# Re. recent post on Veterinary Stance on food...



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

Ok, I know Nat(or someone) recently stopped a post by a firestarter. And I know this guy likes to rile us up under different alias'. 

However, there WAS one point in the discussion that I believe merits discussion. And it is this...

Make NO mistake about it. The Veterinary Science world thinks what we do(feeding high quality, holistic, good diets) is unnecessary and unproven(I could have just said they think we're all NUTS actually). I have firsthand proof of this after a recent trip to Michigan State University(the 9th ranked Veterinary school in the nation). Some of you know that I've been struggling with Harry smacking his lips, licking his lips, yawning, swallowing...etc... They don't believe it is a food allergy but told me "IF it does by chance turn out to be a food allergy, we'd like to get Harry on a high quality hypo allergenic food from Science Diet." This is, for the most part, verbatim from one of the top Instructors at the school. When I told her that Harry was on ACANA, she looked at me with a look of utter confusion. 

It goes further than this... almost everything I read in the mainstream says that what we do is unproven, unnecessary...that we're probably just throwing our money away. I think Consumer Reports did a half-ass report on Dog food recently where they said we're crazy. 

Now, I believe in my heart that what I do(feeding my Dogs higher quality food) is the right thing to do. But WHY is the Veterinary world so reluctant to agree with me? Is it money? Seriously, does Science Diet REALLY have the power to brainwash the entire Veterinary world? These are supposed to be SCIENTISTS for pete's sake. 

Just looking for discussion. I think we all agree that what we do is right(of course). But what the hell is going on out there?... at our Vets offices, at our Universities, etc.... strange.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I firmly believe that if you follow the money trail you will see the reasoning. And MOST ESPECIALLY at a training university where the pet food companies subsidize so much.

They feel the weight of those millions of dollars every day, I'm sure. How would it look it they didn't recommend the food made by companies that make it possible for them to have a job?

Now, they are not all like that. Snorkels' cardiologist got his first degree at Michigan State and his specialized training at Purdue and he supprts raw feeding. Even though he's a few years out of school, i think that's kind of unusual.

Sadly, it's not like that just at vet schools. We see the academic community as the last bastion of non-biased research, but in reality that is far from the truth.


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

I'm lucky that Murph's vet is supportive of good kibbles and raw feeding. He has asked me several times what I feed Murph when Murph has been in there for various things, usually skin related. 

The last time we saw him, he asked what I was feeding and I said (reluctantly lol) "Well, I'm about to start him on a raw diet any day now."


And he said "Great, that's probably the best thing you can do for him."

I was so excited lol.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

And you have to admit, the pet food companies are very smart. They have a two-pronged approach (maybe more).

They have probably the best marketing approach in modern history.

And they make sure the professionals and researchers who are respected by pet owners and who give nutritional advice are in their back pockets. 

It works very much the same way the cereal industry went after Atkins. AND it's why these smaller dog food companies have such a hard time getting a toehold. Who can compete with Purina???


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

:usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa:


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Vets are scientists. They were trained all throughout college, starting in undergrad, how to read, write, design, and run scientific experiments. They should know how to pick out the good studies from the bad ones. There are a LOT of bad studies out there, but it takes a well trained eye to see that. 

Hills SD is a company that has done scientific research on their foods. But I have yet to actually see the studies themselves...why? I have my suspicions that I wouldn't like what a read because I know how to pick a good study out from a bad one. I believe that the studies Hills has done on their diets were specifically designed to produce the results the "scientists" paid by Hills wanted to see. Of course I don't have proof of this, but they also don't publish their studies for everyone to read...I've asked several vets if they have read the actual scientific reports on the foods they support and I have yet to get a "yes" from any of them. Even in school they don't read the actual studies, just the results that are published into nutrition text books. I'm sure one could pay an arm and a leg to read their studies, but who's going to do that? Sure you can find an abstract or two with their brand name on it by doing a google scholar search. But the actual studies? Good luck. 

