# AVMA to vote on raw feeding. . .not good news!



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

I just happen to see this article and thought I would share, it's too bad that this is such an issue for them.

_"the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is about to vote on a policy against the feeding of raw meat pet food. If you want to protect your rights to feed a raw meat pet food, I suggest you take action before this gets approved." _ 

VERY Bad News for Raw Feeders


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Roo said:


> I just happen to see this article and thought I would share, it's too bad that this is such an issue for them.
> 
> _"the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is about to vote on a policy against the feeding of raw meat pet food. If you want to protect your rights to feed a raw meat pet food, I suggest you take action before this gets approved." _
> 
> VERY Bad News for Raw Feeders


Unbelievable. It's amazing how much power the kibble companies have. Losing market share to raw? Easy. Just get a mandate against raw, regardless that your facts are all wrong.


----------



## shellbell (Sep 24, 2011)

I just stumbled across this article too. I feel like if some sort of policy is made, at the most it might just affect the manufacturing of premade raw if all of a sudden laws are passed saying people shouldn’t feed raw meat. But I don’t know. Probably if the AVMA does issue a policy or whatever, it will just freak people out and make them not want anything to do with raw, or anything to do with dogs who are on raw. Sounds like they are looking to scare people into thinking that they are going to get sick if they feed raw meat to their dog.


----------



## erinwagner (Aug 30, 2010)

Maybe vets will want to quit vaccinating our dogs too for fear of getting sick themselves....wouldn't break my heart!


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

I know it's not going to change my mind or what I'm going to personally feed my dogs, but I'm curious if it does get passed, what impact it could have, if any, on future vet education, raw pet food suppliers like MPC, etc. Maybe it's nothing, I don't know.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

the thing she said, though, about using the AVMA decision to influence laws on selling raw meat for dogs is kind of scary.

There are companies out there who sell the premades, but also companies who sell whole raw meats, not certified for human consumption, that is meant specifically for dogs.

Such as greentripe.com. My Pet CArnivore. Etc etc.


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

They can't stop much... lets be real. Okay they can say you can't sell it for pet consumption.. suuuure, well they can just find a loophole around it and sell it for human consumption, or they will just do it illegally, places such as greentripe.com etc... we get ours from a processing plant, and from grocery stores, and farms... most raw feeders do it that way, i would never even think of feeding a "pre-made" raw kibble, so this really doesn't concern me too much, though I will send an e-mail voicing my opinion :thumb:


----------



## MissusMac (Jan 6, 2011)

I just emailed them with my opinion. I don't want it to pass because it will just make it so much harder on we who just want our dogs to be fed as healthily as possible. 

I wonder how vets who are proponents of raw and also members of AVMA feel about this.


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

It's so ridiculous. If you are going to discourage people feeding meat because of potential health issues...then discourage people buying meat period...like Susan mentioned in the article/letter. Just doesn't make any logical sense.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

Emailed them a little while ago. 

Its incredible this world we live in. :tsk:


----------



## shellbell (Sep 24, 2011)

I just hope it wouldn’t get to the point where it freaks people out so much that raw fed dogs are stigmatized. I just think about that therapy dog organization (Delta I think) who put a ban on allowing raw fed dogs to work as therapy dogs through them. 

My sister is having her first baby in September, and I’m waiting for the thought to cross her mind to worry about letting the baby come to my house or letting my dogs be around the baby. So for example, if she were to read something like this about the AVMA having an official stance against raw as it being a danger to people, that would really freak her out.


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

Update: The Facts on AVMA's proposed raw feeding policy, according to the AVMA.
The Facts on AVMA’s Proposed Policy on Raw Pet Food Diets


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

The response from the AVMA facebook page "The policy being considered is based on scientific studies that demonstrate significant public health risks associated with raw protein. If you want to feed raw food, that's your choice - even if this policy is passed, it is not law and we have no intention of telling you what you can and can't feed your pet. It's your decision to feed raw food at your own risk."

With the recent dog food recalls for Salmonella, why are the only public health concerns with raw pet food?

It seems like the concept of raw feeding has become more popular in recent years, more acceptance on pet forums, more companies producing commercial raw pet foods which seemed to be leading to the recent raw pet food and kibble study done at the University of IL on domestic cats or NV's commercial raw study a few years ago. Perhaps raw feeding has become too popular for certain dog food companies who have a history of having a close relationship to the AVMA who might not benefit from growing popularity to feeding raw, selling raw, and possibly doing more studies on raw.


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

posted... thanks for the update... they are ridiculous :lol:




Roo said:


> Update: The Facts on AVMA's proposed raw feeding policy, according to the AVMA.
> The Facts on AVMA’s Proposed Policy on Raw Pet Food Diets


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

Do these people think dogs and wolves hang around campfires at night cooking their meat?


----------



## July11 (Jul 7, 2011)

As I read all of this I am wondering;

How many of us here know of or have heard of persons or members of their family getting sick from these ailments they listed while they were feeding raw to their dogs. Honestly, I have never heard of anyone I know or one case in my area.............???
I would be genuinely interested to know about these health threat cases.
Dogs included.


----------



## shellbell (Sep 24, 2011)

They would probably be horrified to know that I just got down cooking dinner for myself at the same time I was handling food for the dogs and preparing their dinners. Not the first time I have done this, and I am still alive and well!


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Here's a petition if anyone wants to sign it. I already sent them an e-mail. Their policy is stupid and basically stating the obvious that anyone should know when handling raw meat for any reason. However, it will only make it that much harder for us raw feeders to continue to find open-minded pets and educate the general public should this policy be adopted. I have no doubt that it will, and I'm really not that concerned, it just annoys me. https://www.change.org/petitions/am...pet-owners-rights-to-feed-a-raw-meat-pet-food


----------



## SusanotheGreatWarrior (Oct 8, 2011)

Is there a petition or something against this?


