
The
Mail Online article says that today Fiona “bitterly
regrets her decision” to feed Jaggers on the convenience
food. When he was just seven, Jaggers was diagnosed with
kidney disease. The same vet prescribed some more dried
food, especially designed for cats with urinary problems.
Despite following her vet's advice, the Mail Online article
explains that Jaggers collapsed three months later and was
so unwell he had to be put to sleep. |
|
The Mail article explains that Fiona did some research via a website
by pet nutritionist Lisa Pierson that processed dried food - the
exact kind she had been feeding Jaggers for years - is linked to
urinary and kidney problems. Another vet agreed and told Fiona that
if she had fed Jaggers a more natural diet - such as raw meat or
cooked chicken - he might never have fallen ill.
Mail
Online says “Her story is sure to concern anyone with a pet,
particularly because few people are aware of the little-publicised
concerns about processed pet foods - and that includes 'wet' (i.e.
tinned and packet) foods as well.”
“And part of the problem, as a Mail investigation can reveal,
is that much of the veterinary industry is inextricably linked to
the pet-food manufacturers.”
“Research into pet food is carried out by the pet-food companies
but, more surprisingly, the training of vets at some universities
is also funded by pet-food manufacturers. Crucially, lectures on
nutrition at a number of vet schools, and for veterinary nurses
at individual practices, are also often paid for - and even taught
- by these huge corporations, giving them the ideal platform to
promote their products. One could argue that given this information,
it's hardly in vets' interests to promote a more natural diet for
pets.”
That suspicion has certainly occurred to Catherine O'Driscoll, who
like Fiona MacMillan saw a pet die. In her case, it was all three
of her golden retrievers, all at a relatively young age.
Catherine explains “I had two other dogs, and was determined
to see them live longer. And it was after I read an article in a
magazine by an Australian vet, which explained that feeding animals
processed food could be bad for their health, that I switched away
from commercial processed food.”
The Mail asks if processed dog food in cans, pouches or dried form
are as bad for our pets health as junk food is to ours.
The pet food industry is fairly modern. Only a generation or so
ago families tended to feed their pets table scraps. Prepared pet
foods are a relatively new luxury. Yet today the pet food industry
is valued at £2 billion and growing, say Mail Online.
“The pet-food manufacturers appear to be promoting their brands
with the help of veterinary practices, sponsoring food displays
in surgeries which help to generate business for vets (via commission
and the fact that some specialist food can only be bought at veterinary
surgeries).” they say.
“Critics claim that with all this bombardment from pet-food
companies, many vets and consumers are brainwashed into believing
processed food is the only diet their pet should be on.”
Mail Online quotes TV vet Joe Inglis: “Over the past few years,
many additives have been banned from human food, but pet food is
still pumped full of similar chemicals.”
“It's time manufacturers were more honest about what is really
in their foods, and were forced to outlaw some of these artificial
chemicals.”
Mail Online states that “while cat and dog food sales have
soared by 85 per cent over the past decade, research by the Pet
Food Manufacturers Association shows that one in three household
pets is now overweight - and chronic conditions in our pets, such
as diabeties, kidney and liver disease, heart disease and dental
problems (all related to diet) are on the increase.”
“I don't believe today's vets get enough independent information”
says Richard Allport, a vet of 36 years. “Pet-food companies
have far too much influence, because much of the information on
feeding cats and dogs is paid for, promoted and supplied to vets
by the pet-food industry.”
This view is angrily refuted by vet Nicky Paull, says Mail Online.
“The former president of the British Veterinary Association
for 2008/9, she doesn't believe pet-food companies are too involved
with the veterinary industry.”
She says “I would hate to be seeing cats and dogs suffering
from a lack of nutrition because their owner has chosen to give
them a home-made diet that lacks essential ingredients.”
The Mail Online continues by saying that “Roger Meacock, who
has a practice in Swindon, is concerned that many processed foods,
often described as 'premium' and 'scientifically balanced', also
contain ingredients that should not be part of any dog or cat's
diet.”
“Often, grain is added to canned and dried pet food to bulk
it out” he says. “Basically, it is a cheaper alternative
to meat. Additives to ensure the food tastes good to cats and dogs
are also added.”
“But what people need to understand is that while on the outside
dogs and cats have been domesticated into cuddly pets, inside a
dog is 99 per cent related to the wolf, while a pet cat's digestive
system is no different from a wild lion's.”
“Therefore the bulk of a healthy diet for a cat or dog should
not contain processed food that is high in carbohydrate and other
additives. It should revolve around raw meat, as it would do in
the wild, which is good for their teeth and gums as well as animals'
general health.”
Jackie Marriott, who helps run The United Kingdom Raw Meaty Bones
Support and Action Group, says “Part of the problem rests
with the fact that many of us as owners find these foods incredibly
convenient - this is why the pet-food manufacturers have been successful.”
The Mail Online says “Unsurprisingly, the pet-food manufacturers
do not agree that there's any problem with feeding animals a solely
processed food diet.”
The Pet Food Manufacturers Association says: “There are concerns
that feeding raw meat to pets can present a human/animal risk, such
as salmonella contamination. In the case where only raw meat and
bones are fed, there is an additional concern among vets and animal
nutritionists that this exclusive diet may not meet the pet's needs.”
The Mail Online article concludes by wondering if a natural diet
could prolong our pet’s lives, and asks whether processed
pet foods are simply a money-making and dangerous mistake.