And because vets are scientists, most want to only support things that have been "clinically proven" which is Hills SD's best, most profitable marketing tool. No other food can have those words on the packaging because Hills dominates that aspect. No other food company has been able to compete with the clinical research done on their food, and I will always remember the day when our Hills rep came in to give us official reports on their label change a few years ago. She was so damn proud of her company and their food and that they have no competition on the pet food industry. And they don't...she was right about that. A few other companies have done actual research into their foods like Royal Canin and Pukenuba, but not enough to justify saying that their food has been "clinically proven". 

Feeding trials do not equal research to most vets. And most foods out there have only gone through feeding trials. The topic of feeding trials is a whole other topic as they are completely illogical, poorly designed, etc. So of course we are all the crazy ones to feed and recommend the foods/diets that have ZERO scientific research behind them. Didn't you all know that scientific research is the only thing that indicates a good, quality food? DUH! BUT...I think that the smaller pet food companies have given Hills a run for their money because Hills has now come out with their new grain free formula. Granted its a terrible looking formula, but I think that Hills sees the opportunity to make big money on these new grain free formulas because they can do the research to "prove" their formulas are better than say Natures Variety or Orijen. Will anyone get to see the actual research or data? Probably not. Most people don't care anyways which is why they are so successful. Blind faith that people have in the vets that give them advice based on their "research".


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Kevin, the vet gave you a "weird look" probably because they had never heard og ACANA as they don't do all the advertising that ALL the icky dogfoods do...
What is Harry's history? And how often does he do this behavior? Could it be stress? I know in some animals licking and yawning are a sign of stress or discomfort.


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

Hill's spends a lot of money supporting veterinarians because they see the future pay off. At the University of Guelph Hill's just recently funded the building of the "Hill's animal nutrition" building. Yes, that's right. Everyone going into vet school is informed of how much they put into the school. Royal Canin also subsidizes their text books and funds things here and there. Hill's runs the nutrition courses. 

Everything they learn is through Hill's filter. Although many people who go through science programs look at things through a critical eye, those who go to vet school are bombarded with Hill's propaganda. So the millions they pay out every year they get back tenfold when these vets go out into their practices and say "Science Diet is the best you can get!" because they think Hills is looking out for them. Even the general textbooks on animal biology won't call a dog a carnivore. 

It really works wonders. Vets usually end up supporting Hills or Royal, depending. Guelph is very much in Hill's back pocket, but Royal has a plant nearby which i think is getting them some "local support".


----------



## tem_sat (Jun 20, 2010)

DaneMama said:


> Vets are scientists. They were trained all throughout college, starting in undergrad, how to read, write, design, and run scientific experiments. They should know how to pick out the good studies from the bad ones. There are a LOT of bad studies out there, but it takes a well trained eye to see that.
> 
> Hills SD is a company that has done scientific research on their foods. But I have yet to actually see the studies themselves...why? I have my suspicions that I wouldn't like what a read because I know how to pick a good study out from a bad one. I believe that the studies Hills has done on their diets were specifically designed to produce the results the "scientists" paid by Hills wanted to see. Of course I don't have proof of this, but they also don't publish their studies for everyone to read...I've asked several vets if they have read the actual scientific reports on the foods they support and I have yet to get a "yes" from any of them. Even in school they don't read the actual studies, just the results that are published into nutrition text books. I'm sure one could pay an arm and a leg to read their studies, but who's going to do that? Sure you can find an abstract or two with their brand name on it by doing a google scholar search. But the actual studies? Good luck.
> 
> ...


No chit (excuse my French). You have summed it up perfectly. The only thing I have to add is that if you note here: Top petfood companies you will see the kind of money that is at stake.

ETA: This lovely quote, "We want to sell our brands where we know consumers are receiving education on why our formulas are made the way they are," explained Neil Thompson, president and CEO of Hill's, in a recent Petfood Industry cover profile.

There ya go.


----------



## ArthurSmash (Dec 28, 2011)

kevin bradley said:


> Ok, I know Nat(or someone) recently stopped a post by a firestarter. And I know this guy likes to rile us up under different alias'.
> 
> However, there WAS one point in the discussion that I believe merits discussion. And it is this...
> 
> ...


