Interesting visit to the vet...

auntie crazy · Oct 30, 2009

Originally Posted by darlili

But, in the wild, eating their natural prey, how long do cats live? Maybe five years or so? So, really, we have no idea how the 'natural' diet works for cats living well into their teens, which many indoor domesticated cats do, right?

Sort of like humans - back in the hunter/gatherer days, humans usually lived, well, a heck of a lot less years than we do now....not strictly an apples to apples comparison vis a vis diets, health, etc. Even a hundred years ago, people did die at younger ages, often of things we don't see that much in a first world country (e.g., childbirth fever, infections from getting cut by an ax, polio, etc.)

Again, I'd just like to see varied, reliable sources, not just the same 3-4 vets that seem to pop up on every raw food discussion, or personal anecdotes from lay people, that are cited over and over again. I don't mind when raw food true believers feel themselves on the cutting edge of nutrition from their own personal, and necessarily, small number of experiences, but I personally would like to see a whole lot more clinical studies over a wide range, and maybe with some certified feline nutritionists and DVM's signing off on them.

Obviously, nutrition is an evolving science - but there's the word - science - replicable results would be a nice thing to have when advocating anything, right? Also, since I'm not breeding my own prey foods in my back yard, again, and creating my own water and air, I think we're all dependent on the supply chain - and that includes 'human-grade' food and other foods for which there ware no real standardized definitions.

Believing a fresh, raw, prey-modeled diet is healthier than a heavily processed, synthetically supplemented commercial diet IS based on science.

Animals don’t evolve to eat diets that don’t allow them to thrive – they die off. Cats, especially, have very specifically engineered digestive needs and processes. It’s the ultimate of hubris to assume we can improve on what they evolved to thrive on, even worse to assume the pet food manufacturers are more concerned with the health of our pets than they are in making a profit.

The description of studies you want to prove to you that a natural diet is better than a commercially processed one haven’t even been done on the commercial food. Wait, actually, they have – in our homes. The result is near-epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, pancreatitis, IBD, UTIs… there’s a long list of ailments.

The Feline Nutrition Education Society consists of many people, from different walks of life, with different specialties – several of them with the titles and experience you seek. They are far from just a bunch of folks passionate about providing natural diets for cats. Lynette Ackman – Advocate and co-founder of Feline Outreach; Michelle T. Bernard – Researcher, advocate and author; Lee Ellis – Advocate and founder of the Feline IBD forum; Michael W. Fox, BVetMed, PhD, DSC, MRCVS – Animal rights and welfare advocate, author and syndicated columnist; Margaret Gates – Advocate and founder of FNES; Elizabeth Hodgkins, DVM, JD – Veterinarian researcher, advocate and author; Anne Jablonski – Pioneering advocate and creator of CatNutrition.org; Lisa A. Pierson, DVM – Pioneering veterinarian advocate and creator of CatInfo.org; Ashley Stephen Root – Advocate, Skeptic and FNES communications director; Kymythy R. Schultze, C.N., C.N.C. – Clinical nutritionist, advocate and author; Andrea Tasi, VMD – Veterinarian advocate and lecturer.

There are many, many more vets and nutritionists who advocate raw feeding – you just haven’t heard about them (here’s just a few: Kay Aubrery-Chimene, RMT and Bio-Nutritional Therapist; Martin Goldstein, DVM; Richard Pitcairn, DVM; Donald Strombeck, DVM; and Kerry Brown, DVM) and, as Sharky and others have mentioned before, that number is growing. In addition, there is a substantial body of evidence, in the form of reports, articles and studies, that support feeding raw over commercially produced products – eventually, I have no doubt they will be pulled together to form a single, coherent, unassailable truth.

