or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › Our Feline Companions › Cat Nutrition › Raw & Home-Cooked Cat Food › AVMA to vote to take a stand against raw feeding
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AVMA to vote to take a stand against raw feeding - Page 3

post #61 of 130

It only makes me think even less of Purina and the Delta Society Pet Partners (what ever they are....).

And maybe boycott Purina (I feed Ritz raw; the feral/stray/dumped cat colony Friskies and dry food.)

post #62 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post

Oh, and there's a petition up, if anyone wants to sign.

Were you looking for one or planning to write your own on that website?

 

I probably would sign it if I had been feeding raw for years and a vet who favors it, but as you know, I am far from ready to make the switch so I don't know what my vet thinks.

post #63 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritz View Post

It only makes me think even less of Purina and the Delta Society Pet Partners (what ever they are....).

And maybe boycott Purina (I feed Ritz raw; the feral/stray/dumped cat colony Friskies and dry food.)

Everyone who feeds raw is already boycotting most or all pet food companies, so I don't think it will help. Of course, it is smart to stop feeding Friskies for the health of your feral colony.

post #64 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

Were you looking for one or planning to write your own on that website?

I probably would sign it if I had been feeding raw for years and a vet who favors it, but as you know, I am far from ready to make the switch so I don't know what my vet thinks.

headscratch.gif Why do you need to be a raw feeder (or even have a pet laughing02.gif ) to have an ideological problem with the AVMA doing this? Anyone can sign. And what does what your vet thinks about it have to do with anything?

I'm signed up at change.org and saw it on FB.
post #65 of 130
Quote:

 

That petition states that the signers are asking

 

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

 

For clarification, since there seems to be some confusion about what the AVMA policy means, the policy in no way affects pet owners right to feed raw. It could effect how vets respond if asked about raw feeding by a pet owner.

post #66 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

Everyone who feeds raw is already boycotting most or all pet food companies, so I don't think it will help.

Wow, what a defeatist attitude. So why are you bothering, as one individual, to write to the FDA?

I like to try to live on principles that matter to me. My not buying milk doesn't stop factory farming of dairy cows, and my buying locally farmed eggs doesn't stop factory farming of chicken egg layers.

dontknow.gifheadscratch.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha 
Of course, it is smart to stop feeding Friskies for the health of your feral colony.
It supplements what they eat. It's better than kibble. There would be hundreds of thousands fewer cats being TNRd if those of us that do the work and fund it out-of-pocket ourselves spent the money on food. Priorities matter, and ferals eat whole animal diets. None of the ferals I care for rely on the food I provide for 100% of their needs.
post #67 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post

That petition states that the signers are asking

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


For clarification, since there seems to be some confusion about what the AVMA policy means, the policy in no way affects pet owners right to feed raw. It could effect how vets respond if asked about raw feeding by a pet owner.

Well, your options are:

1) don't sign
2) ask them to correct the wording of the petition
3) create a better petition
3) write your own letter to the AVMA
4) do nothing, don't worry about it. laughing02.gif
post #68 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post

That petition states that the signers are asking

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


For clarification, since there seems to be some confusion about what the AVMA policy means, the policy in no way affects pet owners right to feed raw. It could effect how vets respond if asked about raw feeding by a pet owner.

Well, your options are:

1) don't sign
2) ask them to correct the wording of the petition
3) create a better petition
3) write your own letter to the AVMA
4) do nothing, don't worry about it. laughing02.gif

 

5) Post a clarification so people understand what they are signing.  smile.gif

post #69 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post

Wow, what a defeatist attitude. So why are you bothering, as one individual, to write to the FDA?

That's what I'm trying to understand. sCo_idk.gif
post #70 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post


Wow, what a defeatist attitude. So why are you bothering, as one individual, to write to the FDA?
I like to try to live on principles that matter to me. My not buying milk doesn't stop factory farming of dairy cows, and my buying locally farmed eggs doesn't stop factory farming of chicken egg layers.

It supplements what they eat. It's better than kibble. There would be hundreds of thousands fewer cats being TNRd if those of us that do the work and fund it out-of-pocket ourselves spent the money on food. Priorities matter, and ferals eat whole animal diets. None of the ferals I care for rely on the food I provide for 100% of their needs.

Milk and eggs purchases are affecting the industries and retailers enough to make companies change their rules on where they get cattle and chickens. However, the fact that they are human food products makes a big difference. Pet food companies probably don't care if beef comes from free-range cattle or not. But while I eat meat and eggs and drink milk, knowing being a vegan does not change anything for industries, of course I do understand why other people choose to be vegans.