Kevin, it is just not Vets. The gentleman quoted is also a pretty well known amateur sled dog racer and highly respected professional. Perhaps this is very hard for you to swallow, but out in the real world (ie dog professionals) trainers, trial handlers, breeders and show people have tried all the so-called top foods you and others crow about and do not see any benefit. In fact with some the dogs do very poorly on these formulas. If you have the chance go to a hunting trial event such as NAVHDA or NSTRA and see with your own eyes. I have personally tried many and I always return them. I think you should see some dogs that train 5 days a week and run 25 miles a day in front a horse that eat Pro Plan, Loyall, Annamaet, Dr. Tim's, Precise and even really cheap ones like SportMix and then decide if Castor & Pollux is worth the money. Now, some of those are not cheap either but they are the best. 

I think if you ask people that train their dogs hard they will look at you funny. They know what works and what doesn't. It is not a matter of conspiracy. 

Just being honest.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

oh White, I've been all over the place with Harry's licking, yawning, smacking.... sometimes shaking his head. No ear infections, MSU even did some type of swab in his ear to see if he had any type of deep bacterial infection. Nothing. Blood work checks out great. He is about 8 now and an extremely active Dog, very high strung. Wondering if it could be some arthritis setting in. Also, he's always been very burpy... he will belch loudly from time to time, especially after eating. Both my Vet and the MSU Vets thought Acid Reflux was a possibility. I tried 20mg of Pepcid a couple times per day but didn't see much improvement. He does seem to be a LITTLE better lately....and he's just started on the Acana Fish. Honestly, I've got nothing conclusive. I know lip smacking/yawning are signs of stress and anxiety. I just can't find real concrete answers.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

magicre said:


> still no diagnosis on harry? i'm sorry to hear that....
> 
> the same thing goes on with human diets and pharmacology.....
> 
> ...



Re, I think thats my next step... to try to get in with a Neurologist somewhere. I have to say...Harry is in great spirits, tons of energy. Rarin' to go all the time. Nothing else appears wrong. I'd be much more concerned if he were sluggish and lethargic. He's just a very intense, full of energy Dog. I was talking to the lady over at the Dog Food Project and she suggested having his blood pressure checked. I just wish I could find some answers... A visit to a Neurologist is on my radar though. thank you


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Jun 13, 2010)

I find the whole thing fascinating as well.

I've become more about quality control issues, production, companies and their values, how trustworthy they are, if they had recalls and how they handled them, etc. Whereas I used to just see certain ingredients and be like "Oh, I'd NEVER feed that!" but I've learned quality control and company trust is equally, if not more, important than the ingredient list sometimes. Though of course ingredient list is to be paid attention to as well. 

Look at Evanger's - they were a trustworthy company, I thought, but they had a HUGE issue with listing the wrong meat ingredients in their food. Tested for chicken (or something) and it was beef, etc. That is not good news for a dog who may react terribly to one meat, but the owner thinks they are feeding another. Not cool at ALL.

Lately, I'm not big on most Diamond-produced foods (either foods made by Diamond, for Diamond, or at Diamond plants). I am not sure why - just rubs me the wrong way after reading some current things as well as past issues of course. I did feed TOTW for a while and did have luck with it so I dunno.

Certain foods will look good on paper, or at least decent, but I personally would never feed (e.g. Merrick and Nutro -- WAY too many quality control problems).

I know it gets to a point where you are going to find a problem with EVERY food you read about, whether it be a small problem or a big problem, so of course in the end, it's about finding what works for your dogs. I've probably spent way too much time researching, etc, but I feel confident that I know enough basics to feed my dog what I believe is right and best for him.

But I do believe that a lot, not all, of these holistic higher end companies are probably not all they are cracked up to be. 

Let's be realistic... the meat and ingredients going into ANY of these dog foods is not going to be a prime cut steak that we humans may eat. The prices would be astronomical if they did that. In order to make dog food affordable and sell, price is going to have to be not any more insane than it already is. Even Orijen was using that fish-byproduct from a supplier.... but is that really THAT bad? I don't think so. By me feeding Acana, I'm not expecting him to be necessarily eating the freshest of the fresh, but in terms of kibble, I do feel they are pretty trustworthy and some of the top when it comes to dry kibble.