I believe there will come a time when folks will consider feeding raw products to cats and dogs as common-sense healthy as we do giving whole, fresh foods to our kids. They may not actually choose to eat or serve a fresh apple instead of a Dunkin Donuts’ Spicey Apple Twist, but there won’t be any doubt about which is healthier. :-)

auntie crazy · Oct 30, 2009

Originally Posted by darlili

...Maybe it is all just coincidence - but just saying, I haven't seen many, if any, clinical studies done on raw foods over an extended period of time - beyond the ever-present 2-3 vets that blog a lot about raw food. And, these vets never seem to point back to any studies themselves, other than their own experience. So, if we want to say, for example, let's give a lot of weight to these raw food advocate vets and their experience, why aren't we giving equal weight to the vets who are leery of raw food diets, given their own experience? Why do some constantly say that these trained professionals are too stupid, really, to utilize their scientific training to analyze data in the service of their clients?

I think it's close to libel to say so many vet students, and experienced vets, cannot see beyond a class presentation, no matter who's funding it, to the real data presented. Don't forget, at least in the last ten years, it's been harder to get into vet school than med school - these aren't a bunch of dummies we're talking about here, I think.

Vets make money off the food they sell from their offices and veterinarian schools receive grants and other monies from the companies that manufacture those products. As has been discussed ad naseum, the only nutritional training most vets receive is from those very same companies.

Even so, I honestly believe most of the vets simply accept the pet food industry's assurances (as do the vast majority of consumers) that they (the pet food companies) have been manufacturing this product for so long they are the experts. I don't countenance the theory that vets, who spend their lives patching up sick animals, would knowingly recommend, stock, sell and profit from a product that is so detrimental to the welfare of their patients.

I think it's likely, however, that in addition to belief in the pet food industry's propaganda, vets who set themselves against raw feeding are influenced into placid acceptance of the status quo by the kickbacks they receive, and/or are too busy caring for their current patients to think about the issue.

There is, however, a growing change in general awareness. Vets are beginning to recognize the damage such a species-inappropriate food is doing to our cats, and even vendors are coming 'round - I know of one already who refuses to stock dry foods for cats.

Such an incredible about face doesn't happen in a vacuum and it certainly doesn't happen in the absence of a huge preponderance of proof, ergo, it's pretty doggone safe to assume that eventually, this will be become common household knowledge, accepted world-wide for the truth it is.

I don't really think it will matter that much to you, Darlili. The growing sarcasm in your responses shows a decidedly closed mind on this issue. And that's ok, too, I'm totally happy to agree to disagree with you.

darlili · Oct 30, 2009

And, again, clinical studies will support such an about-face,if correct - but, it would be great if the Hodgkins-Pierson constellation would undertake such clinical studies to support their theories, since they seem to be the two vets that are quoted over and over on the internet. It would only burnish their reputations, wouldn't it?

I know Hodgkins in particular publishes a great deal in the popular press - I suspect clinical work would only help to substantiate her assertions, bring them even further into the mainstream, and make other health care pro's far more comfortable with the theory, and how to implement it with their patients. I really don't think that's a whole lot to ask, assuming the plan is not simply to present controversial ideas, but to present readily substantiated, replicable data that is peer-reviewed.

For all I know, maybe that's already underway - one raw food producer has been going through AAFCO feeding studies, as I understand it, and I mentioned the Winn Foundation study. It can only help to have broader, reputable sources available - and perhaps in the next few years we'll see a lot of that sort of work done, drawing in a greater number of vets across a spectrum of practices.

And, I think we all know - even too many healthy calories can make a cat (or person) fat - so any diet must be balanced for calories in and used. Be nice if raw were a panacea for everything - but we won't know that until we see a long-term, large number study, I think.

