AVMA to vote to take a stand against raw feeding

mschauer said:

Oh, no. That was just stupid.  :lol3:

Click to expand...

Sugarcatmom said:

(Sorry Laurie - I'm not laughing AT you, I'm laughing WITH you. )

Click to expand...

EmilyMayWilcha said:

I went to Change.org wondering if online petitions actually make a difference. One of the successful petitions was stopping Bank of America's proposal to charge debit card users, so we have proof it works. Whether it convinces the AVMA raw food is better than kibbles or not probably depends on how many signatures it gets. For every 1,000 people feeding raw there are millions more feeding toxic junk foods. How powerful is 1,000 people? That is hard to say, but I expect the goal to be reached before the vote.

Click to expand...

mschauer said:

No, I wasn't asking you to do anything. You said that I had one of 4 options. I pointed out that there is a 5th: For me to point out to any potential signers that the wording of the petition is deceptive because it implies that the "right" of raw feeders to feed raw is somehow in jeopardy when it is not. If anyone wants to sign the petition, more power to them. I just don't want anyone to think that if the proposed policy is adopted that it will somehow affect their ability to feed a raw diet because it won't.

Click to expand...

At the upcoming AVMA House of Delegates (HOD) meeting taking place in August 2012, the AVMA Council on Public Health and Regulatory Veterinary Medicine will vote on a proposed policy regarding raw or undercooked animal-source protein diets for pets. According to the AVMA website “The AVMA cannot, and will not, regulate what pet owners choose to feed their pets. If you already feed raw food to your pet, that’s your choice. This proposed policy is about mitigating public health risks, not about restricting or banning any products”. Unfortunately, anyone that belongs to or has considered joining The Delta Society knows firsthand that the implementation of such a policy will have negative repercussions for those that choose to feed a raw diet.

The article goes on to say that “Our policies are intended to present the scientific facts,… [that] these infections can sicken pets and pet owners alike, and can be life-threatening; unless a raw protein product has been subjected to a process that eliminates pathogens that can make pets and people ill, it poses a significant public health risk to both pets and pet owners."

This statement is blatantly misleading as it implies that non-raw diets including commercially prepared kibble are safe. It ignores that fact that non-raw diets cannot be guaranteed any safer that raw, as evidenced by the recent outbreak of salmonella poisoning linked to contaminated dry dog food. According to the CDC, that outbreak has sickened 47 people in 20 U.S. states and two people in Canada (with likely as many more unreported cases).

The article entitled: “The Facts on AVMA’s Proposed Policy on Raw Pet Food Diets” can be found here: http://atwork.avma.org/2012/07/18/the-facts-on-avmas-proposed-policy-on-raw-pet-food-diets/

Please sign this petition to support the right of educated and responsible pet owners to choose how they will feed their pets.

Click to expand...

EmilyMayWilcha said:

Here is the full text of the petition explanation. The bold is not mine, but the italics are.

So you can see here the AVMA is not trying to change your minds about what you feed your pets. The petition starter apparently doesn't think the AVMA is being honest even though it is pretty obvious nobody can stop anyone from feeding raw meat to pets. Because the petition looks like a false accusation the AVMA is lying IMHO, I decided to not sign it. Does you see it this way?

Click to expand...

Violetxx said:

..snip..

Obviously this is going to tick off raw feeders or anyone who supports raw food, because policies about other food (that can contain pathogens such as kibble) are not being scrutinized, so IMO this is the first step for big business to try and convince people raw is bad for your cat. And as Laurie showed, this policy has been influenced and lobbied by Delta Society Pet Partners (i.e. purina/science diet) which proves that this has nothing to do with our pets health, but big companies making money.

And the petition, does not try and state that AVMA is lying, they said that the policy is MISLEADING to pet owners, because they are singling out raw pet food exclusively. Personally, I have no problem with the AVMA saying that pathogens can be dangerous for cats and humans, however their choosing only make raw look bad, which shows that the decision is purely INDUSTRY-based, nothing more.