But I also don't think a simple ingredient list is always a seller for a food; sometimes an ingredient list can look decent, or great, but really the product you are getting is probably not. I'd feed Royal Canin before I fed Nutro. Nutro ingredient list may be superior, but I do not feel their quality or control is.

Basically, there is very few kibbles I feel comfortable feeding nowadays. I've narrowed down a very small list at the moment and that's Champion, Petcerean and Fromm. There's a few others I may consider but those are what I feel most comfortable with at the moment.

I guess I just am not sure feeding Merrick, for example, is any better than feeding Science Diet.

It's not even necessarily just about recalls, I look at how it was handled, if dogs died, how they treated their customers, etc.

I think I've just changed my mindset a little bit. I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable feeding Science Diet, nor want to. But I am also not sure they are the evil-company that everyone makes them out to be, and no longer do I feel Champion is like the superior all mighty kibble either. So I dunno, gotta just do what you are comfortable with, and what you feel is right by your dog and what they do best on.


----------



## tem_sat (Jun 20, 2010)

Jacksons Mom said:


> Let's be realistic... the meat and ingredients going into ANY of these dog foods is not going to be a prime cut steak that we humans may eat. The prices would be astronomical if they did that.[...]Even Orijen was using that fish-byproduct from a supplier.... but is that really THAT bad? I don't think so.


I will touch on 2 points.

Firstly, many know precisely how much prices would be if one were to feed "prime cut steak". The affordable equivalent is non-commercial unprocessed feeding and would average at about $1.00 to $2.00 per pound, dependant upon locale and higher for grass-fed / pastured. Commercial equivalents seem to be about $3.00 to $4.00 per pound, however, sourcing remains out of the customer's control.

Secondly, the "byproduct" issue concerning Orijen hinges upon what one defines as a fish "byproduct". For example, I fed the back end of an ungutted Mackerel, which includes the tail. The parts which would be considered "byproducts" are: tail, guts, and bones. My Doxie loved his byproducts. I have no issue with Champion inluding fish "byproducts".


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

DaneMama said:


> Didn't you all know that scientific research is the only thing that indicates a good, quality food? DUH! BUT...I think that the smaller pet food companies have given Hills a run for their money because Hills has now come out with their new grain free formula. Granted its a terrible looking formula, but I think that Hills sees the opportunity to make big money on these new grain free formulas because they can do the research to "prove" their formulas are better than say Natures Variety or Orijen. Will anyone get to see the actual research or data? Probably not. Most people don't care anyways which is why they are so successful. Blind faith that people have in the vets that give them advice based on their "research".



THIS, Nat, is what perplexes me the most(well, not really, I do GET it)....

If there was SO MUCH SCIENCE in Science Diet, then why is SD NOW coming out with Grain free food? If they had this reknowned Lab somewhere, shouldn't they have come out with their grain free line BEFORE anyone else? I mean, if they were truly cutting edge and not just following the herd? Kind of funny, in a sad and pathetic way. 

It would be akin to telling everyone I am the Scientific Professor of Transportation, schooled in all innovations of mobility....and for 30 years, all I make are bicycles until Ford, Chevy and Chrysler make vehicles before me. Coincidentally, I start making cars 5 years after they do. 

Ok, not the best analogy but you guys get it.


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

From my limited experience, a lot of vets appear to intensely distrust foods with 'high' protein levels. They seem to have been taught that high protein equals kidney/liver failure. 
For example. A 2 year old dog that goes to our vet died last year from kidney failure. This dog ate Orijen, so therefore, our vet told the owner that feeding Orijen is what killed her dog. And, unfortunately, news like this gets around like wildfire. So, who friends whom I've been pushing to feed something like Orijen over the Pedigree they currently feed will not listen to me, they say they have to listen to the animal expert. Not that I can really blame them in a way, I'd probably do the same if I hadn't done my due diligence.


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

kevin bradley said:


> Seriously, does Science Diet REALLY have the power to brainwash the entire Veterinary world? These are supposed to be SCIENTISTS for pete's sake.