What I oppose are flat statements that a raw, or any, diet is the perfect answer than will cure x number of ailments - without some nice hard data to back up those statements. If that's sarcastic or close-minded, well, I guess I'd like to be that close-minded regarding most things in life. Look at Airborne - lots of people thought that was a great product - but, turned out, not so much, which was evident when you looked at the studies, or lack thereof. Now, a lot of people will still feel great when they take Airborne - I myself believe the mind has a great effect on a person's health, but, again, while there's a fair amount of work on placebos, it hasn't been reduced to totally hard science yet.

fiddledee · Oct 30, 2009

I know people are wondering why I found some things aimed toward vets offensive, but it's just that the comments are all suggesting that vets are just plain stupid, manipulated by the money industry. Trust me, vet students are not idiots.

In my vet school: You have to have above a 3.0 GPA in the prerequisite undergraduate classes that are required to even be considered. 300 hours of community service throughout undergrad, 400 hours of working/volunteering/being evenly around small and large animal vets, do some extra-curricular activities, and get reccomendations from professors and vets. Each year, the vet school I'm about to attend gets around 900 applicants. Only 100 are accepted [a majority are from the state, and about 10 spots are left for the out of state people]. So we have to be on top of our stuff to even get in, let alone make it through the strenuous curriculum. Most vets have to take certain license tests about every 5 years, and are required to attend certain conferences. Many choose to attend conferences about twice a year.

I don't think an average competent vet would advise against anything that's beneficial to their client's pet. A plethora of research is available at vet schools as well. No huge, clinical studies have really produced solid results as far as raw being better than processed foods.

Many vets when asked if raw is okay, they may suggest against it out of concern for the lack of knowing the longterm effects on a cat.

I don't know...I just don't want to go into a job where my client thinks I'm idiotic and doesn't want to follow my advice because they think I'm incompetent.

katgoddess · Oct 31, 2009

Just wanted to point something out. Having worked at a vet clinic before, I can say that vets do not "make money" off the foods they sell. I don't know why so many people believe this - I'd like to know who started it. They sell it because it does work for the conditions prescribed, not because they are profiting from it. The only "profit" they get is one bag free for every large number of bags they order from the company. Trust me when I say that the one free bag of food is not even close to being a good incentive for selling the food in the first place. At our clinic, whenever the vet did receive a free bag, it was given to staff members for free. They do not make money off the foods they sell. They *truly* believe it works...and it does. It may not have the best ingredients in it and it's not even something I would feed a healthy pet, but the science behind it does help the medical conditions.

mschauer · Oct 31, 2009

Originally Posted by KatGoddess

Just wanted to point something out. Having worked at a vet clinic before, I can say that vets do not "make money" off the foods they sell. I don't know why so many people believe this - I'd like to know who started it. They sell it because it does work for the conditions prescribed, not because they are profiting from it. The only "profit" they get is one bag free for every large number of bags they order from the company. Trust me when I say that the one free bag of food is not even close to being a good incentive for selling the food in the first place. At our clinic, whenever the vet did receive a free bag, it was given to staff members for free. They do not make money off the foods they sell. They *truly* believe it works...and it does. It may not have the best ingredients in it and it's not even something I would feed a healthy pet, but the science behind it does help the medical conditions.

Personally I don't believe profit is a major influence in vets relying so much on prescription foods.

BUT, the situation you outlined at the single clinic you worked at doesn't necessarily hold true at all clinics. Vets are free to mark up the foods, drugs, etc they sell as much or as little as they please.

BTW - I also believe prescription foods "work" for the condition they are prescribed for. I also believe that most if not all, just like non-prescription foods, may play a part in causing other ailments when fed long term.

mschauer · Oct 31, 2009

Originally Posted by Fiddledee

I don't know...I just don't want to go into a job where my client thinks I'm idiotic and doesn't want to follow my advice because they think I'm incompetent.

You might want to reconsider your chosen profession then. It's the same with human doctors. Your clients, like their patients, will sometimes question your treatment and ignore your advice.

After all, there *are* incompetent vets as there are incompetent doctors. And vets, again like doctors, *can* just be wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with idiocy or incompetence.

As a general rule I don't think people see vets as idiots or as incompetent. If they did vets would have no clients at all now would they?

