The power of the industry 

The petfood industry is a 2 billion pound business - where money and shareholders talk. The Raw Meaty Bone lobby talk of unhealthy alliances between the petfood industry and 'the establishment' - you will have to make up your own mind!I relate here a complaint I made to Advertising Standards against Iams, for their advert about their dry catfood which stated

"we formulate our products to include protein that is 100% animal based and unlike many others, we do not supplement it with vegetable protein. We have everything cats need and nothing they don't to help them stay healthy and happy for life".

Along with another complainant, I pointed out that cats don't need carbohydrates, and therefore their advert was misleading.In their infinite wisdom, the Advertising Standards Authority came to the conclusion that:

"We recognised that, while not an essential nutritional requirement, carbohydrates and dietary fibres could have beneficial effects on the health of the digestive tract and provided a useful source of metabolic energy. We understood that there was no scientific evidence that specifically mentioned that carbohydrates were harmful to cats. We considered that carbohydrates made an important contribution to the nutritional needs of cats, and concluded that the claim "we have everything cats need and nothing they don't" was not misleading."

Perhaps my understanding of the English language is poor, but in my book, if something is not essential, it is not needed!!My evidence of harm resulting from carbohydrates was not accepted, so let me now quote from the latest clinical update on Diabetes Mellitus by the highly respected Cat Charity, the Feline Advisory Bureau.

"cats have a high dietary protein requirement and use amino acids and fats for energy rather than carbohydrates.
High carbohydrate diets increase the risks of obesity in cats,.............
"Obesity accounts for a high proportion of the growing number of diabetic cats. It causes a reversible insulin resistance...
"The correction and prevention of obesity is a vital aspect of the management of cats with diabetes mellitus"

A recent article in the Daily Mail, written by Rebecca Hoskins, provoked the usual derision of vets who believe in feeding as nature intended. One was John Burns, manufacturer of Burns petfoods. John made silly statements such as "they are wrong", and commented that it's all the same old story. Well yes, I guess it is - those in the industry refuse to admit that they are in the business to make a profit, and that there are lots of compromises in petfood formulation to keep costs  down (and profits up) Any problems that result from feeding these foods are either denied or dismissed. I publish here, the original article, John Burn's comments, & subsequent correspondence. See particularly his comments I have highlighted in red, where he would seem to accept that we are indeed poisoning our pets, and that feeding a raw diet can be beneficial in these cases!

It was early spring this year and my other half, Tim, and I were down in one

of  the  lower  meadows  on our Devon farm, coppicing willow while keeping

half an eye on our ten-month-old border collie, Dave, as he indulged in his

favourite pastime: moth hunting. Not that we knew it then, but that was the

last time in months we would all be worry-free.

Half  an  hour later, as we sat down for tea back at the house, we heard a

horrible thumping sound from outside.

The  following  seconds  are still a blur. I don’t remember getting to the

kennel,  I just recall pulling Dave into the recovery position and putting

a  blanket  under  his  head.  He  was  convulsing   violently, legs wildly

paddling, frothing at the mouth.

Dave,  we  would  later  discover, was having a grand mal seizure and that

thumping  sound was his head uncontrollably banging on the kennel floor. It

was  a  sound  we  would  come to dread and one we would sadly hear all too

often.

The  vets  told  us  that dogs can have seizures for many reasons and that

there  are  only  so  many  tests  you  can run. If, as in Dave’s case, the

specific cause cannot be identified, the diagnosis of ‘idiopathic epilepsy’

is made. That translates as: ‘He’s having seizures and we don’t know why.’

Dave was prescribed anti-convulsant medication but the seizures continued.

They were particularly severe and we knew that any one could be lethal.

Vets  tell  you: ‘Live with canine epilepsy, not for it.’ Good advice, but

much  easier  said  than  done.  We  went entirely the other way and buried

ourselves  in research, starting on a journey that would take us far beyond

canine epilepsy.

A   concerted  internet  trawl  through  scientific  journals,  veterinary

publications  and pet-owner forums revealed a huge and growing incidence of

dogs  with  diseases  of  the joints, internal organs, immune system, eyes,

ears,  skin,  teeth and nervous system; not to mention cancers, behavioural

disorders  and,  yes, epilepsy. And, this being the internet, the suggested

treatments  encompassed everything from fancy pharmaceuticals to collective

prayer.