This is the major mistake you are assuming. Just because they went to vet school and managed to graduate, does not mean they are 'scientists' at all! I just spent an entire semester with people who actually passed (barely) the same forensic science courses that I was taking and believe me, they had no actual understanding of anything they were learning. They learned just enough to pass a test. 

The same holds true for human doctors. My sister and I see the same physician. The doctor recommends every new pill that the pharmaceutical reps are pushing and my sister happily believes that it will 'fix' her. I get the much better results with exercise and diet changes then she does from all the pills. But, I don't have an MD degree so what do I know. 

I've gotten to where I don't listen to most 'experts' anymore. I research everything myself from a multitude of reliable sources and then form an opinion based on my experiences. :becky:


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

kevin bradley said:


> THIS, Nat, is what perplexes me the most(well, not really, I do GET it)....
> 
> If there was SO MUCH SCIENCE in Science Diet, then why is SD NOW coming out with Grain free food? If they had this reknowned Lab somewhere, shouldn't they have come out with their grain free line BEFORE anyone else? I mean, if they were truly cutting edge and not just following the herd? Kind of funny, in a sad and pathetic way.


I just don't think that the science behind what they do is based on "finding the best nutrition" for dogs/cats. I think their science is based on "how cheap can we make food that will support our claims" but wont make dogs sick or dead. 

I don't think their research has yet to include more natural forms of food...meaning higher protein diets that are structured around the fact that dogs are carnivores. In fact, I think that the notion that dogs are omnivores is based on the fact that an omnivore diet is cheaper to produce since it can be chock full of cheap, crap carbohydrates. And the idea that dogs are omnivores is heavily reinforced by most dog food manufacturers. To me its almost an excuse to feed dogs cheap carbs..."oh, they're omnivores, so its ok" is the sense that I get from the billion dollar companies. 



> It would be akin to telling everyone I am the Scientific Professor of Transportation, schooled in all innovations of mobility....and for 30 years, all I make are bicycles until Ford, Chevy and Chrysler make vehicles before me. Coincidentally, I start making cars 5 years after they do.
> 
> Ok, not the best analogy but you guys get it.


I think its a great analogy. And as much as it sucks they're profiting on just another front of animal nutrition, I feel that its at least a step in the right direction...even though its a small step.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Jun 13, 2010)

tem_sat said:


> I will touch on 2 points.
> 
> Firstly, many know precisely how much prices would be if one were to feed "prime cut steak". The affordable equivalent is non-commercial unprocessed feeding and would average at about $1.00 to $2.00 per pound, dependant upon locale and higher for grass-fed / pastured. Commercial equivalents seem to be about $3.00 to $4.00 per pound, however, sourcing remains out of the customer's control.
> 
> Secondly, the "byproduct" issue concerning Orijen hinges upon what one defines as a fish "byproduct". For example, I fed the back end of an ungutted Mackerel, which includes the tail. The parts which would be considered "byproducts" are: tail, guts, and bones. My Doxie loved his byproducts. I have no issue with Champion inluding fish "byproducts".


I completely agree with you about Orijen - I didn't have an issue with the "byproduct" they used either, which is why I am feeding Acana and trust it still. 

I guess my main point is that I don't really trust a lot of companies, even those who don't include soy, corn, wheat, etc, and it's not as simple as an ingredient list and not to think that dog kibble is going to be something that we humans would be eating, lol.

Really, I'd love to homecook if I had the time, energy, or the desire to. But for now, I'm going to be feeding kibble, and there's just very few I actually trust.

I will say that I HAVE and do see differences when he's eating grain-free Acana versus some other grain inclusives we tried over the past few months, so yeah, I DO think it makes a difference. And Jackson is typically one of the healthiest looking dogs I see in vets offices just by physical appearance, weight, etc, so that may be saying something. Maybe not. I dunno.

There's so many factors to take into account when judging a dog. It's nearly impossible to say well this dog lived longer because he ate x food or this dog had a shorter life because he ate y food. There's genetics, living conditions, activity, weight, etc. So it's really hard to say IF it's worth it or if it's not. But for me and my dog, it is....


