Scientific Studies Supporting Raw Food Diet - Page 3

Ducman is merely parroting information from industry leaders, educational institutions conducting studies, and official positions of national feline care organizations in order to help dispel misinformation that doesn't match their findings.    Have you heard anything new to where you have begun to think about the evidence presented in a new light?  

 

For example, almost all of the material you quote comes from a Dr Lisa Pierson, who at least acknowledges the safety concerns presented by scientist and believes in partial cooking when dealing with supermarket poultry which has a very high probability of contamination:

 

I am confused - what studies prove that feeding raw is far worst to the pet than then commercial food, and has significant more risks of poisoning and infections?
Please post them - Again - Studies proving the advantages of feeding commercial versus raw, as that is what you are claiming.

You sidestepped the question, maybe you can still answer it ?
 

 

 

 

 

In the text you quote it says there may be a theoretical risk. Typical for the raw food opponent side of the discussion. The raw feeders are living the reality and the raw food opponents (and vets covering their asses in a litigious culture) get stuck in pointing out theoretical risks that might possibly be a concern.

Yes, certain diets may be nutritionally incomplete but that's a matter of educating yourself and using common sense, isn't it ?

Same goes for what ingredients you buy and practising good hygiene. Yes, young kittens and sick animals are more susceptible to foodborne illnesses and will get infected on occasion, so again;  use common sense.

 

I've raised a lot of stray kittens on raw food, these kittens come in with parasites, often sick and/or malnourished, yet they've all left here with weights above the (kibble normative) normal growth curves.

The vets the rescue uses see the kittens in their original terrible condition. Come vaccination time I bring them a big, strong kitten. Fortunately my vets are not as arrogant as to say; you keep showing up with plump, healthy kittens but where are the studies to prove you are not harming them ?

 

I'd like to ask the same courtesy from you. If you don't want to feed a raw diet, by all means "play it safe" with something else, I ask nothing different from our adopters.

If you want to show some studies, great, I try to learn as much as I can. Discuss your interpretations of them, fun.

But do not try to intimate I'm gambling with my cats' and kittens' health and lives when you are the one who does not have the studies to back up your claim that there are no benefits to outweigh the risk. Please spare me the fearmongering.

Nonsense. All of your posts are clearly intended to be anti raw. You have shown no interest whatsoever in trying to understand the pro side of the issue. As I pointed out in an early reply you have not brought anything new to the discussion but rather have just dredged up the same old arguments raw feeders have to deal with time and time again. We understand those arguments perfectly from having debated them repeatedly. It is you doesn't understand and obviously have no interest in understanding.

 

 

 

From the paper you posted: The rest can be taken as "anecdotal evidence" or "hearsay" the same way the positive experiences about feeding raw have been taken so far IMHO.

The risks are shown in scientific studies and agreed upon by medical, government, and food industry leaders, and the request to show scientific studies that demonstrate these risks are outweighed by supposed benefits was intended to come from raw advocates.     It is clear that these do not exist, thus the official position of the AMVA for example that at this time there are no studies that indicate the risks are worth the benefit are quite logical if "playing is safe" and at least reasonable even if one disagrees.

 

Dr Lisa Pierson, one of the most adamant among the raw feeders herself acknowledges the safety concerns with industrialized poultry manufacture you'd find at the grocery store and thus recommends at least cooking the outside of the meat.   And ultimately it is known that many cats will contract a subclinical infection if young and healthy, but their stools could still pose quite a danger if say a dog were to consume it (unfortunately kitty poo are like doggy treats... icky I know).   It is important that kitty moms and dads are aware of these risks so they can make a truly informed decision.

 

 

This thread reminds me of a discussion I had one time with Dr. Elsey (the cat specialist who invented Cat Attract litter). He works closely with research colleges to stay close with the current research efforts going on in relation to cat health. I need to give some background on the reason for the discussion to make my point, so bear with me.

Our discussion was on FeLV cats. 2 of his new patients were adopted out of my household, shortly before I discovered that I had FeLV in my household (I won't go into the explanation on how my vet failed to test some of my new residents). He wanted some information about the possibility of exposure for these 2 kittens, and I wanted his expert advice on how to manage my problem. One of the research areas he works most closely on is FeLV. I won't go into how we decided how best to handle our situation, but will bring up this aha moment I had during the conversation:

FeLV has been in existence for a very long time. Vets knew nothing about the disease for a long time. Then they discovered enough about the disease to understand that it was related to a virus. And the research stagnated at that point for decades. As the intensive research concerning the AIDS epidemic started to really evolve, some very smart vet used that research to apply it to FeLV. It was discovered that the mechanism with the FeLV virus acts in a similar fashion to that of the HIV virus. Some cats with the FeLV virus never develop full blown FeLV in a similar fashion that HIV doesn't always evolve to AIDS.