There  was  one piece of advice, however, that cropped up far too often to

ignore – ‘get your dog off commercial pet food’.

At  the time we were feeding Dave what we thought was a high-quality dried

food  or  ‘kibble’.  According  to  the  description  on  the  side  of the

packaging,  it was ‘rich in meat’ with ‘wholesome ingredients’ and ‘100 per

cent complete and balanced’.

But  the  ‘ingredients’  section  on  most pet-food packaging is notoriously

vague and misleading. Manufacturers don’t really want you to know what’s in

there. After some serious delving, I could understand why.

In  all  probability  we  had  been  feeding Dave the waste by-products of

industrial  grain  processing,  vegetable  pulp  (and possibly woodchip), a

ground-down  mix  of  non-nutritious animal parts, along with used fats and

oils, possibly from restaurant fryers and industrial food-processing units.

This  mixture  is preserved with powerful antioxidants banned in the UK for

human  consumption  and  linked to liver and kidney damage, stomach tumours

and cancer.

Like  so  many  pet  owners, I just didn’t think to question my dog’s food

until  something went wrong. But when I did, I stumbled upon a battlefield,

with commercial pet food manufacturers on one side and those who advocate a

more natural diet for pets on the other.

Pet  food  makers  say  processed pet food is safe and nutritious; natural

feeders  argue that commercial food, being mainly composed of cooked cereal

grains,  is  inappropriate  for  animals  that  evolved to eat raw meat and

bones.

I  simply  wanted  to  know  what  I should be feeding my dog. Asking vets

seemed  a  sensible  approach  but  many  were reluctant to be drawn on the

issue.

Roger  Meacock,  however,  was one vet who was happy to talk at length. He

was  also  unashamedly  in the natural diet camp: ‘You only need to look at

David  Attenborough  programmes  to know that wild dogs eat carcasses. They

catch  live  animals  or  scavenge carrion; they don’t attack wheat fields,

they  don’t  dig up potatoes, they don’t cook, they don’t add preservatives

or flavour enhancers . . . if it doesn’t happen in the wild we shouldn’t be

doing it for them.’

If  it’s  that  obvious,  why  the  confusion?  Meacock  says:  ‘Pet  food

manufacturers  would have us believe dogs are not carnivores but omnivores.

This  deliberate misclassification flies in the face of all the scientific

evidence.’

The   pet-food  industry  is  dominated  by  a  handful  of  multinational

corporations  and  is  estimated  globally  to be worth £30 billion a year.

Profits  are  maintained  by  using  the cheapest possible ingredients that

regulations will allow.

In  North  America, ‘mammalian meat and bone meal’, a key animal component

in  pet food, has been shown to include the ground-up remains of euthanised

cats and dogs – flea collars, name tags, microchips and all.

Pet  food  manufacturers like to point out that our pets are living longer

than ever, and argue this is because of improved nutrition.

Meacock  has  little  time  for this claim: ‘Human beings today are living

longer than ever but if KFC and Burger King tried to take the credit they’d

be met with utter disbelief.’ He believes huge advances in veterinary care,

particularly  in  immunisation,  have extended animals’ lives despite their

processed diets.

The  vets  I  talked to agreed that a diet of processed food was linked to

many chronic ailments and degenerative conditions.

‘I  tend to see a lot of dogs with cancer or arthritis or allergies,’ said

Meacock.  ‘The  main part of what I do is taking them off a commercial diet

and  putting  them  on  to  a raw diet, and that is where I see the biggest

difference.  I’ve had dogs which have been expected to die and they’ve left

me  with  a  clean  bill  of health simply because I’ve put them on the raw

diet.’

Pete  Coleshaw  is  a recently retired vet with decades of experience from

his  practice  in  Staffordshire.  He  sees  the  cereal  content  of  many

commercial  pet  foods  as the problem: ‘Dogs and cats are not meant to eat

large  amounts  of  highly  fermentable  starch. They have not struggled to

survive  for  millions  of  years  on  a  diet of meat and bones; they have

thrived.’

A  month  or  so  after  Dave’s  seizures  started we noticed his physical

condition  was  deteriorating.  His  coat  had become ragged, his gums were

pale, he had recurring diarrhoea, persistent rashes and skin irritations. I

felt I had nothing to lose by trying Dave on a more natural diet.