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

Guys, I am not wising to start a war but really just want to weigh in here as well.... I came to this thread to see an article about the AVMA voting on this issue only to be taken to an emotionally charged article with no real information in it  I will not hide the fact I do not care for Susan's writing, nor her site...that's my opinion and others have theirs. Now, getting to the actual information it appears they they are voting on an "official" position they want to take on this issue...I know raw feeders do not like this stance but things do not change overnight and the raw feeding movement is not that old everyone...I know everyone would like their diet validated, it takes time. I do want to say though that I noticed someone bring up the recent recall with the Salmonella contamination issue.... I do not see the sense in denying something can happen when it can happen. Is it common? No, is it typical? No, but it can happen. It obviously happened in a cooked pet food product, both humans and pets were ill from this, and I do not understand the consistent denial of it potentially happening in a home prepared raw diet  A human being or a pet can be infected with a number of pathogens from raw meat, this is true. As I already said, common? No it is not. Typical? No, it is not. It is possible though. I do not see veterinarians or the AVMA putting their proverbial butts on the liability line with that possibility existing... IMO this is not about right or wrong..it certainly is not about some "big pet food manufacturer" trying to corner the market on food. It is about veterinarians and their organization not wanting to be sued if something bad happens. They are not going to validate your diet nor accept it until they feel more comfortable. I know this is hard for raw feeders to listen to, I know it is aggravating but to be honest the vets have their opinion too and it is constantly and consistently put down, laughed at and humiliated....I don't think they exactly like the treatment they get either on this issue  These reactions will not close the great divide on this issue but IMO only widen the gap. Give it time guys.... this is my best advice and I do think it is sound. There are many, many veterinarians in this country that agree with what raw feeders are doing and support the diet. This is just going to take more time. The AVMA passing an agreed upon policy right now to protect their butts does not negate your diets nor does it change anything about them. 

Hang in there and don't let a matador flash a red cape at you all the time....


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

I can see why this is happening.
Imagine being a vet and suddenly nearly all your clients switch to RAW diets, then they have no problems with their dogs. And they only see you on a yearly basis, you've lost just about a lot of your profits. And if profits don't matter to you, then you lose out on people to give helpful advice to, makes you feel pretty useless.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

SusanotheGreatWarrior said:


> Is there a petition or something against this?


Look right above your post, there is a link to a petition.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Kibblelady said:


> Guys, I am not wising to start a war but really just want to weigh in here as well.... I came to this thread to see an article about the AVMA voting on this issue only to be taken to an emotionally charged article with no real information in it  I will not hide the fact I do not care for Susan's writing, nor her site...that's my opinion and others have theirs.


Then don't go to Susan's site. Go the the AVMA statement. ***Snarky comment removed***


----------



## SusanotheGreatWarrior (Oct 8, 2011)

lol, why didn't I see that?
Thanks


----------



## Kat (Jul 12, 2011)

PunkyPug said:


> I can see why this is happening.
> Imagine being a vet and suddenly nearly all your clients switch to RAW diets, then they have no problems with their dogs. And they only see you on a yearly basis, you've lost just about a lot of your profits. And if profits don't matter to you, then you lose out on people to give helpful advice to, makes you feel pretty useless.


That's what I said to my friend today! When Ruby was kibble fed, I was going to the vet AT LEAST twice a month, since switching to raw I just did a yearly check up. Funny how vets (not saying all vets, because there are good ones out there) say their main concern is making the pet healthy, educating people on "proper" nutrition etc, when they make their money and business off of these prescription diets which dont actually fix any problems. Then there is the whole vaccine thing too, but Im just talking about the food part of it. 

And I know people say this time and again, but vets are always saying there is no scientific proof to back up raw feeding, even if there is no official testing going on, pet owners can see for themselves that the dogs are healthier and happier. No more dentals, no more kibble related health issues - theyre losing out on money big time. 

I wonder when it stopped being about the health and wellness of a pet, it really sucks that that's how things work.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Kibblelady said:


> Guys, I am not wising to start a war but really just want to weigh in here as well.... I came to this thread to see an article about the AVMA voting on this issue only to be taken to an emotionally charged article with no real information in it  I will not hide the fact I do not care for Susan's writing, nor her site...that's my opinion and others have theirs. Now, getting to the actual information it appears they they are voting on an "official" position they want to take on this issue...I know raw feeders do not like this stance but things do not change overnight and the raw feeding movement is not that old everyone...I know everyone would like their diet validated, it takes time. I do want to say though that I noticed someone bring up the recent recall with the Salmonella contamination issue.... I do not see the sense in denying something can happen when it can happen. Is it common? No, is it typical? No, but it can happen. It obviously happened in a cooked pet food product, both humans and pets were ill from this, and I do not understand the consistent denial of it potentially happening in a home prepared raw diet  A human being or a pet can be infected with a number of pathogens from raw meat, this is true. As I already said, common? No it is not. Typical? No, it is not. It is possible though. I do not see veterinarians or the AVMA putting their proverbial butts on the liability line with that possibility existing... IMO this is not about right or wrong..it certainly is not about some "big pet food manufacturer" trying to corner the market on food. It is about veterinarians and their organization not wanting to be sued if something bad happens. They are not going to validate your diet nor accept it until they feel more comfortable. I know this is hard for raw feeders to listen to, I know it is aggravating but to be honest the vets have their opinion too and it is constantly and consistently put down, laughed at and humiliated....I don't think they exactly like the treatment they get either on this issue  These reactions will not close the great divide on this issue but IMO only widen the gap. Give it time guys.... this is my best advice and I do think it is sound. There are many, many veterinarians in this country that agree with what raw feeders are doing and support the diet. This is just going to take more time. The AVMA passing an agreed upon policy right now to protect their butts does not negate your diets nor does it change anything about them.
> 
> Hang in there and don't let a matador flash a red cape at you all the time....