As Dr. Elsey put it, without the money that went into discovery for the AIDS epidemic, the mechanism behind FeLV would have never been discovered because funding for pet related research just isn't out there. Most discoveries have evolved because of the money given towards human health concerns, and when specific to cats, very much anecdotal based.

So if you want a complete research study on feeding raw, chances are you will never see one. Similarly, if you want a complete research study on feeding dry, you will also never see one. The reality is that there is no compelling reason to fund these studies outside of the food industry, which by its nature will be biased to support their point of view.

I'll ask my question again. Why this particular topic when there are potentially so many unproven things concerning the health of cats?

No large sample-size, controlled studies exist.

As mschauer pointed out, that's why forums like this are so important. People interested in feeding a raw diet to their cats can easily interact with experienced people who have the knowledge of how to meet the nutritional requirements of cats when feeding a raw diet.

Amy, you raise a really good point. SO many of the medications we administer to cats were never approved for nor tested on cats - yes, some have adverse reactions, and some die as a result. But the medications are used because they typically work - and so many are used in an off-label fashion. IV valium, mirtazipine, cyproheptadine - all used as appetite stimulants, all proven effective (note: with ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE not studies), most with few side effects (other than drowsiness LOL).

The other thing I've been wondering is... how would such a study even be structured?

What - a 20-year study to see that the cats don't develop CRF, diabetes or IBD vs. a control group?
Edited by LDG - 12/20/11 at 6:27pm

Can you say Metronidazole? one of the most used drugs for cats - no doubt it works. An antibiotic.... to the date vets still don't know exactly why/how it works as an anti-inflammatory on the gut for cats - but it sure does.

Auntie and I agree with you. This forum IS for raw feeders and people who are thiniking of giving raw a try because every other diet on the planet has not helped their sick cat for whatever reason and should not be used as a place to come for raw feeding bashing. Better suited in the IMO Forum....... IMHO

"Parroting" indeed. It's unfortunate that your information sources are about the most corrupt, biased pile of non-scientists in existence. They've certainly accomplished their goal: suckering folks like you into believing their self-serving propaganda. Industry leaders? Of what, besides making ridiculous profits off the ill health of pet cats?  

 

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming. No need to reply, I'm done with the tediousness of this conversation.

Amen......

But how do you REALLY feel?    So what about Dr Lisa Pierson, that the overwhelming majority of anti-commercial/pro-raw advocates cites online?

 

Does it bother you that she advocates raw so strongly while self-admittedly not having the slightest clue how cooking even affects food in the first place?  

 

What about the fact that even she recognizes the health concerns with grocery store poultry and recommends at least cooking the outside?  

 

Although one should point out she not only endorses cooking the outside but then also grinding the meat, which those that have studied nutrition understand that the combination or heat and oxidation would destroy a significant quantity of taurine in the diet.    And Dr Lisa Pierson herself on the safety section of her page highlights the inherent problem of self-designed diets being potentially very improperly balanced, with no professional mechanism to double-check the home cook and ensure safety and completeness.   It is important to highlight these risks to those interested in raw feeding, along with the opinions of the industry leaders and scientists even if you disagree with them, so that they can come to their own informed decision IMO.    

Regarding potential for bias, do you realize how "alternative diet" books can bring in a pretty penny?     Dr Atkins made over $100 million selling his low-carb diet to the American people, and he is not alone. 

Or perhaps the general nutrition forum then?   Certainly I can link to countless posts from Auntie (although I do believe with best intentions) bashing commercial food in that forum, particularly dry food which has virtually been referred to as poison with various unsubstantiated (at least lacking scientific studies) claims.  If unconfirmed commercial food bashing is acceptable and has a place in the nutrition forum, then it is reasonable that pointing out some of the inherent dangers and limitations of raw feeding needn't be censored either.  Individuals cannot come to an informed decision without all available information pros and cons and not everyone is convinced that all the Universities, veterinarians, feline medical organizations, and industry leaders are all involved in a large carefully coordinated conspiracy to where their findings shouldn't be shared. 

 

I fear a one-sided rule of permitting only positive discussion and reinforcement of the new raw diet does a disservice to those that deserve all the facts/opinions on the matter, as most would expect to find such information searching the nutrition forum.

Thanks for whoever moved this over to IMO. The tone from the start has been along the vein of opinions and arguments and not suited for the general forums.

Auntie, yes. TY.