There  are  enough scare stories out there – about bacteria and choking on

bones,  for  instance – to make changing to a raw diet a very anxious time.

The  majority  of  these  stories can be traced back to people or companies

selling processed pet food.

The  idea  of  Dave  choking  on a bone played on my mind, but vet Richard

Allport  commented:  ‘Nothing is risk-free in life, but I think the risk of

not feeding raw bones is far higher than the risk of feeding raw bones.’

One  of the risks of not feeding raw meat is gum disease. Some 85 per cent

of  dogs  over  the age of three now have gum disease or tooth decay. A raw

bone is nature’s toothbrush for a dog.

A  criticism  levelled  at  raw  feeding  is  that its not ‘scientifically

proven’.  True,  unless you are prepared to accept several million years of

evolution as a scientific experiment. And a closer look at the ‘scientific’

testing  behind processed pet food reveals it to be about as useful as ‘the

science bit’ in shampoo adverts.

‘Complete and balanced’ is the gold-standard claim on a pet food, but what

does  it  actually  mean?  The specific combination of nutrients, vitamins,

minerals and trace elements that a ‘complete’ food must contain are derived

from feeding trials carried out in the United States under the guidance of

the Association Of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), an organisation

influenced by the pet food industry.

Coleshaw  explained:  ‘AAFCO feeding trials consist of at least eight dogs

being  fed the same diet for 26 weeks. During this time, 25 per cent of the

dogs  can be removed from the test and the dogs eating the food can lose up

to  15 per cent of their weight and condition; the food will still pass the

test and be labelled “complete and balanced”.’

That doesn’t sound quite so reassuring, does it?

Dave’s  illness meant a lot of visits to a lot of different vets and every

surgery  waiting-room  was adorned with displays for processed pet food. If

these  processed foods are so inappropriate, why are they sold or endorsed

by so many vets?

Some  people  believe  there  is  a  grand  conspiracy  between  pet  food

manufacturers  and  vets. However, I’m pretty sure this isn’t the case. All

the  vets  that  helped  us  with  Dave  were  fantastic.  If  they thought

commercial food was making him sick I know they would have said so.

Richard Allport said: ‘This has really come about not because vets decided

to do it, but because of the marketing campaigns of the pet food companies.

What  saddens  me  is that my profession, which I like to think is ethical,

has been taken in by this.’

The pet food industry is heavily embedded in the veterinary profession. It

runs   courses  that  give  veterinary  nurses  qualifications  in   animal

nutrition;  it  publishes textbooks on nutrition and hands them out free to

veterinary students. And, as Allport explained, it doesn’t stop there.

‘In  many  cases,  the  salaries  of lecturers in nutrition in veterinary

colleges  are  paid  by the pet food companies,’ he said. ‘So most students

today  don’t  get  any information about anything other than commercial pet

food.’

If I were a veterinary student, this would make me very angry indeed.

Vet  schools  obviously  need their departments funded. Universities admit

the  money from pet-food companies is important but also regularly proclaim

their independence when it comes to nutritional teaching.

True  independence,  however, is hard to argue when FOI disclosures reveal

contractual clauses like this: ‘The University agrees that Royal-Canin will

be  allowed  to  provide  expertise  and  material for integration into the

agreed university courses on basic and clinical nutrition teaching.’

Pete  Coleshaw says: ‘It’s a constant indoctrination into commercial pet

nutrition.’

The  acceptance of processed pet food is so ingrained in veterinary teaching

nowadays  it  is  unlikely  to  change  in the near future, but people like

Coleshaw show it is never too late to teach an old vet new tricks.

‘I’m  a late convert,’ he said, ‘and I’ve had clients say to me, “Yes but

you told me ten years ago to feed a commercial food.” My answer to that is

to  hold  my hands up and say I was wrong, I swallowed the company line and

believed it – I don’t any more.’

Since  then he hasn’t looked back: ‘By the time I left the practice we had

the  best  part  of  100  dogs all raw fed, and all of them were absolutely

thriving.  I’d  see  them  out on dog walks and get very positive feedback

from every owner.’

Between  them,  the  vets  I spoke to had more than 2,000 dogs and cats on

natural diets, and business was booming.

Sadly  we  ran  out of time with Dave and he had one big seizure too many,

but  that’s  not  to  say  the  dietary  change  was  a failure – quite the

opposite.  In  the three months we had him on a wild-type diet we saw some

remarkable improvements in his overall health and condition.