I wish you could see what is really going on here. Pet food companies are losing money because people are figuring out what is so wrong with the kibbles they are feeding their dogs. 

In the majority of raw feeders' homes raw meat is handled appropriately. Hands are washed afterwards. Counters are cleaned. Precautions are taken. It is not the same in the vast majority of kibble homes. Kibble is often eaten by young children and I don't know many people who wash their hands after feeding their dogs.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> In the majority of raw feeders' homes raw meat is handled appropriately. Hands are washed afterwards. Counters are cleaned. Precautions are taken. It is not the same in the vast majority of kibble homes. Kibble is often eaten by young children and I don't know many people who wash their hands after feeding their dogs.


And in some houses (mine) precautions aren't really taken. I wash off my cutting board with water and now and then Comet. I normally don't wash my hands with soap, just rinse them off. I've never gotten salmonella.

The only real precaution I take, which I took long before raw, is to cut meat and veggies on separate cutting boards. And who doesn't do that?

They say 85% of chicken from the grocery store has salmonella. I don't see any hue and cry to remove that from people's diets, or to make sure the chicken doesn't have it. Concessions are ALWAYS made for profit.


----------



## Scarlett_O' (May 19, 2011)

Anyone who believes that this type of thing is for our safety is.....well VERY mislead to say the least!

This kind of thing....well it's all about money, sadly pretty much everything in our society is about money, and medical personnel are no different!! Ugh!


----------



## xchairity_casex (Oct 8, 2011)

its OUR right to decide if we are willing to take the risk its OUR right to feed our pets what we want to feed them its OUR right as americans!
if they passed laws to keep us "safe' from every possible illness and/or death we would have NOTHING we would do NOTHING we would be NOTHING. life is life, we CANNOT keep the world safe from death, from illness, from catstrophes, its NOT POSSIBLE. what will they do next? not even allow humans to consume meat due to the possible contamination prospect? not allow people to eat certian fruits or vegtibles due to possible e-coli poisoning? not allow people to farm, or own home aquariums, or own reptiles or amphibians as pets due to possible contamination and illness? or what about walking around out doors barefoot? will THAT right be taken away too? or maybe our rights to kiss our pets? HELL why not do away with pets entierly so we dont have to even worry
??

we are SUPPOSED to be a FREE country? anyone ever remeber that? i dont CARE if you hate the thought of other people feeding a raw diet, its YOUR rights being taken away too, remember that, because lord knows what else they will make illegal! if we have NO say in what goes into our pets bodies, whos to say what they will take away next...


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

What i wonder is this. If this thing passes, will ALL vets be required to speak against raw feeding? Are they bound by some kind of loyalty to whatever the AVMA tells them to do?

I worry some about legislation, but i think I worry more about people being scared off by their vets. Not that they aren't already, but this may make it worse. 

My vet is neither here nor there on it - I don't think he's crazy about it but he's never told me I shouldn't. Under this new thing, would they be obligated to speak against it? Hand out pamphlets about the dangers of raw feeding? Etc?


----------



## xchairity_casex (Oct 8, 2011)

u know what i worry about? will there be huge fines like with selling raw milk to people who admit to feeding raw? will they call animal control and label it "animal cruelty" and have your pets taken away?
im sure that sounds like a stupid fear, but who knows now days! what about that person who just had there cat removed from the home and had it put to sleep because the vet reccomended it be put to sleep but the owners felt he wasnt ready to go yet as he was still active, so the vet called animal control, and they forcibly removed the cat and put it to sleep, that angers me AND freaks me out!

or here in MI they are making it illegal to raise or own pigs of ANY type, if your caught owning or farming pigs now they are all killed and you are fined


----------



## tem_sat (Jun 20, 2010)

To me, it looks like it had been pushed by the Delta Society. This should not suprise anyone in the least, not to mention considering who is on the Board of the Delta Society.

See: http://atwork.avma.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Resolution_5_raw-food.pdf

and: http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/ar...uence-delta-society’s-ban-of-raw-feeding.html


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

PunkyPug said:


> I can see why this is happening.
> Imagine being a vet and suddenly nearly all your clients switch to RAW diets, then they have no problems with their dogs. And they only see you on a yearly basis, you've lost just about a lot of your profits. And if profits don't matter to you, then you lose out on people to give helpful advice to, makes you feel pretty useless.


I don't know why people say things like this. Raw fed dogs get sick, they do. They get hit by cars, they rupture ligaments, they get attacked by other animals. They get hip dysplasia, suffer from some poor breeding just like kibble fed dogs. They get cancer  Vets treat disease and unfortunately our beloved pets will always have diseases in general and injuries no matter what we feed them...

People may not have a problem now but all dogs die and they do not all die peacefully in their sleep of "old age." Some disease process takes them from us, that's mother nature and we will never stop that. Vets will always be there to help.... :sigh: I just am saddened that people with a love of animals that they had enough interest in and went to school for many years putting themselves in much debt most of the time have to be looked at as money hungry professionals that either want to keep their clients ill or do not care enough to stop this from happening  I cannot be the only person that sees this? This is a myth... and one of the worst ones IMO


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

xellil said:


> Then don't go to Susan's site. Go the the AVMA statement. ***Snarky comment removed***


I did as soon as I read her article...why did I read the article? Because I do have enough sense to read what everyone else did to see what the fuss is about. I of course then did go read the actual AVMA document to find out what was actually going on. Is that the only thing that stood out to you from my post? (written friendly in a conversational mode which is what I came to this thread for)


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

Kat said:


> That's what I said to my friend today! When Ruby was kibble fed, I was going to the vet AT LEAST twice a month, since switching to raw I just did a yearly check up. Funny how vets (not saying all vets, because there are good ones out there) say their main concern is making the pet healthy, educating people on "proper" nutrition etc, when they make their money and business off of these prescription diets which dont actually fix any problems. Then there is the whole vaccine thing too, but Im just talking about the food part of it.
> 
> And I know people say this time and again, but vets are always saying there is no scientific proof to back up raw feeding, even if there is no official testing going on, pet owners can see for themselves that the dogs are healthier and happier. No more dentals, no more kibble related health issues - theyre losing out on money big time.
> 
> I wonder when it stopped being about the health and wellness of a pet, it really sucks that that's how things work.