Right to Reply – Vet Joe Inglis
As you
may have seen there was an article in The Daily Mail this morning
about pet food (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244595/Is-food-youre-feeding-pet-killing–making-vet-rich.html)
and the dangers some processed foods can potentially pose to pets’
health. I was interviewed briefly for this and I’m quoted
talking about the problems that artificial additives can cause.
The
rest of the article is not so great though, pedalling many of the
myths and un-scientific arguments that are put forward by people
who believe that all commercial pet foods are terrible and the cause
of all ill health in pets. In particular the arguments that feeding
foods containing carbohydrate is responsible for urinary and renal
disease in cats, something which has been clearly shown not to be
true, and the claim that the only healthy way to feed a pet is on
raw chicken wings.
To
set the record straight, here are a couple of paragraphs from my
forthcoming book ‘Your
dog and You’, which is due to be published this summer,
which deal with these issues:
Carbohydrates:
There have been many scare stories about this subject and the internet
is awash with unfounded allegations claiming that the feeding of
carbohydrate to cats and dogs is responsible for all manner of diseases,
including urinary diseases, diabetes, cancer and many others. However,
none of these issues are backed up with any credible evidence, and
a recent meta-analysis of all the data surrounding the issue of
feeding carbohydrate to pets by Dr Buffington of Ohio State University
Hospital concluded that, and I quote, “Current published evidence
thus does not support a direct role for diet in general, and carbohydrates
in particular, on disease risk in domestic cats.” Dr Buffington
goes on to explain how genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors
(such as indoor-only housing of cats) play a far more significant
role in many of the diseases in which effects are attributed to
carbohydrate-rich diets.
So
I am happy that the scientific evidence strongly refutes any link
between the feeding of carbohydrate to pets and health problems
and would recommend that this is not an issue that you should be
worried about – far better to make sure the food you feed
your dog is made with good quality ingredients, including good quality
carbohydrates such as rice and oats, and is free from artificial
additives which we know can cause harm.”
Raw
feeding: There are many people who advocate feeding dogs on a diet
that replicates as closely as possible their ‘ancestral diet’
– primarily raw meaty bones and scavenged scraps. There is
logic in this argument, as evolution has worked over many hundreds
of thousands of years to perfect the canine digestive tract to suit
this kind of diet, so one could therefore easily assume that a raw
diet based on this evolutionary history would be the best possible.
But there’re also flaws in the argument, and one of the main
ones is the assumption that just because a dog evolved to eat a
raw diet scavenged from left over carcasses that this is the best
diet it could possibly eat. The only reason dogs ate raw scraps
was because that was all there was available and they developed
their niche role as scavengers – but that does not mean that
their digestive tracts have evolved in such as way that other foods
might not be even better than scraps. It’s a bit like saying
that our eyes evolved to spot predators and find food and therefore
that is the best way to do those things – whereas most people
would agree that modern technological advances such as binoculars
or cameras or computers can help us to do these things better by
working with our naturally evolved attributes.
I
believe that while our dogs undoubtedly evolved to eat raw scraps
scavenged from carcasses, we as their modern human companions can
do an awful lot better than simply feed them the same subsistence
diet they would get in the wild. To put it in other terms, would
you prefer a modern cooked diet prepared using all the nutritional
knowledge we’ve gained as an advanced society, or the same
diet your stone-age ancestors used to eat? Assuming the answer is
a modern diet, then I hope you can see the parallel for our dogs
and the reason why we should not be persuaded by emotive arguments
from the often passionate raw feeding lobby that only an ancestral
diet will do.
I
hope these articles help counter some of the bad science put forward
in the article in the Mail!
Joe Inglis
Right to Reply – Vet John Burns
Today’s
Daily Mail article launches a two-pronged attack on the veterinary
profession and the pet food industry. As a member of both I feel
I am well placed to comment.
Starting
with the vets, members of the profession are portrayed as gullible
and greedy. The self-proclaimed spokespeople tell us that vets
are easily influenced by the pet food industry and as a result
promote certain foods to line their pockets, with complete disregard
for the welfare of their patients. In reality, probably less than
3% of pet food is sold through veterinary practices, and that
is almost wholly at the better end of the market. The vast majority
of vets are conscientious in promoting the welfare of pets; many
recommend Burns even when they don’t sell it.
There
are indeed major concerns about the quality of pet foods. But
the problem lies with the type and quality of ingredients which
are used in most pet foods. That is precisely why I entered the
pet food business myself. When I was in practice I used to recommend
home made food, but cooked rather than raw. That gave excellent
health benefits but is impractical for most people. I eventually
realised that if pets were to be fed well, the food had to be
conveniently available. The same health benefits can be seen when
feeding good quality cooked pet food as with those claimed for
raw food.
The
notion that domestic dogs are physiologically the same as wild
dogs is completely wrong. Domestic dogs have been accustomed to
eating a cooked cereal-based diet for thousands of years. Their
needs are different anyway; a diet based on meat which is high
in protein and fat is completely inappropriate for most domestic
dogs.
The
responsibility of the pet owner in promoting health through diet
has been completely overlooked in this article. At Burns we find
that many owners consistently over feed their pets and this causes
many different health problems as well as excessive weight gain.
The
article quotes Catherine O’Driscoll who says that three
of her dogs died prematurely because of poor pet food. I saw her
home video of those dogs and they appeared to be so grossly overweight
they were not walking – they were waddling!
Royal
Canin is criticised for offering Pet Health Counsellor Courses.
We need more people to be well versed in pet health counselling
as lack of knowledge about health and nutrition is a major problem
for pet owners.
John Burns
|