I disagree with my vet on the issue of raw feeding but I don't hesitate to take my cats to her when needed and I almost always follow her advice.

mschauer · Oct 31, 2009

Originally Posted by Fiddledee

I don't think an average competent vet would advise against anything that's beneficial to their client's pet. A plethora of research is available at vet schools as well. No huge, clinical studies have really produced solid results as far as raw being better than processed foods.

Many vets when asked if raw is okay, they may suggest against it out of concern for the lack of knowing the longterm effects on a cat.

You know, there are vets who not only fully support the feeding of raw but they actively encourage it. Knowing this, why are you so upset that some people don't heed their vet's warning against raw feeding? The issue is not as clear cut as some seem to believe. Am I a bad pet owner because I don't listen to my vet with regards to raw feeding but I would instantly become a good pet owner if I just switched vets to one that does support raw feeding? Does that make sense to you?

shanynne · Oct 31, 2009

Originally Posted by Fiddledee

I know people are wondering why I found some things aimed toward vets offensive, but it's just that the comments are all suggesting that vets are just plain stupid, manipulated by the money industry. Trust me, vet students are not idiots.

In my vet school: You have to have above a 3.0 GPA in the prerequisite undergraduate classes that are required to even be considered. 300 hours of community service throughout undergrad, 400 hours of working/volunteering/being evenly around small and large animal vets, do some extra-curricular activities, and get reccomendations from professors and vets. Each year, the vet school I'm about to attend gets around 900 applicants. Only 100 are accepted [a majority are from the state, and about 10 spots are left for the out of state people]. So we have to be on top of our stuff to even get in, let alone make it through the strenuous curriculum. Most vets have to take certain license tests about every 5 years, and are required to attend certain conferences. Many choose to attend conferences about twice a year.

I don't think an average competent vet would advise against anything that's beneficial to their client's pet. A plethora of research is available at vet schools as well. No huge, clinical studies have really produced solid results as far as raw being better than processed foods.

Many vets when asked if raw is okay, they may suggest against it out of concern for the lack of knowing the longterm effects on a cat.

I don't know...I just don't want to go into a job where my client thinks I'm idiotic and doesn't want to follow my advice because they think I'm incompetent.

Fiddledee, No one here is suggesting that vets are incompetent idiots. But we are talking about feline nutrition here, and the consensus of those on this forum appears to be that most vets don't specialize in feline nutrition.

Like most here I have encountered both vets that knew nothing about feline nutrition and those that did. The vets that I have met who did know about cat nutrition are rare gems in my experience.

As far as the average vet advising against anything that's not beneficial to their client's pet, I'd have to say that based on my personal experiences that it happens more often than I am comfortable with. This includes not just a lack of knowledge about feline nutrition but a willingness to perform and even promote the declawing of cats.

Years ago I lost one cat due to diarrhea issues. Looking back the vet never even considered food as a possible source of the problem. This doesn't mean that the vet was an incompetent idiot. Not at all. But it does illustrate his lack of knowledge when it comes to feline nutrition.

Having said all that, it's really encouraging and uplifting to know that there are passionate people like yourself who truly care about the welfare of the animals they treat and of their profession. I hope that you will be one of those who becomes really knowledgeable about feline nutrition and will be able to guide caring owners in the best way to keep their pet healthy and happy. And perhaps you will become one of those even rarer gems of a vet who is anti-declaw and who refuses to perform that surgery, no matter the cost.

I sure hope so Fiddledee, because cats need more people like you around!

darlili · Oct 31, 2009

But we are talking about feline nutrition here, and the consensus of those on this forum appears to be that most vets don't specialize in feline nutrition.

I think that's half the story here - I'm not even sure you could say that the folks ON THIS FORUM who state, over and over, that vets are neophytes when it comes to animal nutrition represent a true concensus - or just a very vocal minority? And, since there are like, what, 50 or certified feline nutritionists in the US, I think we can safely say that there are extremely few trained people who specialize in cat nutrition, whether they have a DVM or not.