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

Jacksons Mom said:


> There's so many factors to take into account when judging a dog. It's nearly impossible to say well this dog lived longer because he ate x food or this dog had a shorter life because he ate y food. There's genetics, living conditions, activity, weight, etc. So it's really hard to say IF it's worth it or if it's not. But for me and my dog, it is....


Excellent point JM. I had a Dog live to around 20 and ate nothing but Pedigree and other store brands. In fact, almost every Dog my family ever had was mixed breeds who all lived to at least 14-15 AND one was a ROTTWEILER for pete's sake. I hate defending the Vet community after I just blasted them with my OP, but I will say that the only thing I can point to with all of the family Dogs is that we were always very diligent about keeping all shots, VET appt's up to date...including heartworm treatments. I certainly can't point to the food because we NEVER fed very good foods. 

So, yes, most likely, there are a multitude of factors that go into how long our Dogs live. But I'd at least like to THINK that Nutrition could help some.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

:usa::usa::usa::usa::usa::usa:


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

magicre said:


> i was just reading something about the two symptoms and harry being a part of stress appeasement....can you think of a reason that harry might be stressed? you said it started four months ago....what else happened four months ago? change of food, addition of a dog, change of your work habits, change of your energy?


New girlfriend??


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

nope, no big changes really. He's always been really high strung, high energy... He's a really happy, excitable Dog. always rarin' to go.


----------



## Mondo (Dec 20, 2011)

Sorry to derail the topic, or re-rail it. This is about the Veterinary Stance on food ... probably most here are aware, but there was a study done with cats circa 1932-1942, the Price-Pottenger study. Now I read some articles debunking this as poorly controlled and so on, but it is about the best we have in terms of the benefits of raw feeding, albeit for cats.



> The actual research sited in the US in support of a raw diet is rather convincing. A long term study conducted by Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., M.D. between 1932 to 1942 was initiated a bit by accident. Dr. Pottenger kept cats as laboratory animals for experiments in human health. As his research and cat population grew, he resorted to feeding them raw meat scraps from a local packing plant instead of cooked kitchen leftovers. Within a few months, he noticed distinct improvements in the cats eating raw meat. This prompted Dr. Pottenger to undertake a whole new experiment: he segregated cats into different groups — some of which were fed a cooked meat diet and others who received a raw meat diet. All observations were noted in great detail over many generations of cats. At the end of the study Dr. Pottenger concluded that cats fed a heat processed diet were deficient and suffered from innumerable ailments ranging from low immunity, irritability, and allergies; to skeletal deformation, organ malfunction, poor development during kittenhood, low birth rate, birth defects, infertility, and shortened life-span. (If you wish to learn more about the Pottenger study, you can purchase a summary of the study as book or video from the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation.)
> 
> All About Raw Food - Canada's Guide to Dogs


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Jun 13, 2010)

kevin bradley said:


> So, yes, most likely, there are a multitude of factors that go into how long our Dogs live. But I'd at least like to THINK that Nutrition could help some.


Definitely! I do like to believe and think that it is does...

But I guess sometimes it's just a crapshoot either way. 

Some kind eat all organic, exercise every day, don't smoke or drink, and still die of lung cancer at age 45.

While others can drink heavily every day, be overweight, and eat junk every day and live to 100. 

But, is smoking, drinking, not exercising really healthy for you? No... I wouldn't say so. 

But I don't really like when people use that excuse to feed their dogs crappy food. "My parents dog lived to be 15 on blah blah" doesn't mean a whole lot. What kind of 15 was it? Were they still active, healthy, in shape, or did they have dry, brittle coats, with eye goop, tons of shedding, doggy smell, etc, etc. 

Our Golden Retriever died at the age of 10 due to cancer. She got sick at 8 though. Fed a crappy food her whole life, probably kibbles n bits or something. Do I think had we changed her diet she could have had a healthier life? Probably... but she also did not get really any exercise in her older days either. So it could be blamed on a multitude of things really. Plus she did not come from a good breeder. But then again, lots of well-bred Goldens die young from cancer too, it's genetic in their blood. 

I don't know. Just so many factors, so hard to judge or say.


----------