 

The FDA letter is totally different. It is telling them why more and more people are feeding raw meat to their cats and dogs. Boycotting bad pet foods by feeding raw does not send a message to the FDA because they don't know the reasons for it. If they know why people are switcfhing pets to raw, maybe the FDA will realize a lot of money is at stake and pet food companies are losing customers because of all the crap that is supposed to be banned, but allowed to happen anyway. If other people who actually feed a raw diet to their cats also write to the FDA it might actually think and do something about it. If not, I will start a petition on change.org or a similar website.

post #71 of 130
Quote:

clap.gifclap.gifclap.gifclap.gif Thanks, Laurie hugs.gifbiggrin.gifclap.gif
post #72 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

Milk and eggs purchases are affecting the industries and retailers enough to make companies change their rules on where they get cattle and chickens.

Yes, and how do things like that start? With one caring person. dontknow.gif

So what are you saying? You want to participate in something only if enough other people are participating that a difference can be made? So how does anything ever GET to that point? laughing02.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

However, the fact that they are human food products makes a big difference.

Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

Pet food companies probably don't care if beef comes from free-range cattle or not.
Some do. That's why companies like Nature's Variety, Aunt Jeni's, Paw Naturaw, etc. were STARTED.

headscratch.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

But while I eat meat and eggs and drink milk, knowing being a vegan does not change anything for industries, of course I do understand why other people choose to be vegans.

Sorry, you lost me on this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

The FDA letter is totally different. It is telling them why more and more people are feeding raw meat to their cats and dogs. Boycotting bad pet foods by feeding raw does not send a message to the FDA because they don't know the reasons for it. If they know why people are switcfhing pets to raw, maybe the FDA will realize a lot of money is at stake and pet food companies are losing customers because of all the crap that is supposed to be banned, but allowed to happen anyway. If other people who actually feed a raw diet to their cats also write to the FDA it might actually think and do something about it.

headscratch.gif You mean they don't know why people feed raw? They aren't aware of market share? Of course they do, of course they are.

There was enough of a stink made about the euthanized cats and dogs in pet foods for them to conduct a study. They found pentobarbitol, but no DNA from cats and dogs. Of course, I don't know how many foods were tested, or how you catch DNA of a cat or dog in a pet food. For all I know, what they did is akin to looking at a square foot of something the size of three football fields and not find any ticks, and declaring the area free of ticks. dontknow.gif

But of course they know the issues. It's BECAUSE of the money in the pet food industry that things don't change - or that people like Susan Thixton are fighting a very uphill battle. Like I said earlier - the PFI in the U.S. is an $18 billion industry. The largest players are

1) Mars - the fifth largest private company in the country - with 2010 sales (total, not just pet food) of "just" $30 billion
2) Nestle, SA - a Swiss company, the largest food manufacturer in the world with 2011 total sales of $85.5 billion (USD)
3) Colgate Palmolive - 2011 sales of $16.7 billion
4) Proctor & Gamble - 2011 sales of $82.6 billion
5) Del Monte - another private company. Only data I have is 2009 sales: "just" $3.6 billion

I did a VERY quick look-up of pet food lobbying. I found lobbying for food/agribusiness in general: "During 2011, agribusiness, including the food industry, employed 1,081 federal lobbyists who were working for 443 clients at a cost of $123.6 million." http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/slicing-into-the-food-industrys-40-million-worth-of-lobbying/

I looked up the P&G quickly, and found they spent $4.13 million on lobbying in 2010. http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/global_structure_operations/governance/governance_political.shtml

Meanwhile, Nature's Variety is one of the largest providers of commercial raw food. A small private company, data is hard to come by. All I can find is that revenue estimates are between $100 million and $500 million. But given the estimate is that Commercial Raw represents about 3% of the U.S. Pet Food Industry, that is a TOTAL of $540 million in revenue - between ALL the commercial raw providers.

P&G spent 0.05% of its revenue on lobbying. If the entire commercial raw industry spent 0.05% on lobbying, that is $270,000.

This is why things don't change, not because the FDA isn't aware of the problems, the concerns, or why people feed raw.

Again, I encourage you to write you letter. I think when we want things to change, we need to take a stand, and we need to speak out, and we need to vote with our wallets. It all starts somewhere, and with some ONE.

dontknow.gif
post #73 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post

5) Post a clarification so people understand what they are signing.  smile.gif

I posted info as to the existence of a petition as re: this issue. dontknow.gif It's up to people to click on the link or not, and then to sign it or not. headscratch.gif Are you saying I should have posted more info so you wouldn't have bothered clicking on the link?
post #74 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post

5) Post a clarification so people understand what they are signing.  smile.gif

I posted info as to the existence of a petition as re: this issue. dontknow.gif It's up to people to click on the link or not, and then to sign it or not. headscratch.gif Are you saying I should have posted more info so you wouldn't have bothered clicking on the link?