If you were going to the vet twice a month something was seriously wrong either with the diet you were feeding or just something else in general. My dogs have always been kibble fed and go years between vet vists. Vets are not there to give advice on regular everyday nutrition for a healthy dog (I know many people think this and vets do comment if asked by the client.) They are animal doctors and treat disease and injury. Their mindset is disease and injury and this is what they study and what interests them, not spending hours learning about pet food products or optional diets to feed healthy pets. Some of the script diets are not needed but many are and they treat disease, this is what a vet knows about, nutrition for disease. I was just at my vets today as I do have a dog with cancer (no, it is not because of kibble before that starts) he didnt ask me what I feed him because he knows it will not cure this situation and he could see the obvious health of the animal (having a couple tumors does not effect all health systems in the beginning) he wasn't curious about diet because whatever I am doing was obviously working. I could have been feeding raw and he would never know. We discussed his hypercalcimia and lack of appetite as well as defication issues, not diet or what food is better. I wonder where are all these vets I hear about talking about raw diets if it is not instigated? If someone asks a vet's opinion on something and then does not agree with the opinion fine, that's a difference of opinions. What matters are the results and a healthy animal no? Vets learn in school to trust scientific data, it is pounded into them, it is what they study. Unfortunately this can prevent some information that exists without that data to back it up, they just are not comfortable jumping on that wagon....this doesn't mean they never will be. As I said before, it takes time. Does everyone here print out information, explain their diet and maybe write a testimonial to their vet that they can go over on their down time? Or are they just getting into this issue during an appointment (which is very time limited and a vet probably feels is more appropriate spent on a sick animal.) Anyone hearing me? Like I said I am not here to fight or argue, just commenting on what I read. Does anyone else consider the things above?


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> I wish you could see what is really going on here. Pet food companies are losing money because people are figuring out what is so wrong with the kibbles they are feeding their dogs.
> 
> In the majority of raw feeders' homes raw meat is handled appropriately. Hands are washed afterwards. Counters are cleaned. Precautions are taken. It is not the same in the vast majority of kibble homes. Kibble is often eaten by young children and I don't know many people who wash their hands after feeding their dogs.


Lol why is it always I cannot see what is going on? Believe me I know waaaay too much about the pet food industry and I do not get my information from just the internet or hearsay. I know what is going on and no, it is not what you stated. Look at all the products coming out. You think the industry is dying? Nooo it is growing in leaps and bounds that is why all these people are getting on the bandwagon. Kibble companies are not worried about the raw feeders, you are a small majority of the pet population, which btw is HUGE. This is another myth. I know you don't believe me and will not care what I say but I must say it.

I had many children in my home over the years and never has a child eaten kibble.... they have eaten worms, dirt, ferret poop, toys and a host of other non-edible things lol But never kibble, but I wouldn't worry if they did to be honest anymore than you worry about germs on your floor or on your dog... I do not feed my dogs with my hands, I use a scoop and a bowl. I am sure many people do touch their kibble and it usually is not a problem just as it would be unusual for a raw feeder to get sick via what they are feeding their dog. I do not want to get into a kibble vs raw debate, that has been over done. My original comment was about a policy the AMVA is voting on and an emotionally charged article that was posted. It does bother me to see veterinarians spoken about with such disdain.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

Scarlett_O' said:


> Anyone who believes that this type of thing is for our safety is.....well VERY mislead to say the least!
> 
> This kind of thing....well it's all about money, sadly pretty much everything in our society is about money, and medical personnel are no different!! Ugh!


Correct, it is about liability in a very litigious society.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

xchairity_casex said:


> its OUR right to decide if we are willing to take the risk its OUR right to feed our pets what we want to feed them its OUR right as americans!
> if they passed laws to keep us "safe' from every possible illness and/or death we would have NOTHING we would do NOTHING we would be NOTHING. life is life, we CANNOT keep the world safe from death, from illness, from catstrophes, its NOT POSSIBLE. what will they do next? not even allow humans to consume meat due to the possible contamination prospect? not allow people to eat certian fruits or vegtibles due to possible e-coli poisoning? not allow people to farm, or own home aquariums, or own reptiles or amphibians as pets due to possible contamination and illness? or what about walking around out doors barefoot? will THAT right be taken away too? or maybe our rights to kiss our pets? HELL why not do away with pets entierly so we dont have to even worry
> ??
> 
> we are SUPPOSED to be a FREE country? anyone ever remeber that? i dont CARE if you hate the thought of other people feeding a raw diet, its YOUR rights being taken away too, remember that, because lord knows what else they will make illegal! if we have NO say in what goes into our pets bodies, whos to say what they will take away next...


No one is threatening to take away anyone's rights. This is not about a law it is about a policy the AMVA wants to make official, like an organized across the board comment from the members. It has nothing to do with freedom or anyone's right to feed raw.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

xellil said:


> What i wonder is this. If this thing passes, will ALL vets be required to speak against raw feeding? Are they bound by some kind of loyalty to whatever the AVMA tells them to do?
> 
> I worry some about legislation, but i think I worry more about people being scared off by their vets. Not that they aren't already, but this may make it worse.
> 
> My vet is neither here nor there on it - I don't think he's crazy about it but he's never told me I shouldn't. Under this new thing, would they be obligated to speak against it? Hand out pamphlets about the dangers of raw feeding? Etc?