 

I'm not a mod, but as a member I see it this way. This thread turned into a rather heated debate, which is suited for IMO, where a more aggressive style of communicating with each other (within limitations) is allowed. Where a thread belongs (other than via topic) is not about what opinions are being expressed, but how they're being discussed. No one wants to prohibit anyone from discussing the risks of raw feeding. But when someone wants to learn about feeding a raw diet to their cats, they shouldn't have to be subjected to intense debate about whether it is safe or not. If someone wants to feed kibble, AC is allowed to express her opinion, just as you are allowed to express yours on the risks of raw food diet. The forums are here for people to provide their opinions, thoughts, experiences, and knowledge. Yes, we can disagree and call each other out... but IMO is designed to be here for debates. The raw food forum is there primarily, as I understand it, for - as the sub-forum itself says, "This sub-forum is dedicated to feeding cats with raw food. Share your experience, views, ideas and recipes here."

Opinions supported by research should garner more weight by people seeking advice. But ALL opinions are allowed.

 

We definitely agree on that, off-topic diversionary arguing is unhelpful, hence the attempt to keep focused on showing scientific studies supporting raw diets.  

Clearly though someone that is intensely passionate about raw feeding is likely to go into a torrential frenzy at the mere implication their "wunder-diet" that allegedly cures cancer, IBD, UTIs, dental disease, and more is advised against by university scientists, medical organizations, government, and industry leaders and that the claims made are unsubstantiated by any actual large independent clinical trials.  

Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "off-topic."

As this thread has so clearly demonstrated, there are few supporting studies, yet there are, in the estimation of many (and thus why subject to such intense debate) perfectly sound, scientific reasons given the physiology of cats to feed a raw-based diet. Others disagree.

This thread also clearly points out that funding for research for cat-related care is such that much of what we give them even for medical care hasn't been researched on cats at all, is used off-label, and is not supported by peer-reviewed scientific study. You may see pointing out this information as a "diversionary" tactic. But it does highlight that the lack of quality peer-review published work does not mean that by definition the risks outweigh the benefits.

Which leads to...

This thread also clearly points out the reasons why there are no quality studies supporting the benefits of a raw food diet for cats, and why there are unlikely to be such studies.

Notably, in the Schlesigner and Joffe piece, "Raw food diets in companion animals: A critical review," Can Vet J. 2011 January; 52(1): 50–54 to which the OP links in the first post ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003575/?tool=pubmed ):

- There are no "Level 1" studies supporting either the risks or the benefits of a raw diet on cats.

- The bulk of the infectious disease risk-related studies are based on pet food/raw meat sampling. We know that proper handling of the raw meat mitigates much of that risk.

So ultimately the decision to feed or not feed raw will be based on opinion.

And people seeking information on how best to feed a raw diet to their cat can get help and support in the Raw Forum of this site. But yes, of course they should understand both the potential benefits and potential risks.

We've linked to studies supporting the risks of a raw diet on dogs and cats, both the near thirty commercial diets tested that showed a 66% rate of potentially harmful levels of contamination and the AVMA "recipe" testing following instructions of raw diets found online that demonstrated high rates of contamination as expected by the FDA for commercial poultry, as well as nutritional deficiencies and excesses per AAFCO nutrition profiles. 

 

Actually in searching for those previously shared studies, I just stumbled on another:

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jan05/050115ww.asp

Here is another larger scientific trial I had not previously seen:

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.228.4.537?journalCode=javma

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKA/is_6_67/ai_n13788104/

 

http://www.biaza.org.uk/resources/library/images/Vol7No4%20Oct%202006.pdf

 

It is false to say that there are no studies that demonstrate the health risks associated with raw feeding.   

You misread my post. I was quoting the meta-analysis review of raw food studies, which pointed out there are no LEVEL 1 ("Level 1 studies include systematic reviews of multiple studies which have limited variation in their results, randomized controlled clinical trials (multiple), or an individual randomized trial with narrow confidence interval (very little if any overlap between groups)...") studies: "Level 1 evidence of infectious disease risk-none."

This news release by AVMA to which you provide a link

is covered in the meta-analysis review, and is identified as a either a Level 2 or Level 3 study (the authors didn't identify which).

Definitions: "Level 2 studies are systematic reviews of cohort studies with consistent results or individual cohort studies, including lower quality randomized clinical trials (< 80% follow-up). Level 3 studies include systematic reviews of case control studies with consistent results or individual case-control studies. Level 4 studies are a case series or poor-quality cohort and case-control studies. Level 5 studies include expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal; or the conclusions are based on physiological research or principles."

The second link you provide ( http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.228.4.537?journalCode=javma ) is simply the study referenced in the above press release, which is the first link you provide.