Within days his coat became super-glossy and he lost that dog smell we had

assumed  was  normal.  His teeth became whiter, his bad breath disappeared,

his  skin  allergies  cleared,  his  energy  levels  picked up and his eyes

brightened.  For a while, even the severity of his seizures was reduced and

he recovered from them in hours rather than days.

We  really  can’t  say  if  a  processed diet caused Dave’s illness but it

certainly  didn’t  help.  A  developing young carnivore being fed a diet of

less than 5 per cent meat may well have the odds stacked against him.

We  have  a  new puppy arriving next month – Wilf – and I want to give him

the  best start in life so that means a raw diet from day one. The pet food

industry tends to dismiss the evidence of tens of thousands of healthy dogs

on  raw  diets  as  ‘anecdotal’,  but I’d rather be another anecdote with a

healthy dog than another clinical statistic sat in a waiting room.

Some  will  question  the views of Meacock and Allport. Yet both are fully

qualified  and  respected  vets,  vocal  members  of  the  Royal College of

Veterinary  Surgeons  and  frequent  contributing writers to the Veterinary

Times.

As  Roger  Meacock says: ‘There’s an old phrase, “Fit as a butcher’s dog”.

Doesn’t that say it all?’

John Burns' Blog - 1st October 2010

Mail on Sunday pet food shock
This week’s Mail on Sunday ran a two page spread written by a woman whose dog died because of rubbishy commercial pet food.  The usual suspects were there explaining how dogs should be on raw food because of their evolutionary origins.

  The article listed a range of symptoms (smelly coat; bad breath; lack of vitality; dirty teeth; dull eyes) which disappeared when the dog was fed a raw diet.  The severity of fits also reduced.  All of this indicates that she had indeed been feeding a poor quality pet food. All of these symptoms respond to good quality pet food too.

Here’s what I wrote on my blog on January 22:
“The big news story for us this week has been the Daily Mail piece about poor quality pet food and the effect on health.  Except that it is not news. This is more a hardy perennial slanted to promote the prejudices of a very small number of raw food zealots.  I wouldn’t mind if they simply said that they feed raw food and it works for them and their pets.  But they don’t.  They endlessly recycle their theory about raw food which I am not going to repeat here.  It’s in my Guide to natural health care.  They never engage with the objections to the raw food theory or the science which refutes their beliefs.
As I wrote the other day, pet owners themselves must shoulder some responsibility for their pet’s health.  Now that would be a news story.”

Pete Coleshaw, one of the vets featured in the Mail on Sunday article has written to me.  His comments are here

My letter

John,

Whilst you may think we are wrong, I think it a little ripe to state that we
are wrong.

You argue the case for high carbohydrate diets in dogs based on this
historical arguement re domestication and genetic shift. However, you still
have huge percentages of starch in your cat foods. How do you justify this?
You cannot use  any of the 15000 years bit in this case.

I understand your reply - you have your business to defend, but that doesnt
make your arguements correct. It certainly means that you have a conflict of
interest, and it is certainly correct that the whole food industry shares
this conflict of interest, and has a vested interest to silence those who
think differently. Or maybe not - publish my challenge and your reply and
prove me wrong

Best regards

Pete Coleshaw

John's response...

Dear Pete,

Thank you for getting in touch.  While the discussions are usually centred on dogs, the science seems to favour the view that the position is the same  with the cat.  I use as a reference Strombeck's Small Animal Gastroenterology.  I agree that cats are probably less adapted to the human diet (they are still obligatory meat eaters).  But they are certainly capable of thriving on diets which are high in carbohydrate. How do you devise a low-protein or low fat diet for a cat without using carbohydrate?

You are quoted as saying that the "cereal content of many commercial pet foods [is] the problem".  You go on to say "dogs and cats are not meant to eat large amounts of highly fermentable starch."  While I accept the technical point that eating fermented starch would not be good, that is not what is to be inferred here.  The thrust of the article (and I think, your comment) is to deride the feeding of carbohydrate-based foods.  So I do say you are wrong on this.  Of course dogs and cats can thrive on carbohydrate free diets but equally some do not.

I do not accept your "conflict of interest" point either.  I am happy to accept that pet owners feed raw or cooked home-made foods or other brands of pert foods as they choose.  It is the inaccurate information and opinion which I challenge.