No, they can have their own opinion and can tell you whatever they want. This is just so the AMVA can stop, for the time being, answering questions about it. Members can choose to reference the policy if they choose to do so and basically duck out of the discussion. It prevents a vet from being sued for the illness or death of a pet or person from their mentioning or recommending a raw diet. They can simply quote the policy and apply it as their official opinion.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

xchairity_casex said:


> u know what i worry about? will there be huge fines like with selling raw milk to people who admit to feeding raw? will they call animal control and label it "animal cruelty" and have your pets taken away?


This is not legislation, nor a law. It is only an official policy being voted on by a private entity. There are no fines involved nor reasons to remove animals from homes.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

tem_sat said:


> To me, it looks like it had been pushed by the Delta Society. This should not suprise anyone in the least, not to mention considering who is on the Board of the Delta Society.
> 
> See: http://atwork.avma.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Resolution_5_raw-food.pdf
> 
> and: http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/articles/did-purina-executive-influence-delta-society’s-ban-of-raw-feeding.html


I feel the Delta society is frightened and ill informed. However, they do deal with many children, elderly and immune suppressed people hence the fear.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

tem_sat said:


> and: http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/articles/did-purina-executive-influence-delta-society’s-ban-of-raw-feeding.html


So, because a member of the board works for Purina it means she influenced this so the company could sell more dog food? Really? Seriously? That is so stretched it may break.... this article is proof of nothing and only informs that a member of the board is an employee of Purina... Hm, maybe employees of Purina have dogs and are interested in the Delta society and service/sar/therapy dogs? Maybe one employee has been involved for a long time and was elected to the board and Purina has nothing to do with her involvement? Maybe the Delta society identifies her as a Purina employee because they think it is impressive? Too many maybes...


----------



## Savage Destiny (Mar 16, 2011)

Kibblelady said:


> So, because a member of the board works for Purina it means she influenced this so the company could sell more dog food? Really? Seriously? That is so stretched it may break.... this article is proof of nothing and only informs that a member of the board is an employee of Purina... Hm, maybe employees of Purina have dogs and are interested in the Delta society and service/sar/therapy dogs? Maybe one employee has been involved for a long time and was elected to the board and Purina has nothing to do with her involvement? Maybe the Delta society identifies her as a Purina employee because they think it is impressive? Too many maybes...


Delta didn't ban raw until the Purina employee joined the board. They refuse to acknowledge any studies showing that kibble fed dogs also shed salmonella. They refuse to allow even the "safe" raw foods such as Stella and Chewy's or Nature's Variety which have been removed of all bacteria and _tested and proven to not carry bacteria_. Delta is changing their _official colour scheme_ for all their logos to be Purina colours. Yeah, there's no funny business going on there at all. 

Look, I get some of what you're saying. I also hate how this board seems to have it out for vets, and thinks they're all either idiots or money grubbing idiots. However, in this particular case, I'm landing firmly on the side of the majority. This "policy" is a load of crap. I don't necessarily think Big Pet Food is behind it, but I certainly think that the vets on the board are taking the easy way out, not bothering to learn anything new, and branding anything they don't know about as evil. That is ridiculous and stupid, in my opinion. They're taking a stand against something they know nothing about, and personally I think less of them for it. 

And yes, this could easily spiral into legislation regulating what we feed our pets. Lawmakers pay attention to stuff like this. It would be very easy for Big Pet Food to step in at some point and put a bug in someone's ear.


----------



## Roo (Oct 17, 2010)

Susan's Article was posted first because it was the first info out about the situation that I was aware of, the AVMA's info from their site was posted later when available. 

I can understand people's concerns about the possible influence the AVMA may have on legislation when the AVMA posts the following on their website _"hundreds of veterinarian members participate in the development of scientifically sound policies that guide decisions from local municipalities all the way up to the federal government. The AVMA provides guidelines for the practice of veterinary medicine in the United States. Codes of ethics and guidelines of service are developed and evaluated on an ongoing basis to appropriately protect animal and human health."_ The AVMA with over 81,000 vet members is not a small organization by any means. 

I find their raw feeding policy confusing and somewhat of a double standard. I would think most individuals would be fairly aware of the obvious risks associated with raw meat without the need for an official "policy" to remind us. However since the AVMA proposes that we may need one, due to human health risk concerns, why is the policy focused ONLY on raw, why not include commercial dry foods and treats in the policy as well? According to the FDA, 9.8 percent of pet food sampled between 2007 and 2009 tested positive for salmonella; almost 1 in 10. Pet treats tested positive for salmonella 4.8 percent of the time. In the 2011 and 2012 FDA Nationwide Assignments to Collect and Analyze Samples of Direct-Human-Contact Feed from Interstate Commerce in the United States for Salmonella it states. . .

_“FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is concerned about animal feed serving as vehicles for transmitting pathogenic and antibiotic-resistant bacteria to humans and other animals and is particularly concerned about Salmonella being transmitted to humans through direct-human-contact feed. Direct-human-contact feed includes animal feed, pet food, and pet treats that are intended to be fed to animals in homes, petting zoos, agricultural fairs, and similar venues where they are likely to be directly handled or ingested by humans. In this document, “animal feed” is used to mean “food,” as defined in section 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for animals. This includes, but is not limited to, “animal feed” as defined in section 201(w) of the Act.

The association between human outbreaks of salmonellosis and contact with Salmonella-contaminated direct-human-contact feed is well established. Notably, Health Canada informed FDA of Canadian outbreaks of human salmonellosis that were linked to Salmonella Infantis in pig-ear dog treats that were manufactured in Canada in 1999 and to Salmonella Newport in beefsteak-patty dog treats that were manufactured in Texas in 2002. In addition, human outbreaks of salmonellosis in Canada and the United States in 2005 were linked to pet treats contaminated with Salmonella Thompson. More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that, between January 1, 2006 and December 11, 2007, seventy human cases of salmonellosis were linked to Salmonella Schwarzengrund in dry dog foods that were manufactured by a company in the United States.