It's like the folks who keep saying (a) that if a study is sponsored by a given, possibly business, entity, that study should be tossed out of hand; (b) that scientifically-trained professionals are unable to scrutinize studies for accuracy and applicability; and (c) the vets, in general, are getting such huge kickbacks that they're totally happy to throw their patients' welfare aside (who did come up with that idea, anyway - or is it one of those 'truths' that have been repeated so often on the internet, that people take it as gospel?). I honestly don't think the folks ON THIS FORUM who keep saying that represent a true concensus, either in this forum, or in the real world. I do believe they fervently believe what they're saying, and probably at heart do wish they had some hard data to back up their beliefs right here and now. It certainly would make their lives a heck of a lot easier to have something to point to that large numbers of professionals would agree was fundamentally sound, and which made sense in light of their own professional work with hundreds, or thousands, of clients in their own practices.

Probably in any group, people who have had negative experiences seem to be the most active in posting their bad experiences, and extrapolating to everyone/everything in a given area, and wanting to spread it around to every discussion they can (like the folks who go from here to Itchmo to any number of other sites - same people, but after a while, you start thinking 'everyone' is saying 'xyz', because you've seen the same statements on several different sites). Understandable, sure - acceptable if you're looking for hard data - well, not so much.

And, while doctors and vets can be wrong, so can their clients - and so can internet 'experts' - ask any human doctor who has to deal with a panicked patient who spent a lot of time looking up their symptoms on the internet (I speak from experience - had a breast biopsy a few years back - from doing my own 'research', I found myself totally freaked, and totally misreading clinical studies in the area, and getting a lot of 'bad' info from some of the non-professional support sites out there). Sure, the internet can be great - but I think we all know there's an awful lot of information that has to be sifted and weighed before you apply it to your own lives, or those in your keeping.

Again, I thinkit's great if people can say that their personal experience has said that such and so diet has done wonders for their own pets - but, if they're going to try to apply that statement as a universal truth, and flat out state that other diets are designed to be inherently harmful, I don't think it's a lot to ask for some good data to back it up.

Click to expand...

furryfriends50 · Oct 31, 2009

Odd way of looking at it but look at a raw fed cats poop. It gives you a differant view on which food is better; at least what is for sure better digested.

mschauer · Oct 31, 2009

Originally Posted by darlili

and flat out state that other diets are designed to be inherently harmful, I don't think it's a lot to ask for some good data to back it up.

Other diets are designed to be inherently harmful?? WOW! That is an audacious claim! Where have you heard that???

darlili · Oct 31, 2009

Well, here's a quote from Dr. Elizabeth Hodgkins, from http://www.catnutrition.org/diabetes.php - as I mentioned, Dr. Hodgkins gets quoted a lot, all over the internet, so it might be difficult to decide whether she's taken out of context - but having read one of her books, I tend to think not.

"Assuming the preceding description of the present state of nutrition for pet cats is correct, how could this possibly be? How and why would a multi-billion dollar US pet food industry "conspire" to foist essentially "poisonous" food off on cat owners, often at very high prices and at exclusive, inconvenient outlets such as veterinary facilities and pet stores? To begin to answer that question, we must go back, once again, into history."

Poisonous? Conspiracy? What is a reader to make of this?

See, comments like this are one of the reasons I so would like to see data from a broader range of vets in this area.

And, Lord knows, if you read at least certain Itchmo posters, you'd be convinced that everyone in the entire pet food industry is sitting around plotting how to kill off every animal, yet somehow make a profit now and in the future at the same time.

Isn't enough to simply tell people that a certain diet has worked great for some animals?

mschauer · Oct 31, 2009

Originally Posted by darlili

Well, here's a quote from Dr. Elizabeth Hodgkins, from http://www.catnutrition.org/diabetes.php - as I mentioned, Dr. Hodgkins gets quoted a lot, all over the internet, so it might be difficult to decide whether she's taken out of context - but having read one of her books, I tend to think not.