Nor do I attempt to defend the pet food industry as a whole.  Most of the pet food which is bought in this country is appalling.  That was what prompted me twenty five years ago to look into producing my own.  That plus the fact that I had spent years unsuccessfully trying to get my clients to avoid commercial pet food and make their own.

Best wishes
John Burns

My response

Thank-you for your reply. I am pleased you are prepared to discuss this matter in the public forum – I think it very important that the profession be seen to consider nutrition objectively and in an open manner.

 I am disappointed however that you have not actually replied to my query – why do your cat foods contain over 40% of starch when carbohydrate is a not an essential nutrient (for which there can therefore be no agreed optimum levels). You state that some cats don’t survive on a starch-free diet. There is simply no reason, nor evidence that cats brought up on a prey-based diet will not thrive because of this. How about the Scottish wild-cat, which interbreeds with our domestic moggies?

 You ask how you make a low fat diet for cats? Simple - how about whole lean rabbit, minced if you wish? And why would you wish to give a healthy cat a diet low in fat or protein? Cats as you say are obligate carnivores – they are designed to eat prey!

 Domestic cats are not less adapted to the human diet than dogs, they are NOT adapted to a human diet – and they are genetically indistinguishable from wild cats. Nor did I suggest feeding fermented starch – I mentioned highly fermentable (high glycaemic index) starch ie carbohydrates such as rice (even organic rice) and potato.

 As someone who is surely involved with the news media, you will know that one’s comments are frequently taken out of context and used as the editor sees fit. Do not over-interpret the intentions of

I actually have all sorts of issues with processed foods, not just the carbohydrates, and I am pleased to see that you recognise there are terrible pet-foods on the market. I reckon that I can tell a dog that is fed high corn, low meat content food by its coat, its smell, and certainly its poo. I also accept that your foods are better than many on the market since they contain known amounts of ingredients which I trust to be of decent quality. That does not mean that better diets are not available : I am not an elitist, and if a pet owner wants to feed a dog on a commercial kibble, I would recommend one with as high a content of real meat as possible, with a minimum of carbohydrates. However, a minced ‘whole-prey’ model diet would impress me more, and contrary to your experience, I found it easy to get my own dogs, my clients and my patients to adopt just such a diet. And of course, raw meaty bones would impress me even more.

 You challenge ‘inaccurate information and opinion’ and suggest you have no vested interest. That is simply not true – if you were to admit that the majority of the starch in your cat-food is purely to keep costs down/profit up you would lose a lot of valuable business. (I appreciate that a small amount of starch is required to make a kibbled diet)

 I now sell no pet-food, nor do I have any vested interest in any pet-food company. I simply say what I truly believe. Please tell me what is inaccurate in my above opinions. I look forward to your reply.

John's response

 How did this move from an article primarily about the diet of the domestic dog to discussing the diet of the wild cat?

 Although carbohydrate is not essential in the diet of the cat, that does not mean that it is damaging.  Likewise the diet of dogs and humans. Carbohydrate degradation products (carbon dioxide and water) are not considered to be toxic unlike those of fats and proteins.  Did I really say that cats don’t survive on a starch free diet? Mea culpa to that.

Re low fat and low protein diets for cats  - I was thinking more of ill cats with eg kidney failure.

I agree that the argument about domestication of cats is less clear than dogs which have moved away completely from their origins even to the extent that they can survive and thrive on vegetarian diets.  Because they can live without meat, does this mean that they should do so? (Qv your point about carbohydrate for cats).

Cats and dogs have a digestive system which is highly attuned to digest carbohydrate – even to the point that glucose is absorbed from the gut by active transport rather than simple diffusion.

 I take your point about media distortion.

I too have seen animals is less than peak condition on prepared pet foods including my own.  Likewise we encounter pet owners whose pets have not done well on a raw diet. Our most difficult tasks is getting owners to feed the correct amount of food. Overfeeding loses the benefit of a good diet.  That is one of the main functions of our nutrition team.

 There is also the vexed question of dietary intolerance/allergy.  This is very much an unknown quantity in veterinary medicine as in human.  The Allergy Society produced a report this year entitled “Lost Lives” which suggested that some 30 million people in the UK suffer from some type of food allergy (sic).

