# New York Times article on the "truth" about pet food



## ghostrunner (Mar 24, 2010)

Published today in the NY Times:

Personal Health - The Truth About Cat and Dog Food - NYTimes.com

Thoughts?


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

ghostrunner said:


> Published today in the NY Times:
> 
> Personal Health - The Truth About Cat and Dog Food - NYTimes.com
> 
> Thoughts?


Some interesting points, esp about the fact that any meats are byproducts, even if they say they are "people grade".

IMHO, a worthwhile article in clear, unjargonized English.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

just a simple article that doesn't clarify much of anything. 

What we really need is a TRUE study where large groups of Dogs are fed Iams(premium garbage), Old Roy(known garbage), Diamond(affordable "decent" food) and Orijen(the elite)....this will need to be done over years also. Periodic assesments will need to be made regarding overall health...and we will need some conclusive review of positive/negative impacts on lifespan....because no matter what anyone says, we all want to think we are prolonging our beloved Dogs lives so they can be with us a few years longer. 


Needless to say, this study ain't gonna be cheap. 

But one things for certain, one guys opinion(not even sure he really said anything conclusive in that article) doesn't mean anything to me. 


Every one of these articles seems to imply the same thing....and that is "it just don't matter much what you feed your Dog." I have no studies to prove otherwise. 

Just something inside of me says that it doesn't matter what your Dog eats...that it makes no difference....is absolute BS.


...And just so everyone is clear here...those Authors...Nestle and Nesheim form their food advice on Dogs being Omnivores and point people to foods litterred with grains and carbs. Before anyone takes what they say as Bible, I feel as though full disclosure is important.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

I do think that SOME points are somewhat valid. It's not really a secret around here, I'm not sold on the millions of formulas there are. (puppy, senior, large breed, small breed, weight loss, breed-specific, etc.) I honestly DON'T think that they make much difference in the long run. Perhaps Orijen Large Breed Puppy may be worth the size specific formula, but in general, I don't buy it. Perhaps California Natural is worth the simple ingredient list, but mainstream foods like Eukanuba and Iams that market sensitive stomach formulas, don't have any value over an ALS food at all. So to me, when it comes down to the company that makes it, meat content, carb content, etc. YES, it matters what you feed. When it comes down to Innova Puppy of Innova Adult, no, I don't think it makes much of a long term difference. 


However, statements like:


> And I wonder whether people who invest in high-end pet foods are getting their money’s worth. Are their pets really healthier and happier? Do they live longer? And are these foods any better than the generic versions sold in supermarkets and big-box stores?


irritate me. Of COURSE they're better on the simple fact they are more species appropriate. I'm not a kibble advocate. I'm not a fan of commercial pet food period, but to claim that all pet foods are created equal is silly. Furthermore, when you buy a bag of dog food you're buying the reliability of the company, the manufacturing process, the ingredient list, everything. granted there isn't a company out there I'd put full faith in, there are some i'd trust more than others, like Champion, for example. 




> And, indeed, it is primarily human food companies — Nestlé, Purina, Mars and Procter & Gamble — that make the pet foods sold throughout the world. Of course, in much of the world, domestic dogs and cats survive on table and street scraps, not commercially produced pet foods. In seeking evidence for the added value to health and longevity of commercial pet foods, the authors found almost none with any validity.


This statement is entirely out of place in the article to begin with. I thought it was debating on if the expensive premium foods are worth it over supermarket foods. This is trying to compare benefits of a diet of table scraps, which are generally higher qualty than kibble if done correctly, to kibble. How does that even hold any water in discussing ol' roy vs. evo?




> “Besides, the pet food industry serves an important ecological function by using up food that would otherwise be thrown out,” Dr. Nestle said. “If everyone cooked human food for the 472 million cats and dogs in America, it would be like feeding an additional 42 million people.”


I'm not sure what to say about this statement, other than I find it incredibly interesting. I wonder how accurate it really is. Hmm...


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

Good point, Linsey(on the table scrap issue)...

Saying "table scraps" in any type of assesment of food is pure insanity. What KIND of table scraps? Hell, some table scraps are extremely healthy for your Dog. Eat STEAK and Chicken every night? Your Dog may be getting a helluva lot healthier food than any kibble. Is your kid feeding your Dog grapes and chocolate?.....your Dog ain't doin real well. 


I reread the article. I'm not sure what this bozo was even attempting to say...outside of the consistent rant that "it just doesn't matter what we feed our Dogs"

Another flaw in these 
studies(or proof of what we already know)...they always refer to "premium foods" as Iams, Eukanuba, etc....and then tell us it doesn't make much difference. 

I want a REAL study comparing Orijen or the EVO from yesterday against Pedigree. You tell ME it doesn't make any difference then.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

kevin bradley said:


> I reread the article. I'm not sure what this bozo was even attempting to say...outside of the consistent rant that "it just doesn't matter what we feed our Dogs".


It flip flopped around a ton. Having studied Journalism and communications, this article wouldn't have even made the cut for my former High School newspaper. 
It went from:
There's formulas for every ailment, but they're not proven to work.
There's too many ingredients in Innova, how do you know what's causing the problem? (there's just as many ingredients in cheap foods, so I'm not sure how this is in any way proving premium foods aren't worth it)
Pets are a part of the family, feed them well. 
Pets are fed too much.
Are expensive foods worth it? (what are "expensive foods"? Eukanuba? no, not worth is. Orijen, yes, worth it)
The first five ingredients are all the same
All pet foods are byproducts of the human food market (so true)
None of this implys that it makes no difference what you feed your pet, even though that's what the first few paragraphs rambled on about...
If it works, feed it


So what was his point, again? Was it that better brands make no difference? That corn is bad? that table scraps are good? That we feed too much? That all foods are the same? That it may help to feed a better food? This article is supposed to be the "truth" about pet food. more like random man's ramblings on something he knows nothing about. 
I'm not sure. Oh well. Bad journalism at its finest.


----------