 

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.

post #75 of 130
OH! laughing02.gif Man, I'm not having good reading comprehension levels in this thread, am I? laughing02.gifanon.gif
post #76 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post

OH! laughing02.gif Man, I'm not having good reading comprehension levels in this thread, am I? laughing02.gifanon.gif

 

Written communication is always a bear!  laughing02.gif

post #77 of 130
Well, that's very kind, but it really doesn't account for the mix-up between AAFCO and AVMA. laughing02.gif
post #78 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post

Well, that's very kind, but it really doesn't account for the mix-up between AAFCO and AVMA. laughing02.gif

 

Oh, no. That was just stupid.  laughing02.gif

post #79 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post

 

Oh, no. That was just stupid.  laughing02.gif

 

 

crackup.gif

 

 

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

post #80 of 130

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.

post #81 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post

Oh, no. That was just stupid.  laughing02.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugarcatmom View Post


crackup.gif


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

laughing02.giflaughing02.giflaughing02.gif Yep, I'M laughing at me!
post #82 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

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.

But that's my point. Who cares whether it reaches the goal, or how many people sign it, or how many people it takes to convince the AVMA to not adopt the position? That doesn't impact my decision to sign a petition or participate in a protest, or to not buy something. In college, I went to protests where there were 40 people, and I participated in marches that had close to 100,000 people.

I'm not in love with the way the petition is worded, but I signed it on principle. And I'm going to get that letter ready too.

dontknow.gif

And Emily? Your ability to avoid questions you don't want to answer is beautiful. laughing02.gif
post #83 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post

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.

Actually Laurie presented 5 options and typed the number 3 twice. doh3.gif

 

Maybe (just speculating) people are worried their vets will not be allowed to say anything good about or recommend a raw diet. If that is true I would tell them, "If the AVMA's official policy meant anything, I would not be told it is OK to get Emily declawed at her first vet appointment." A "policy" to discourage declawing means nothing to vets like that one so why should a "policy" to discourage raw feeding affect what vets say? I think the AVMA should use the word guideline instead to eliminate confusion.

post #84 of 130

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

Quote:

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.

 

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?

post #85 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

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?

 

Alright, I feel the need to comment here. Emily I do not understand your argument at all -  you really need to proof-read what you write otherwise your credibility goes out the window. Yes, we know that the AVMA cannot stop raw feeders from feeding raw that is clear, but the policy that is going to be voted on is about vets discouraging pet owners from feeding raw food that could contain pathogens. 

 

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.

 

Its your decision to sign the petition, but coming from someone trying to get OUR help writing a letter to the FDA, you better understand that the people helping you write that letter are mainly raw-feeders, so ticking them off may not be in your best interest..wink.gif

post #86 of 130

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.

post #87 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violetxx View Post



..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....

Yes, this was my first reaction when I first read the article, but could not put it so articulately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyMayWilcha View Post

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.

And yes, that is my other objection. Vets already against raw, whether it's because they genuinely believe its bad, or because they want to support the PFI for their own gain, will now have another bit of leverage to sway those who want to try it....but feel the need of support from their vet. If the AVMA adopts an official policy, these vets can use that as one more reason to keep their clients pets on food that will make them sick and make the PFI richer.

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".
post #88 of 130

Is it likely some vets will tell raw feeders to stop giving their pets grocery store chicken?

post #89 of 130
I'm working on my letter now. But thought I'd share if you haven't already seen. The AVMA posted a clarification on their site, and has provided for public comment:
Quote:
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.

http://atwork.avma.org/2012/07/18/the-facts-on-avmas-proposed-policy-on-raw-pet-food-diets/

Again, this is a pile of BS. They don't have an official policy on the health risk of kibble. The FDA has safe handling guidelines for all pet foods here (they do caution against raw feeding): http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm048182.htm

The CDC's recommendations for safe handling of kibble: http://www.cdc.gov/features/salmonelladrypetfood/
Quote:
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.

Bold, my emphasis.

flail.gif Again - this is the CDC's recommendation for feeding KIBBLE.

Um, I haven't found an official AVMA position against feeding kibble. Has anyone else? wink.gif

Oh - other pertinent information. No human cases of salmonella have been traced to feeding raw pet food (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16447116 (in one of the papers on the dangers of feeding raw food) . Yet at least 128 cases of salmonella infection in humans have been traced to dry pet foods:

79 reported cases as of 2010: http://www.avma.org/public_health/salmonella/pet_food_salmonella_faq.asp
49 in the latest recalls (2012): http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/dog-food-05-12/index.html
post #90 of 130
Oh - there's currently 1,681 signatures on the change.org petition, and 381 comments on the AVMA website.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Raw & Home-Cooked Cat Food
TheCatSite.com › Forums › Our Feline Companions › Cat Nutrition › Raw & Home-Cooked Cat Food › AVMA to vote to take a stand against raw feeding