Thank you so much for your feedback! I love receiving responses to my articles from the public, regardless of whether the reader agrees with the information I present.
You are most certainly correct that veterinary colleges receive benefits from pet food companies. They also receive benefits from pharmaceutical companies. Because I am currently unassociated with a veterinary college (and have been for the past decade), these benefits no longer affect me. I can no longer even recall exactly which pet food companies supported my college back in the late ‘90s. I do not feel that the pet food companies’ support of veterinary colleges is any more a reason to avoid promoting pet foods than the pharmaceutical companies’ support of veterinary colleges is a reason to avoid prescribing medications. Do you?
In answer to your question about whether I sell kibble at my clinic, absolutely! We do offer our clients a moderate selection of prescription diets to treat many specific medical conditions. I have long been a believer in treating medical conditions with nutrition before drugs, when possible. Our clients are grateful that we provide prescription diets that can help manage conditions such as renal insufficiency, liver disease, atopic dermatitis, and even cancer. Does your veterinarian not sell similar products?
A large number of my clients have long fed raw food. They have all expressed gratitude for the education I provide them regarding the pros and cons of feeding kibble vs. raw food. If they decide to continue to feed raw, I still support their decision and we continue to have a positive veterinary-patient-client relationship. Of course, as you are aware, because many of these patients turn up positive on intermittent fecal tests for tapeworms, these clients do not hesitate to regularly deworm their pets with praziquantel or nitroscanate. All of my raw-feeders have appreciated my advice, and none that I am aware of have felt judged or have switched clinics.
Many of my patients do benefit medically from home-cooked meals. I frequently employ home-cooked foods to treat a variety of conditions. Kibble does not work for all pets, and many do better on home-cooked diets. My article did not berate home-cooked pet foods. It was purely designed to bring to light the fact that raw pet foods are higher risk for carrying Salmonella than cooked foods, including kibble.
I certainly do not believe that voicing my opinion and mirroring facts from an independent study has set anybody back ten years, as you claim. That is the wonderful thing about freedom of speech and freedom of education. I am free to share knowledge that I have that I am passionate about, and you are free to educate yourself in any way you choose. Nobody can force another person to assimilate their information.
My dogs have been on prescription diets their entire lives. They too have never required dental work; they have glossy coats, small healthy stools, sweet breath, and longevity. Even my very large breeds live well into their mid-teens.
If you have any independent published peer-reviewed blinded controlled clinical trials for me to read that show that raw foods are healthier for pets than prescription kibble, I would be more than happy to read them. I am passionate about my own continuing education and am continually seeking current journal articles that support or refute my beliefs. I prefer not to rely on Wikipedia too much for my education.
In response to your comment, “I do not know where, other than dog food companies, you have gotten this information…they are the BIG business that is trying to promote their kibble,” you are correct in that I should have provided more references. I am limited in my newspaper articles to how much information I can include, but here are a few examples that answer your question.
I would like to refer you to an article published in the journal Zoonoses and Public Health March 2011;58(2): 140-9, entitled “Evaluation of pet-related management factors and the risk of Salmonella spp. Carriage in pet dogs from volunteer households in Ontario (2005-2006)”. The article was written by researchers at the Department of Population Medicine at the University of Guelph. These are clearly not researchers being funded by pet food companies. The researchers studied the stool of 138 dogs from 84 households in Ontario and found that 25% of the households had at least one dog that was shedding Salmonella. The conclusion was that a statistically significant risk factor for a dog testing positive for Salmonella included the feeding of a raw diet. They went on to say, “these results highlight the potential public health risk of including raw animal products in canine diets.”
A second article you may be interested in was published by the same journal, October 2008;55(8-10):462-9, entitled “The occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Salmonellae isolated from commercially available canine raw food diets in three Canadian cities.” The reserarchers who authored this article are employed by the Center for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases of the Public Health Agency of Canada in Guelph, Ontario (again, not an organization funded by pet food companies). The study evaluated a total of 166 different commercial frozen raw food diet samples purchased from randomly selected local pet stores in three Canadian cities for 8 months. There was an overall Salmonella prevalence of 21%; chicken was an ingredient for 67% of the Salmonella-positive diets. Eighteen different varieties of Salmonella were recovered, and, the scariest part: resistance was observed to 12 of the 16 antibiotics tested, with the majority of Ontario organisms being resistant to ampicillin and Calgary organisms being resistant to tetracycline. The Salmonella isolated from these raw pet foods is resistant to two of our first-line antibiotics! Their final conclusion stated, “This study demonstrates the potential risk of raw food diets, especially for immunocompromised individuals.”
A third article to support my concerns can be found in the journal entitled Clinical Infectious Diseases, March 2006;42(5):686-91. The article is entitled “Human health implications of Salmonella contaminated natural pet treats and raw pet food,” and was authored by researchers at the Food-borne, Waterborne, and Zoonotic Infections Division of the Public Health Agency of Canada. The article concludes that “pets that consume contaminated pet treats and raw food diets can be colonized with Salmonella organisms without exhibiting clinical signs, making them a possible hidden source of contamination in the household. Pet owners can reduce their risk of acquiring Salmonella organisms by not feeding natural pet treats and raw food diets to their pets.”
As you can see, my information comes from a variety of sources that include organizations wholly unrelated to pet food companies.
And finally, because I know all of the veterinarians in Cochrane and I know they all provide high quality services, I have no problem whatsoever with you promoting your own veterinarian to the fullest and expressing your displeasure with my opinions. Aren’t you glad we live in a community with enough veterinary options that everybody can find a clinic they love and whole-heartedly endorse? I am truly glad you have found a clinic you love so much!
And to Gayle, you are absolutely correct that we should handle our pets' meat the same way we handle our own steaks - cook it!
No comments:
Post a Comment