The Myth of 100% Complete Pet Food
Every day people subject their loved animals to repetitious monotony that they
would never allow for themselves, and yet, unthinkingly pass their actions off
as beneficial for their pets. Every day, people by the millions pour food from
a package into their pet’s bowl. Day in and day out, meal after meal,
pets get the same fare. This strange phenomenon is widely practiced by loving
pet owners who believe they are doing the right thing. Why? Certainly because
it is convenient, but also because the labels state that such foods are “complete
and balanced,” “100% complete,” or that they have passed various
analytical and feeding test standards. Furthermore, manufacturers, and even
veterinarians, counsel pet owners about not feeding other foods, such as table
scraps, because of the danger of unbalancing these modern processed nutritional
marvels. The power of the message is so great that pet owners en masse do every
day to their pets what they would never do to themselves or their children –
force-feed the same processed food at every meal.
Think about it. Our world is complex beyond comprehension. It is not only largely
unknown, it is unknowable in the “complete” sense. In order for
nutritionists and manufacturers to produce a “100%
complete and balanced” pet food, they must first know 100% about nutrition.
However, nutrition is not a completed science. It is, in fact, an aggregate
science, which is based upon other sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and
biology. But since no scientist would argue that everything is known in chemistry,
or physics, or biology, how can nutritionists claim to know everything there
is to know about nutrition, which is based upon these sciences? This is the
logical absurdity of the “100% complete and balanced” diet claim.
It is the reason a similar venture to feed babies a “100% complete”
formula turned out to be a health disaster.
http://www.wysong.net/images/myth/nutrition_pillars.jpg
In that instance, after sufficient disease and death resulted from attempting
to retire the human breast to a mere appendage of adornment, government stepped
in and controlled the commercial hype. Now doctors, nurses and purveyors of
baby formulas cannot say these products are complete or that they are equal
to or superior to breast-feeding. Good for the regulators. (Although they should
have been proactive and prevented the disaster before it ever took root, not
have merely stepped in after enough deaths accrued.) Even with that lesson as
a dire warning, pet food regulators turn a blind eye. Instead of preventing
pet food producers from claiming a processed food concoction is 100% complete,
they in effect promote the death and disease-dealing specious claim by setting
bogus standards that supposedly justify and authenticate the claim. They legitimize
sloppy science in order to win consumer confidence. All a manufacturer has to
do is guarantee that their percentage of protein, fat and the like meets National
Research Council standards. In the alternative, manufacturers can do feeding
trials on caged laboratory animals for a few weeks, measure cursory blood parameters,
and monitor growth and weight – as if survival after a few weeks on a
food has anything to do with achieving optimal health and long life! Down the
primrose path millions of trusting pet owners go while at the same time unknowingly
condemning their pets to terrible degenerative diseases. Pet food regulators
then spend the majority of their time harassing pet food companies with picayune
requirements about terminology on packaging and where certain words must be
placed on labels. In this regard manufacturers must contend with the USDA (United
States Department of Agriculture), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), AAFCO
(American Association of Feed Control Officials), and 50 State feed regulatory
agencies. All for naught. It’s like the entire police force busying themselves
ticketing people for jaywalking while turning a blind eye to the murder and
rape going on in the alleys.
http://www.wysong.net/images/myth/regulatory.jpg
Claiming that anything is 100% is like claiming perfection, total knowledge,
and absolute truth. Has pet nutrition really advanced that far? Does a chemist
make such a claim? A physicist? Doctor? Professor? Did Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur,
Aristotle, Plato, or any of the greatest minds in human history make such claims?
No. Has the science of pet nutrition advanced to the point where everything
is known about the physiology, digestion and biochemistry of animals, or that
everything is known about their food? Certainly not. The fact of the matter
is that the “100% complete” claim is actually “100% complete”
guesswork. At best, one could say that such a claim is the firm possibility
of a definite maybe. Each time regulatory agencies convene to decide how much
of which nutrients comprise “100% completeness,” debate always ensues
and standards usually change. This not only proves that what they claimed before
was not “100% complete,” but this should also make us highly suspicious
about what they now claim to be “100% complete.” Moreover, consider
that in order to determine the minimum requirement for a certain nutrient –
say protein – all other nutrients used in the feeding trials must be adequate
and standardized. Otherwise, if vitamin E, for example, is in excess or is deficient
in the basal diet, how would one know if the results of the study were because
of the effects of protein or due to something amiss with the level of vitamin
E? If the minimum requirements for all 26+ essential nutrients were all set
and absolutely etched in stone, that would be one thing. But they aren’t.
They are constantly changing. This means each time any nutrient requirement
is changed, all test results for all other nutrients using the wrong minimum
for this nutrient would then be invalid. Most nutritionists simply ignore this
conundrum, feeling like cowboys trying to lasso an octopus – there are
just too many loose ends. But they continue to perpetuate the “100% complete”
myth, and excuse themselves by saying they make adjustments when necessary.
An apology of “I’m sorry,” when the false premise of “100%
completeness” is still retained, deserves no forgiveness.
http://www.wysong.net/images/myth/new_wave.jpg
Also consider that virtually all so-called complete pet foods are vigorously
heat processed to gelatinize the unnatural starch components (making them “digestible”
– meaning more easily converted to glucose) and to extend shelf-life by
sterilization. Dry foods are extruded at hundreds of degrees and hundreds of
pounds of pressure. Canned foods are retorted. Commercial pet foods also contain
a mix of ingredients including meats, fats, starches (a variety of label dressing
“natural” ingredient buzzwords) and vitamin/mineral “fortifiers.”
Although the ingredient label is evocative and beguiling, what is in the final
product is another matter. Essential fatty acids are oxidized and isomerized.
Cytotoxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic cholesterol oxidation products (COP) are
formed, including C-7 derivatives, 5,6-epoxides, triols, 25-OHs and 3,5-dienes
– the real culprits in human atherogenesis, incidently. The cooked meats
form heterocyclic amines, proteins are degraded and amino acids destroyed or
racemized. Carbohydrates are glycated, acrylamides are formed, vitamins destroyed,
oxidized and racemized and minerals are complexed into unavailable matrices.
The end result is a potpourri of imbalance, unavailability and toxicity –
not “100% completeness.”
http://www.wysong.net/images/myth/farmers_field2.jpg
Yes, pets can survive for a time on such fare, but that is simply a testament
to their physiological capacity to adapt. They seek equilibrium at higher and
higher levels of toxicity until adaptive reserve is exhausted. Chronic degenerative
diseases and immune failure is the end result. The point is, don’t believe
the claim on any commercially prepared pet (or human) food that it is “100%
complete and balanced.” It is a spurious unsupported boast, intended to
build consumer trust and dependence on commercial products - not create optimal
health.
http://www.wysong.net/images/myth/veterinarian_and_pediatrician.jpg
Unfortunately, most people think animal feeding is a mystery. It is not. Animal
nutrition is not a special nutritional science to which common sense human nutrition
principles cannot be applied. Use the same reasoning in feeding your pets that
you use for feeding your family. Nutrition is also not about some special ingredient,
the absence of some boogeyman ingredient, or claims such as “natural,”
“organic,” or the like.
http://www.wysong.net/images/myth/package.jpg
If you feed processed foods, use discernment since just about anyone can create
a commercial pet food. The pet food industry has hundreds of brands. Business
profiteers and the occasional movie star are the most common forces behind the
labels. All one needs is a little money and they can go to any number of toll
manufacturers and have them slightly modify a shelf formula. Then all that is
needed is to dress it all up with a fancy package, a clever brochure, and some
advertising. Voila! Another brand is added to the 20-billion-dollar pet food
industry heyday.
http://www.wysong.net/images/myth/one_for_all.jpg
Nutrition is a serious health business, not a mere opportunity to turn dollars.
Check the credentials of the decision maker at the head of the company you are
entrusting your pet’s health to and examine closely its operating philosophy.
Health competence and principle should come before pretty packaging and beguiling
hoopla. The public is not well served by exclusively feeding products from companies
without any real commitment to health… or knowledge of how to even achieve
it. For the past 25 years, I have been a lonely voice in the wilderness trying
to get people to understand the deadly health consequences of feeding processed
pet foods exclusively. People want convenience in a bag and the industry wants
the flow of billions of dollars to continue uninterrupted. In the meantime,
the scientific literature offers compelling proof that millions of animals have
been maimed and killed as a result of feeding thoroughly tested “100%
complete” foods… with the full imprimatur of government regulation.
(Exactly the same thing that abounds in the FDA-pharmaceutical industry.) Examples
of pet food disasters include dilated cardiomyopathy from taurine deficiency,
potassium imbalances, fatty acid and carnitine deficiencies and numerous other
problems that would be expected on a steady diet of dead, devitalized, carbohydrate-based
processed foods. Moreover, the whole panoply of human chronic degenerative diseases
such as cancer, obesity, arthritis, autoimmunities, dental deterioration and
organ failure are at epidemic levels in the pet population… as should
be expected on such a diet.
“Thousands of pet cats die each year with dilated cardiomyopathy…
observed in… cats fed commercial cat food…” (Science, Volume
237, pages 764-8)
Not only is feeding the same processed food day in and day out a formula for
disease, it is a cruelty to pets. It is one thing to take them from their interesting
and active wild setting and confine them, but to not even offer them interesting
natural meal variety is really quite inexcusable. The answer, like everything
else good in life, is a little attention and common sense. Knowledge is the
best beginning point. To learn more, obtain a copy of my book, The Truth About
Pet Foods. I will also see to it that you get a free copy of my CD, “The
Thinking Person’s Master Key to Health,” and the brochure, “How
to Apologize to Your Pet,” which will give you specific guidelines for
how to select packaged foods as well as prepare meals and treats to achieve
optimal pet health. Also you can go to Wysong.net, click “learn,”
then “pets” and read the “Don’t Be Fooled” section.
Further reading and resources of scientific references:
Wysong, R. L. (2002). The Truth About Pet Foods. Midland, MI: Inquiry Press.
Science, Volume 237, pages 764-8
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 199, pages 731-4
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 201, pages 267-74
Feline Practice, Volume 20, Number 1, page 30
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 202, pages 744-51
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 191, pages 1563-8
Journal of Nutrition, Volume 129, pages 1909-14
Journal of Nutrition, Volume 126, pages 984-8
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 203, pages 1395-1400
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 198, pages 647-50
Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice, Volume 19, pages
527-37
Veterinary Forum, Volume 9, pages 34-5
Veterinary Forum, Volume 9, pages 26-8
American Journal of Veterinary Research, Volume 62, pages 1616-23
Petfood Industry, May/June 1998, pages 4-14
Journal of Animal Science, Volume 75, pages 2980-5
Veterinary Business, Volume 2, page 1
Waltham International Focus, Volume 3, Number 1 , page 9
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Wysong: A former veterinary clinician and surgeon, college instructor in
human anatomy, physiology and the origin of life, inventor of numerous medical,
surgical, nutritional, athletic and fitness products and devices, research director
for the present company by his name and founder of the philanthropic Wysong
Institute. http://www.wysong.net. Also check
out http://www.cerealwysong.com.
|