Salmonella-contaminated direct-human-contact feed poses a significant health risk to humans. Certain vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems, are particularly susceptible to Salmonella infection from such feed. For these reasons, CVM considers it prudent to keep Salmonella-contaminated direct-human-contact feed out of interstate commerce.”_

The AVMA's raw policy states it's to discourage only raw feeding/diets/petfood, when they could have instead chose a policy to educate on the risks of BOTH kibble and raw diets and how to minimize the risks with tips on proper feeding and handling.


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

Kibblelady said:


> I don't know why people say things like this. Raw fed dogs get sick, they do. They get hit by cars, they rupture ligaments, they get attacked by other animals. They get hip dysplasia, suffer from some poor breeding just like kibble fed dogs. They get cancer  Vets treat disease and unfortunately our beloved pets will always have diseases in general and injuries no matter what we feed them...
> 
> People may not have a problem now but all dogs die and they do not all die peacefully in their sleep of "old age." Some disease process takes them from us, that's mother nature and we will never stop that. Vets will always be there to help.... :sigh: I just am saddened that people with a love of animals that they had enough interest in and went to school for many years putting themselves in much debt most of the time have to be looked at as money hungry professionals that either want to keep their clients ill or do not care enough to stop this from happening  I cannot be the only person that sees this? This is a myth... and one of the worst ones IMO


Yes I am well aware that RAW fed dogs can still get injured and sick. However, they get sick considerably less often than most kibble fed dogs.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Well, I'm not going to get deep into this, because I feel it is a topic that could potentially get out of hand easily. But, my thaughts are that no one is going to tell me what to feed my dogs any more than my child. It may, affect commercially sold raw, but considering I feed pmr I will continue buying meat from stores for my dogs. No one can stop that. I will also still go to butchers for scraps during deer season.

I think it just comes down to the fact that vets are feeling threatened by all the knowledge getting out to people about raw and more natural foods. If that makes any sense. More and more people are taking notice to the junk ingredients in Science Diet, Purina, Eukanuba etc... and they are worried about what it will do to their buisness. Better, species appropriate foods means less trips to the vets.


----------



## OnyxDog (Jun 15, 2011)

No matter what the outcome of this may be, I will still continue to feed what I feel is the best thing I could possibly feed my dogs. I made a promise to them when I took them in that I would care for them to the best of my ability, and this is certainly not going to stop me from doing it. Never break a promise to a dog!


----------



## tem_sat (Jun 20, 2010)

Kibblelady said:


> Correct, it is about liability in a very litigious society.


Well, I am relieved that now I can switch to a nice crappy kibble with lots of Menadione in hopes that my dog will someday end up with Salmonella poisoning allowing me to not only sue the PFC who made the food, but also my vet who recommended it and the AVMA. Sounds like a plan.


----------



## TTs Towel (Jul 10, 2012)

Some of you are ridiculous.

The AVMA is just a professional organization. It can't make you do anything. It can't make the vets in the AVMA do anything. Geez, does everyone just open up and swallow every time a scare story comes out????


----------



## PunkyPug (Apr 4, 2012)

TTs Towel said:


> Some of you are ridiculous.
> 
> The AVMA is just a professional organization. It can't make you do anything. It can't make the vets in the AVMA do anything. Geez, does everyone just open up and swallow every time a scare story comes out????


Very rude an uncalled for.
We understand the vets (or anyone for that matter) cannot force use to change our animals' diets. This thread is simply for expressing your opinions on this crazy organization and this "policy" their coming out with.


----------



## Malika04 (May 14, 2012)

I just joined a co-op and I think this might affect commercial raw dog food if it passes. 

I am not real sure but if I hear anything about this from the co-op I will post it.

It is certainly not going to deter me from raw feeding. 

Malika's hair is slowly growing back now after 2.5 months on raw.


----------



## wolfsnaps88 (Jan 2, 2012)

You know what I don't get? Many times, a vet does not feel comfortable recommending a raw diet for fear of getting sued if something bad did happen. Lets face it, this country loves suing! So, lets say you do not feed raw correctly or something bad does happen. You can turn around and sue your vet for recommending such an unsafe diet. 

But what about when the 'safe' kibble killed thousands of animals in 2007? Were any vets sued for recommending Hill's or Iams? 

I understand vets are doing their job medicinally and also want to cover their arse in case some idiot sues them for informing them of a raw diet. I think that has something to do with the AVMA's possible stance against raw. There may be some behind closed doors BIG PET FOOD double dealings, who knows. 

It won't change our rights or freedoms to feed raw. It may shut down raw food companies because they will lose business. 

I could care either way. My vet doesn't even know I feed raw because I am wary of her reaction. She can't change my mind. I will still feed raw my way. 

Honestly, I don't know why everyone is freaking out over this. Yes, it will probably go in favor of NOT feeding raw, but so what? Unless you own a premade raw food business, its not going to affect you (unless you buy from one, in which case, you better start getting creative with your sources, pal)


----------



## Herzo (Feb 5, 2011)

Well that's just it. Why is it right to put small business out of business. This is happening all over. Ok so I didn't read it all and can't say I understand it. We do get a little over rot about Vets at times but what is the bigger picture.
I didn't say anything when they came for the raw food company's because I didn't feed them. I won't go on........................................................................................................................................
Some of you may understand.

Sorry this just reeks of this.


----------



## Malika04 (May 14, 2012)

I feed PMR but I was going to try some grind from a raw company...we will just have to see how things roll with this.

Those who feed PMR and do not rely on Raw companies will be fine, I just feel terrible for those raw vendors...