I suspect that this is a massive undiagnosed problem in pets and that the benefits of a raw food diet (and my food ) are simply due to inadvertent avoidance of that rather than the nonsense about non-evolvement of animals.

The world expert on food intolerance and allergy in dogs and cats is Grant Guildford; I recommend you read up on him.

 Lastly, the brown rice in my foods has always cost more than the meat components.

 John

I have highlighted a very important statement by John. The question in the Daily Mail article was as to whether or not we are poisoning our pets with the petfood we feed. It would seem that he agrees that we are! He obviously also recognises that feeding raw foods can help in these cases. I believe there are many other diseases such as urinary tract problems, diabetes, etc etc which respond similarly.

My reply

John
Firstly, the argument was not about the diet of dogs – it was whether we are inadvertently harming our pets using processed pet-foods.

 The reason I focused on cats was to avoid the diversionary tactics always used by the food industry regarding dogs: the argument that they are omnivores rather than facultative carnivores. This is always going to be argued, but there is no argument with cats. Moreover, the argument about domestication is not less-clear for cats – it is quite clear – cats are physiologically the same as their wild counterparts.

 You say that carbohydrates are non-toxic per-se, and that may be true. However, they may not be beneficial to intestinal flora, or the pancreas, predisposing to intestinal problems and diabetes. Also, carbohydrate is not present in a diet as a pure substance : other components in the grain/root/vegetable may be noxious, just as high-temperature rendered animal waste is very different from freshly cooked (or raw) meat.

 I am delighted to see that you share my views on processed foods being allergenic, and I will read up on Grant Guilford. You obviously therefore agree that there are substances in processed petfoods that cause so much of the digestive & skin problems we see in practice. These substances are being presented to a gut and immune system that cannot cope with them, and symptoms of allergy arise. And I am certain the reason these pets respond to raw food is for that reason : it is essentially free from un-natural substances. When I advise feeding a squitty kitty on raw rabbit, it is not for inadvertent avoidance, it is for positive avoidance. The crux of the matter is that cooking is a means of denaturing proteins (and carbohydrates) and pets may be allergic to these altered substances. Feed an appropriate raw diet, and cooked-food-related allergies are also excluded. I can forward you case notes of a cat with chronic gut problems that had everything thrown at it, but within 24hrs of raw rabbit, stools hardened, and have been so since. This seems to be a totally unexplored avenue – I have never seen a dermatologist or gastro-enterologist recommend raw chicken over cooked chicken. It may not make a difference, but no-one knows for any particular case, and one is failing the patient if you don’t try.

 To get back to how this discussion started, it was a result of you commenting

 This is more a hardy perennial slanted to promote the prejudices of a very small number of raw food zealots.  They never engage with the objections to the raw food theory or the science which refutes their beliefs.

 There is much that we don’t understand about the allergy issue and we will not find out unless we open our minds as a profession to the problems that processed diets might be creating – I say ‘might be’, but in my mind there is no doubt. I have seen plenty of pets cured of chronic problems by simply changing their diet to a non-processed raw diet. So have a relatively small number of people who have changed to raw, and seen the same response. These people tend to be very passionate about the subject, often feeling very let-down by a profession that ridicules them – does calling them zealots class as ridicule?

 Where is the real science that refutes the RMB beliefs? How many of the people arguing against raw meaty diets have any experience of it. The ‘zealots’ will universally have had experience oaf both sides of the coin – that is why they are so passionate.

On your website, you declare that the correct way to feed a rabbit is by mimicking that of a wild rabbit. Why do you use the natural argument for rabbits but refuse to apply it to cats?

 Best regards

 Pete

John's reply.................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................we're waiting........................................................still waiting.........................................

"They never engage with the objections to the raw food theory or the science which refutes their beliefs."  uuummmmmmm


Dear John

 You’re obviously a busy man, as you have not had time to reply to my last email, nor to post it on your web blog. However, in the meantime I have had further thoughts on our discussion.

 On your website you use very intemperate language, accusing those who believe in a raw meaty bone diet as being ‘flat-earthers’ and ‘zealots’ who “never engage with the objections to the raw food theory or the science which refutes their beliefs”. What a sweeping statement! Well I for one am more than happy to engage in debate. But it appears that you decline to continue our engagement in the debate once the going gets sticky.