..snip....

Click to expand...

EmilyMayWilcha said:

So all this will do is make vets feel like they have to discourage raw feeding even if they believe in it. If the AVMA does vote to oppose most raw feeding, new clients will not learn about its benefits, while old clients continue to feed raw.

Click to expand...

We’ve been seeing a lot of misinformation about the proposed AVMA policy on raw or undercooked animal-source protein diets for pets that will be discussed and voted on at the AVMA House of Delegates (HOD) meeting in San Diego in August, so we feel the need to clear things up.

First of all, this proposed policy would be an AVMA policy if approved, not state or federal law. The AVMA cannot, and will not, regulate what pet owners choose to feed their pets. If you already feed raw food to your pet, that’s your choice. This proposed policy is about mitigating public health risks, not about restricting or banning any products. Our policies are intended to present the scientific facts, which in this case are: 1) Scientific studies have shown that raw and undercooked protein can be sources of infection with Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium, E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus. These infections can sicken pets and pet owners alike, and can be life-threatening; 2) unless a raw protein product has been subjected to a process that eliminates pathogens that can make pets and people ill, it poses a significant public health risk to both pets and pet owners.

Our policies are based on a thorough review of the scientific literature and are drafted by veterinarians with expertise in relevant fields (in this case, public health). If you’d like to read the proposed policy for yourself, here’s the exact document that will be considered by the HOD.

We realize that this issue is controversial. You are free to express your opinion, but please be aware that comments that are offensive, abusive, profane, or personal attacks will be removed.

Click to expand...

Preparation Tips

Washing hands is the most important step to prevent illness. Wash your hands for 20 seconds with water and soap right after handling pet food and treats, and especially before preparing, serving or eating food, drinks or preparing baby bottles

Preferably, people should feed their pet in areas other than the kitchen.

Wash pet food bowls, dishes and scooping utensils with soap and hot water regularly. Avoid washing these items in the kitchen sink or bathtubs to prevent cross-contamination. In households where there is no alternative, the sink area should be adequately sanitized after these items have been cleaned and removed.

Infants should not be bathed in kitchen sinks because of the risk of cross-contamination.

Do not use the pet’s feeding bowl as a scooping utensil – use a clean, dedicated scoop, spoon, or cup.

Click to expand...

LDG said:

Oh - there's currently 1,681 signatures on the change.org petition, and 381 comments on the AVMA website.

Click to expand...

otto said:

Maaannny people respect "official bodies". AAFCO, AVMA, those sound like important knowledgeable agencies, who "must know what they are talking about" They believe the advertisements they see when they watch TV at night about how healthy Science Diet and Purina products are. They think it's normal that their cats puke up their food at least once a day, get constipated, have dandruff, and rotten teeth, obesity, diabetes, urinary tract diseases, and kidney failure at 12 years old.
Then one day they read something or join a forum, or however it happens, they find themselves reading about feline nutrition. They become more interested and start to wonder....perhaps Kitty wouldn't be puking every day, and have to have hairball medicine shoved down her throat four times a week....if they improved her diet. They read a little about raw, read a little more, maybe discuss it with the vet. The vet, whether by honest belief (because vet was never educated properly) or more suspect motives, tries to discourage it. Some will give up right away. A stronger personality might press on, until the vet whips out the Trump Card "The American Veterinary Medical Association is against raw feeding". A few more, who might have pressed on, will drop out at that point and it is the cat who suffers.
But. Not only will those people finally be swayed that raw is a bad idea after all, those people will go on to tell their friends, and other forums how bad it is to feed raw because their vet and the AVMA (an official body with a lot of weight behind it, so it must know what it is talking about) says so.
It's not about those of you who already feed prey model. It's about all the animals who could benefit from this kind of diet, who might lose their chance, with this kind of "Official Policy".

Click to expand...