Your third link is to another article, not a study. It refers to several studies. The quote you provided is the 2003 Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association report on the death of TWO cats, and is identified by the meta-analysis review as LEVEL 5 evidence, and is included in the discussion in the meta-analysis review piece.

As to the last link, the zoo study, you fail to note some important points:
.

You also apparently missed the conclusion of the zoo report comparing raw diet, vs. meat fed, vs. commercial diet in carnivores in zoos:

So to condense what you are saying, there are various studies (levels 2 through 5) that demonstrate the risks of raw food.    There are no studies (not even level 5), that demonstrate the alleged benefits of raw food that advocates often cite as fact, and become quite irate when questioning these claims.    

 

The point then was simple, for full disclosure someone researching raw feeding needs to be informed that there are studies that highlight the risks of raw food, which is why at present it is recommended against by various universities, government entities, veterinarian associations, and food industry leaders, and the benefits of raw food are unproven.   Statements which I can directly quote if you like that state that raw food cures cancer, IBD, dental disease, diabetes, UTIs, (and conversely attribute those to commercial food) and more should not be made IMO, as there is certainly no proof of this at least no where near sufficient to put it as a matter of fact.  

Well, that's not how I'd condense it.

That is a misleading statement, as the meta-analysis clearly states, "there are no published level 1, 2, or 3 studies of nutritional risk or benefit of raw meat feeding to dogs or cats." (of the studies reviewed in the meta-analysis).

As to the benefit of raw meat feeding to carnivores, there is one study (Melfi and Knight, BIAZA (British & Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums), Research Newsletter Vol. 7 No. 4 Oct. 2006) that indicates a whole prey diet "is necessary to promote the expression of the full diversity of feeding/hunting behaviours" in carnivores.

To correct your statement, "There are various studies (levels 2 through 5) that demonstrate the infectious disease risks to pets and humans of raw food." To be accurate, it should be pointed out that the emphasis in the studies analyzed was on the risk to humans due to contamination from preparing the raw food or due to animals shedding the agents in the pets' environment, and there are no Level 2, 3 or 4 studies where there were clinical signs of disease in any of the animals. According to the Zoo study you provided, referenced above, the conclusion was that proper sourcing and handling could eliminate that risk. This combination indicates that there may actually be some truth to the raw feeders' claim that animals digestive systems can handle the infectious disease risk of a raw food diet.

There is Level 5 evidence that indicates infectious disease risk to pets. As per the meta-analysis: "However, there have been no studies conclusively documenting the risk to either pets or owners. Salmonella infections have been reported in cats (39–40). In one of the reports, the infection was associated with raw diet and the infection was fatal (39). There are also isolated case reports of illness in humans associated with Salmonella in household pets, although raw food was not identified in these cases (41,42)." (Notably, in the study referenced where the cat died, it was a 10 week old kitten, that had pneumonia, so even though the same strain of salmonella was found in meat in the home and upon necropsy results of the kitten, that it died from pneumonia cannot be ruled out, which is why the meta-anlysis states, "Feeding raw meat to pets has been cited as a human risk factor in several review articles related to public health (36–38). However, there have been NO studies conclusively documenting the risk to either pets or owners." . In fact, the Level 5 study referenced in the meta-analysis states, "Healthy adult cats appear to have high immunological resistance to the development of clinical salmonellosis. In one study, experimental infection of healthy cats required inoculation of infectious organisms in numbers far exceeding those likely encountered in natural infection."

In fact, the meta-analysis also points out a Level 3 risk study of salmonella contamination in dry food: "A recent survey reports a multistate outbreak of human salmonellosis linked to contaminated commercial dry dog food (27)."

In your summary you state, "There are no studies (not even level 5), that demonstrate the alleged benefits of raw food that advocates often cite as fact, and become quite irate when questioning these claims."

Sorry, but that's just unnecessary and inflammatory: not all raw proponents become "quite irate" when questioning the claims of raw food benefits. If, as you claim, you want to get at the truth and stick to the facts, why continually make derogatory remarks about how people discuss the topic? 

Finally,

Although there is a UC-Davis study not covered by the meta-analysis that does indicate the benefit of a raw food diet on the condition of coat quality and stool formation in cats.


Of course they can state their own experiences as fact. They can cite documented experiences of others as fact. Because it is not controlled study, published in a peer-reviewed journal does not make something "not fact." It simply means there are not studies supporting the experiences.

My cat is taking mirtazipine as an appetite stimulant. It has not been studied in cats, there are no peer-review published studies on its efficacy in stimulating the appetite in cats. It is an old-line human anti-depressant. Yet it functions quite well to stimulate my cat's appetite. That is a fact.