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Kibblelady said:


> I don't know why people say things like this. Raw fed dogs get sick, they do. They get hit by cars, they rupture ligaments, they get attacked by other animals. They get hip dysplasia, suffer from some poor breeding just like kibble fed dogs. They get cancer  Vets treat disease and unfortunately our beloved pets will always have diseases in general and injuries no matter what we feed them...
> 
> People may not have a problem now but all dogs die and they do not all die peacefully in their sleep of "old age." Some disease process takes them from us, that's mother nature and we will never stop that. Vets will always be there to help.... :sigh: I just am saddened that people with a love of animals that they had enough interest in and went to school for many years putting themselves in much debt most of the time have to be looked at as money hungry professionals that either want to keep their clients ill or do not care enough to stop this from happening  I cannot be the only person that sees this? This is a myth... and one of the worst ones IMO


Raw fed dogs tend to suffer from fewer allergies and , when the raw diet is fed properly, tend to be much healthier than most kibble fed dogs out there. Dogs on a high quality kibble can do well too but look at what most of society feeds: Pedigree, Purina, Eukanuba, Iams, Ol' Ro, etc. Those are not dog foods that are going to keep dogs healthy. 

My kibble fed brittany had chronic ear infections. Had I known about raw when he was alive I can bet his ears never would have gotten that bad in the first place. He was on Iams for the first 9 years of his life and Pedigree for the next 8 years.

My grandfather's late doberman suffered from allergies. She was always flaky and itchy. She was fed one of the Kirkland foods.

My mom's young boxer had such itchy, yeasty paws about 6 months ago that she was chewing them open and making herself bleed. She was on Pedigree until I convinced her to switch to something better. Not great, but better. She is on her third or fourth food and, when the switch is made, she is itch free for a few weeks then becomes itchy again. 

None of us will deny that raw fed dogs may still need vet care. We take our dogs in for annual check ups but other than that we really don't need to unless an accident were to happen whether it be a young dog (or old, in Snorkel's case!) getting into something/eating something it shouldn't or accidentally getting out and being injured or whatever but those things aren't directly related to nutritional health.

You are taking what we mean and turning it into something else. Because my dogs are raw fed we have no allergy mysteries going on here because my dogs are allergic to something in their food. My almost 9 year old dog should, based on my experience with other collies, be seeing the start of some age related issues but he is not. He is routinely mistaken for a 3-4 year old dog. 

Will he get cancer? Maybe. But I am certainly not going to fill him up with carbs to feed that cancer. We understand that genetics DO come into play but genetics can be helped significantly by a proper diet and kibble is not a proper diet.



Kibblelady said:


> If you were going to the vet twice a month something was seriously wrong either with the diet you were feeding or just something else in general. My dogs have always been kibble fed and go years between vet vists. Vets are not there to give advice on regular everyday nutrition for a healthy dog (I know many people think this and vets do comment if asked by the client.) They are animal doctors and treat disease and injury. Their mindset is disease and injury and this is what they study and what interests them, not spending hours learning about pet food products or optional diets to feed healthy pets. Some of the script diets are not needed but many are and they treat disease, this is what a vet knows about, nutrition for disease. I was just at my vets today as I do have a dog with cancer (no, it is not because of kibble before that starts) he didnt ask me what I feed him because he knows it will not cure this situation and he could see the obvious health of the animal (having a couple tumors does not effect all health systems in the beginning) he wasn't curious about diet because whatever I am doing was obviously working. I could have been feeding raw and he would never know. We discussed his hypercalcimia and lack of appetite as well as defication issues, not diet or what food is better. I wonder where are all these vets I hear about talking about raw diets if it is not instigated? If someone asks a vet's opinion on something and then does not agree with the opinion fine, that's a difference of opinions. What matters are the results and a healthy animal no? Vets learn in school to trust scientific data, it is pounded into them, it is what they study. Unfortunately this can prevent some information that exists without that data to back it up, they just are not comfortable jumping on that wagon....this doesn't mean they never will be. As I said before, it takes time. Does everyone here print out information, explain their diet and maybe write a testimonial to their vet that they can go over on their down time? Or are they just getting into this issue during an appointment (which is very time limited and a vet probably feels is more appropriate spent on a sick animal.) Anyone hearing me? Like I said I am not here to fight or argue, just commenting on what I read. Does anyone else consider the things above?


Nutrition is a HUGE part of staying healthy so, yes, I do expect my vet to know the facts behind proper nutrition. If the vet knows nothing about proper nutrition then they do not get my money. Most vets know SO little that it is very disturbing. As you said, they are animal doctors. SO many things people take their dogs to the vet for is food related.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

naturalfeddogs said:


> I think it just comes down to the fact that vets are feeling threatened by all the knowledge getting out to people about raw and more natural foods. If that makes any sense. More and more people are taking notice to the junk ingredients in Science Diet, Purina, Eukanuba etc... and they are worried about what it will do to their buisness. Better, species appropriate foods means less trips to the vets.


Vet's feel threatened how? You are thinking vets make a ton of money off selling the foods in their clinic? This is an incorrect assumption, they just do not. Kibble has the lowest profit margin of anything a vet or pet store can carry...the lowest. The vets have it for convenience of their clients...not to make a mint. Vet's make money off veterinary services, not pet food. Look into it, I'm not inventing this. I see this over and over simply because it is repeated over and over however it is not based in reality, it is not true, not a fact and any thoughts coming off of this false assumption turn out being incorrect. People do not ask vets about these things, they listen to what they hear online or in a book (these things came from people believing in a false assumption) it then spreads like a virus as many things do in this topic. Many people repeating this does not make it true.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

OnyxDog said:


> No matter what the outcome of this may be, I will still continue to feed what I feel is the best thing I could possibly feed my dogs. I made a promise to them when I took them in that I would care for them to the best of my ability, and this is certainly not going to stop me from doing it. Never break a promise to a dog!



I totally agree and doubt anyone would disagree with the above comment


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

tem_sat said:


> Well, I am relieved that now I can switch to a nice crappy kibble with lots of Menadione in hopes that my dog will someday end up with Salmonella poisoning allowing me to not only sue the PFC who made the food, but also my vet who recommended it and the AVMA. Sounds like a plan.