EmilyMayWilcha said:

I expected it to go over 1,000, which was the goal, pretty quickly. It is a shame the pet food industry has power over veterinarians without who never had a chance to learn raw food is the right food for cats.

Click to expand...

speakhandsforme said:

Hmm... While of course I disagree with the AVMA on this, being a raw feeder myself, I have to agree with those who are saying, for the most part, "So what?"

I think that those who have thought about feeding their pet any kind of species-appropriate diet and taken the time to research it and find out what's good for their obligate carnivore will have no trouble shunting aside advice from a vet who tells them Science Diet is fine for their cat, and raw is bad because the AVMA says it is -- just like those who take the time to research declawing will have no trouble ignoring their vet's advice that declawing is fine, AVMA stance or not.

Furthermore, anyone possessing a significant number of brain cells knows not to take what the "authorities" say for granted. Just like we all ignore the signs at restaurants about undercooked eggs, meat, etc. and order our eggs over easy, and eat raw oysters. What the FDA or anyone else has to say about raw food has zero significance in our everyday lives. (unless you're pregnant or sick, maybe.)

In the end, what I'm saying is that this rule will likely change nothing. Vets will still be educated on "nutrition" by the pet food companies, and they'll still have a large hand in what the FDA/AAFCO/AVMA says is fine to feed your pet.

But does that mean I discourage efforts to repeal the advisory rule? Nope! I'm signing the petition now

Click to expand...

mschauer said:

This pretty well summarizes how I feel about. Except I won't sign the petition because I think the hysterical tone will keep it from being taken seriously. In fact I think it is just that kind of hysterical tone that keeps raw feeders from being taken seriously by the people, such as members of the AVMA, who are in a position to make real change.

Click to expand...

LDG said:

While I do agree with this, and it would have been preferable if the wording was much different, I signed because I think the AVMA needs to know people have a problem with their proposed official position.

Click to expand...

Violetxx said:

Precisely! I know many pet owner's who don't know much about pet nutrition so they follow their vet's advice 100%.

It is so sad, that big business can influence regulating organizations, but it happens ALOT. The FDA is influenced by pharmaceutical companies, food companies such as Monsanto and now the EPA (environmental protection agency) is being pushed by energy industries such as shale gas. Even Romney and Obama are being supported by big corporations, who want them to push their interests, as well as here in Canada, Harper is removing many of our environmental acts and regulations to push the construction of an oil pipeline. 

I apologize for the rant, this stuff just gets me all worked up. I just want to emphasize that this issue is much bigger than cat food, its a result of governmental policies and allowing heads of big business to run regulating agencies. I myself am thinking about writing a letter, but would they listen to a Canadian since it is (American)VMA?

Click to expand...

This Facts page states, “This proposed policy is about mitigating public health risks, not about restricting or banning any products. Our policies are intended to present the scientific facts…”

I fear that all that will be achieved in adopting this policy is to further alienate raw feeders from their pets’ health care providers with the focus on pathogen avoidance as opposed to methods of proper hygiene. How can that possibly be in the pets’ or the public’s best interest?

It also seems that the body of literature considered for this proposed Policy is lacking. The issue of pet-human transmission does not appear to have been considered; the fact that our pets irrespective of diet are already carriers of many pathogens does not appear to have been considered.

The risk of pet-human transmission. As to the hypothesis that our raw fed pets are a reservoir for transmitting salmonella to humans, there are studies that call this into question. After examining canine zoonoses and their risk to man Baxter and Leck [1984] state that direct canine-human transmission has occurred in a relatively few cases. Pelzer (1989) states that although salmonella has been isolated from dogs, it is difficult to assess the risk of humans acquiring infections because the infective dose is difficult to define, and in most cases the number of organisms isolated from the animals is not provided. Finley 2006, a reference piece for the proposed Policy, indicates “no confirmed cases of human salmonellosis have been associated with these diets.” Yet there have been 128 confirmed cases of human salmonellosis associated with dry pet foods (CDC 2012, AVMA Aug 9 2010).