 In your reply to me you make a statement that not every cat or dog copes with a raw meaty-based diet, but then retract this when push comes to shove!!!

 It is very easy to run a blog, and to publish communications from the likes of myself, and then ridicule we respondents, without granting any right to reply. This is exactly the reason that I, and my fellow ‘zealots’ feel so strongly about the food industry. You deny having a vested interest – and yet anyone can see that if you derive your income from selling pet-food, then you do have a vested interest.

 I find it very strange that you can advise that the best way to feed a rabbit is as it would feed in the wild – but you don’t apply the same criterion to dogs and cats. Indeed, my own website www.bunnieseatgrass.com addresses just this issue; rabbits eat grass, so feed them grass. Cats are carnivores that eat prey – so feed them prey!

 As professionals I believe we have a duty to inform our clients in an un-biased manner without abusing professional privilege. This includes explaining matters with clarity, without profiting from the relative lack of knowledge of non-professionals. You try and justify feeding starch to our carnivorous cats by stating that they produce a digestive enzyme ‘amylase’ in their gut – and conclude that domestic cats have therefore adapted to human-based diets. Your conclusions on this evidence alone are unfounded and unjustified. The general public are in no position to assess whether or not you are talking through your posterior but assumes that because you are a vet it must be true.

 If you can show that domesticated cats possess this enzyme, AND that Scottish wild cats, and middle eastern wild cats do NOT possess this enzyme, then maybe there is some evidence of genetic change. Whether or not any such genetic change is to the benefit of the cat is another matter.  I believe it is professional abuse to advise feeding a starch-based diet to cats based up the presence of amylase in the gut of domestic cats, without knowing its relevance, or the prevalence of this in wild counterparts. Let us all know of the evidence that you have.

 As in my previous reply, I was delighted that you recognise the huge number of pets that suffer from allergic disease. I was also humbled by your recognition that some allergic animals respond to a raw diet, simply (totally unintended, in your opinion) because a raw diet does not contain any of the allergens of processed food. Raw feeders appreciate that vast numbers of dogs and cats stop itching, or suffering from colitis/chronic enteritis once they adopt a raw meaty-bone diet. But you then condemn us/them as being flat-earthers! Why the intemperate language? How can we be so wrong when you agree that feeding a raw diet can be so good for allergic pets?

 Is it any wonder that we are zealous over our beliefs when mis-informed people such as yourself ridicule us over something we know to be correct.

 I quote you here “never engage with the objections to the raw food theory or the science which refutes their beliefs”

 And yet, when I take up the challenge and engage in debate, you publish my e-mail and your comment with the put-downs

 “it’s déjà vu all over again”

“The arguments are always the same – Orwellian – pet food bad, raw food good.”

and yet you refuse to engage in further debate – nor do you publish my reply.  

 Surely the worst sort of hypocrisy to accuse those who think different from you as being unwilling to engage in debate  - and then you do just that when you are presented with views that conflict with your marketing spiel.

 I admit that you are different to most of those who have a vested interest in the pet-food industry. You are prepared to say that most of the commercial foods are rubbish – and of course, yours are not!!!! But within this admission comes an obligation – if you are prepared to say that many of the foods are rubbish, you must be able to tell us why they are rubbish. You must also be able to define an ideal diet for a dog or a cat. Please enlighten us.

You state that the brown rice in your cat-food costs more than the meat. Why then do you include it in the diet? And what does this tell us about the quality of meat that goes into your diets?

As I have stated, I am very happy to have a debate on raw-meaty bone diets, in the public forum. Bring it on John, let’s discuss your experience of raw-meaty bone diets, and the problems they create. Let’s also have an open discussion on the problems that starchy foods create in carnivores.

 There will be certain rules though if the discussion is to have any credibility

• No calling other parties derogatory names – it implies a very weak argument that needs propping up with emotion
• No saying something and later changing your mind it because your ‘point’ has been proven unsustainable.
• No ignoring the bits that don’t fit in with your point of view
• No untruths such as denying vested interest.

 If you wish to add to this list, please feel free.

 So John, you have your opportunity to show why I and my fellow raw-meaty boners are, as you say, wrong. I’m looking forward to the discussion.

 You took the liberty of publishing my email to you in your blog – and that’s fine by me. Equally, I am publishing our exchanges on my own website. You will find the link from my home page.

 

Best regards

 

Pete

....................

---

...........................