Where did this comment come from? My point was the vets do not want to be liable..... in today's society unfortunately any professional has to keep liability in mind. Were the kibble manufactuers that had substances or bacterias show up in their food that caused injury not liable? Of course they were. These vets do not want to be liable for something in the hands of only a client that *may not* (emphasis because many are but some are not) understand or prevent the possible negatives/problems/dangers. 

On another note I have yet to have a vet in all my years that has recommended a kibble to me by name.....usually its the "use a premium kibble with AAFCO approval." As I stated before, vets are not there to give us advice on what to feed a healthy dog...they are there to treat sick animals. People are now thinking vets are like HMO docs for people and provide the same services.....it is not the same and never has been.


----------



## Kibblelady (Jul 13, 2012)

PunkyPug said:


> Very rude an uncalled for.
> We understand the vets (or anyone for that matter) cannot force use to change our animals' diets. This thread is simply for expressing your opinions on this crazy organization and this "policy" their coming out with.


I don't think it was rude at all, just very direct. I have been being very careful with my wording because I really want to be heard but the above really is really concise. Maybe it's rude to call the organization "crazy?" They have an opinion, yes it differs from the raw feeders but it's their opinion. Raw feeders tend to not like any opinion that differs from their own...sorry this is what I experience all the time  Why are the veterinarians not entitled to an opinion on this matter? Why is their organization not entitled to the same? Why feel so threatened? (You realize that Susan really pulls on the "threaten string" alot right? She uses fear and panic as well as yellow journalism to get attention and just set people off.) Now that's my opnion, not meant to insult anyone, but just in a direct format.....I could have said it more gently though if I had time....but my kid is waiting to leave for the amusement park.... be back later.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Kibblelady said:


> I don't think it was rude at all, just very direct. I have been being very careful with my wording because I really want to be heard but the above really is really concise. Maybe it's rude to call the organization "crazy?" They have an opinion, yes it differs from the raw feeders but it's their opinion. *Raw feeders tend to not like any opinion that differs from their own...sorry this is what I experience all the time*  Why are the veterinarians not entitled to an opinion on this matter? Why is their organization not entitled to the same? Why feel so threatened? (You realize that Susan really pulls on the "threaten string" alot right? She uses fear and panic as well as yellow journalism to get attention and just set people off.) Now that's my opnion, not meant to insult anyone, but just in a direct format.....I could have said it more gently though if I had time....but my kid is waiting to leave for the amusement park.... be back later.


And kibble feeders are innocent of that? Not from what I have seen. I have been threatened by kibble feeders. I have been told that, because of what I feed, that they were going to call the authorities on me. I have been told that my dog is going to die a horrible death from sliced up insides. Neither side likes an opinion that differs from how they feel.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> I have been threatened by kibble feeders. I have been told that, because of what I feed, that they were going to call the authorities on me. I have been told that my dog is going to die a horrible death from sliced up insides. Neither side likes an opinion that differs from how they feel.


That's offensive to me. I refuse to be put in the same boat as scum who among other things threaten people. You know this is not the norm but you still went there. If the elitist raw feeders here (which are not the majority by the way) stop with the confrontational and juvenile nonsense you'd see that the vast majority of kibble feeders everywhere are well rounded people. Me included which have nothing against feeding raw what-so-ever.


----------



## Herzo (Feb 5, 2011)

Lets all stay calm now.....we don't want it to go bad.........


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Kibblelady said:


> Vet's feel threatened how? You are thinking vets make a ton of money off selling the foods in their clinic? This is an incorrect assumption, they just do not. Kibble has the lowest profit margin of anything a vet or pet store can carry...the lowest. The vets have it for convenience of their clients...not to make a mint. Vet's make money off veterinary services, not pet food. Look into it, I'm not inventing this. I see this over and over simply because it is repeated over and over however it is not based in reality, it is not true, not a fact and any thoughts coming off of this false assumption turn out being incorrect. People do not ask vets about these things, they listen to what they hear online or in a book (these things came from people believing in a false assumption) it then spreads like a virus as many things do in this topic. Many people repeating this does not make it true.


I have worked for several vets over the years, and more food shipments came in than just about anything else. The vets were constantly prescribing Science Diet, or some other food. Even special orders. They DO makes lots of money off food.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

Kibblelady said:


> Where did this comment come from? My point was the vets do not want to be liable..... in today's society unfortunately any professional has to keep liability in mind. Were the kibble manufactuers that had substances or bacterias show up in their food that caused injury not liable? Of course they were. These vets do not want to be liable for something in the hands of only a client that *may not* (emphasis because many are but some are not) understand or prevent the possible negatives/problems/dangers.
> 
> On another note I have yet to have a vet in all my years that has recommended a kibble to me by name.....usually its the "use a premium kibble with AAFCO approval." As I stated before, vets are not there to give us advice on what to feed a healthy dog...they are there to treat sick animals. People are now thinking vets are like HMO docs for people and provide the same services.....it is not the same and never has been.


OL'Roy has AAFCO approval.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

DaViking said:


> That's offensive to me. I refuse to be put in the same boat as scum who among other things threaten people. You know this is not the norm but you still went there. If the elitist raw feeders here (which are not the majority by the way) stop with the confrontational and juvenile nonsense you'd see that the vast majority of kibble feeders everywhere are well rounded people. Me included which have nothing against feeding raw what-so-ever.


You have GOT to be kidding me. THIS offends you? Because I stated that I have been threatened by kibble feeders? That's funny. 

I have friends and family who feed kibble. I don't live in this raw feeding bubble. I am the ONLY member of my family who feeds raw.

Whatever you want to think, it is a FACT that these things of happened to me. They were kibble feeders. I never said ALL kibble feeders threaten people. That's just silly. I CANNOT believe you got your panties in a wad about that.

I am blown away that you can be that offended over a statement that I wrote.


----------