"Assuming the preceding description of the present state of nutrition for pet cats is correct, how could this possibly be? How and why would a multi-billion dollar US pet food industry "conspire" to foist essentially "poisonous" food off on cat owners, often at very high prices and at exclusive, inconvenient outlets such as veterinary facilities and pet stores? To begin to answer that question, we must go back, once again, into history."

Poisonous? Conspiracy? What is a reader to make of this?

See, comments like this are one of the reasons I so would like to see data from a broader range of vets in this area.

No place in that statement does she state that pet foods are designed to be harmful.

Also, you left out the preceding paragraph which gives the statement context:

Thus, not only is the cat relatively incapable of handling repetitive substantial carbohydrate loads of the kind represented by dry cat food, it is also unable to respond appropriately to that consumption with appetite satisfaction. The end result is cats that overeat, constantly flood their systems with glucose overloads, spiking repeated surges of insulin from their limited carnivore's pancreatic reserve, and become obese. For a large number of cats, their metabolic systems eventually become overwhelmed by this unphysiologic chain of events and its unremitting stress on the pancreas, resulting in diabetes.

Assuming the preceding description of the present state of nutrition for pet cats is correct, how could this possibly be? How and why would a multi-billion dollar US pet food industry "conspire" to foist essentially "poisonous" food off on cat owners, often at very high prices and at exclusive, inconvenient outlets such as veterinary facilities and pet stores?

darlili · Oct 31, 2009

Actually, including that first paragraph supports my thought that certain authors say that commercial foods are designed to be inherently harmful - thanks for including it.

Still, conspire and poison are pretty strong wording to be tossing around, don't you think?

mschauer · Oct 31, 2009

Originally Posted by darlili

Actually, including that first paragraph supports my thought that certain authors say that commercial foods are designed to be inherently harmful - thanks for including it.

The first paragraph doesn't say any such thing. It says that such foods *are* harmful not that they are designed to be harmful. It also provides verifiable, science based reasons for why they are.

Still, conspire and poison are pretty strong wording to be tossing around, don't you think?

The use of quotes around those words indicates they are not to be taken literally.

fiddledee · Nov 1, 2009

You know, there are vets who not only fully support the feeding of raw but they actively encourage it. Knowing this, why are you so upset that some people don't heed their vet's warning against raw feeding? The issue is not as clear cut as some seem to believe. Am I a bad pet owner because I don't listen to my vet with regards to raw feeding but I would instantly become a good pet owner if I just switched vets to one that does support raw feeding? Does that make sense to you?

I think you didn't understand the statement. No vet would advise against raw feeding because it profits them. It's just that they aren't totally sure how much healthier it is than a prepared food. And it's because of this lack of certainty that they don't advise to do it sometimes.

I'm in no way accusing you of being a bad pet owner. You are very passionate about your pets and obviously take very good care of them. You devote time, energy, and love to them, which is what every pet needs to be happy and healthy. My post isn't saying that by raw feeding you're being a bad owner. I'm just trying to show people why a vet may advise against raw feeding. I'm trying to show that vets aren't all out to make a profit and intentionally mislead their clients.

mschauer · Nov 2, 2009

Originally Posted by Fiddledee

I think you didn't understand the statement. No vet would advise against raw feeding because it profits them. It's just that they aren't totally sure how much healthier it is than a prepared food. And it's because of this lack of certainty that they don't advise to do it sometimes.

I'm in no way accusing you of being a bad pet owner. You are very passionate about your pets and obviously take very good care of them. You devote time, energy, and love to them, which is what every pet needs to be happy and healthy. My post isn't saying that by raw feeding you're being a bad owner. I'm just trying to show people why a vet may advise against raw feeding. I'm trying to show that vets aren't all out to make a profit and intentionally mislead their clients.