In fact, our dogs and cats are already carriers of Salmonella, E. coli, and other pathogens. “The intestinal carriage of Salmonella by dogs and cats is more common than the prevalence of clinical disease, with numerous serovars being isolated from each animal species. Prevalence of isolation of Salmonella spp from feces of healthy dogs is reported to be between 1 and 36%, and from healthy cats between 1 and 18%. (Sanchez 2002).

Beutin (1993) found verotoxin producing e. coli in 4.8% of apparently healthy dogs and Dahlinger (1997) cultured various types of bacteria, including some forms of e. coli and salmonella from the lymph nodes of 52% of apparently healthy dogs brought in for elective spays.

If the AVMA wants to protect Public Health, utilizing the logic employed as outlined in the proposed policy and this follow-on “Facts” clarification, combined with the studies referenced here, the AVMA ought to create an official policy recommending that the elderly, those families with young children, and immune-compromised individuals should not own pets.

Sources of pathogens. While undercooked and raw meat is sometimes implicated in food poisoning cases, there have been an enormous number of cases of salmonella and e. coli reported from fruits and vegetables. Bean sprouts have been linked to many outbreaks of food poisoning, as have melons, salads, and apple cider (Health Canada, 2002, and USDA 1995) and almonds (Chan 2002 and http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5322a8.htm). In other words, while raw meat is a risk, so is almost ANY uncooked food. Galton et. al found that infections in their study were in part “either derived from common sources, spread from animal to man or possibly the reverse,” and Mackel et al suggest that the instances of infection also relate to the numerous reservoirs of Salmonella in both human and animal environments.

There are also critical problems with at least one of the reference studies used in the development of the proposed Policy.

Joffe & Schlesinger 2002.

“[Joffe] proposes that dogs fed a raw meat diet are a “public health concern.” Looking objectively at his methods and results fail to prove this to be the case. His study used 10 client owned raw fed dogs and 10 client owned dogs fed a dry food diet as controls. One meal-sized food sample and one stool sample were collected from each dog and tested for salmonella. The owners were responsible for the collection of the samples and as is stated in the paper “were aware of the purpose of the study prior to collection.” This alone is questionable and can create bias. Controlled scientific studies should be set up so that they are blind to the participants in order to prevent their influence on the results. Nowhere in the paper does it mention control measures surrounding feeding (including, but not specific to sanitation), storage of food, collection procedures or sample handling (temperature regulation, time between collection and testing). There is also no information given with regards to the subjects (age, breed, and/or clinical history). Were any of these dogs previously treated for the presence of salmonella in their stool prior to the onset of the study? Were any other environmental exposures considered as the source of the salmonella (especially in the cultures that did not directly reflect the bacteria seen in the food)?

“The …conclusions drawn … do not necessarily fit with the breakdown of the facts. In fact Joffe helps to prove that dogs can deal with salmonella in their system. He states that 80% of the raw food samples tested positive for salmonella. Of those eight dogs two of them showed salmonella in their stool, only one of which was the same serovar that was present in the food. How can he then dismiss the suggestion that dogs fed infected food do not necessarily shed salmonella in their stool? Interestingly none of the dogs were reported to show clinical symptoms of Salmonellosis even though they were fed food that contained the bacterium. This is further supported by Ettinger and Feldman [1995] who state that “isolation from gastrointestinal tract or its secretions does not indicate that the organisms are causing clinical disease.” (New, L (n.d.)).


Schlesinger and Joffe 2011, “Raw food diets in companion animals: A critical review.”

In the discussion for evidence of infectious disease risk to pets or humans sharing the same environment (in animals being fed raw food), the authors found no “Level 1” evidence. (“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). Also included in this group would be an “all or none” study where all patients died before treatment was available, but some now survive or some died before and now all survive with the treatment. Level 2 studies are systematic reviews of cohort studies with consistent results or individual cohort studies, including lower quality randomized clinical trials (

Click to expand...