I see. You're reacting to the people who say vets oppose alternative diets, such as raw, because they prefer their clients buy expensive prescription foods from them. Well, I find that view a bit annoying myself. It seems to be a completely baseless assumption to me.

I see in another thread that you are actually in favor of a raw diet and plan on feeding raw yourself when you are able to. Given that you are a "veterinarian in the making" how have you come to be comfortable with the idea of raw feeding despite the lack of long term studies to validate it? Have you come to agree that a diet of processed foods is in some way inferior to a raw diet?

I hope you continue to participate in the discussions in these forums especially as you go through your veterinarian training. It would be very interesting to hear from someone as they go through that training. You might need to develop a thick skin though. People do come here to vent if they are unhappy with their vet.

auntie crazy · Nov 2, 2009

Originally Posted by KatGoddess

Just wanted to point something out. Having worked at a vet clinic before, I can say that vets do not "make money" off the foods they sell. I don't know why so many people believe this - I'd like to know who started it. They sell it because it does work for the conditions prescribed, not because they are profiting from it. The only "profit" they get is one bag free for every large number of bags they order from the company. Trust me when I say that the one free bag of food is not even close to being a good incentive for selling the food in the first place. At our clinic, whenever the vet did receive a free bag, it was given to staff members for free. They do not make money off the foods they sell. They *truly* believe it works...and it does. It may not have the best ingredients in it and it's not even something I would feed a healthy pet, but the science behind it does help the medical conditions.

What makes you think the clinic/vets didn't make money off the food? Did you see the books? I'm not asking to be facetious, but assumptions are no good on either side.

Because it's a fact that vets do profit from commercial pet food sales, as even veterinarian organizations acknowledge, nor is that the only ethical issue:

Some reading:
Dolittler: How do vets recommend pet food? (Part 2: Education)

Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Journal: Veterinary Medical Ethics

Avocacy for Animals: Conflicts of Interest in the Veterinary Profession and the Origin of “Man-Made” Dog and Cat Diseases.

Last two paragraphs of the first article (by a vet): If it wasn’t already abundantly clear, let me say outright that I believe the era of pet food-sponsored vet school nutrition has come and gone. Yet too many institutions rely on food-sponsored grants and scholarships (like mine) to relieve them of the very real burdens of running worthwhile, bleeding-edge programs in animal health. Essentially, we’ve subsidized the sexier service arms of our profession (surgery, neurology, internal medicine, dermatology, etc.) by outsourcing the bland field of nutrition.

To make matters worse, the influence of this pet food industry oligopoly on real-life veterinary practice is extreme. Not only does the modern vet practice believe in the science behind the bags of food, it has come to rely on the income these foods provide. Read the next installment of this series for a continuation of this discussion.

I've linked three articles, but there are many more out there.

If you have a question about something I've posted, please feel free to ask me where I got my info, or upon what facts I base my conclusions. It's just the polite thing to do.

sharky · Nov 2, 2009

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

What makes you think the clinic/vets didn't make money off the food? Did you see the books? I'm not asking to be facetious, but assumptions are no good on either side.

Because it's a fact that vets do profit from commercial pet food sales, as even veterinarian organizations acknowledge, nor is that the only ethical issue:

Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Journal: Veterinary Medical Ethics

I've linked three articles, but there are many more out there.

If you have a question about something I've posted, please feel free to ask me where I got my info, or upon what facts I base my conclusions. It's just the polite thing to do.

Auntie, I likely am just missing but is there an answer on the link quoted? I see only a question

As for RX foods ... A normal profit is about 25-50% just like any pet food including pre made raws...

I asked several very honest vets including my own that .... she sold the raw for about 30% profit thus had a some wiggle room, she made about the same on the regular premium ( not the typical) and RX foods she carried ...

Now as for working YES both typical and non typical RXs often work... I prefer the later

Interesting visit to the vet...

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member

TCS Member