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

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.)

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.

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.

Why do you need to be a raw feeder (or even have a pet ) 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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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

That's what I'm trying to understand.

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.

Thanks, Laurie

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

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?


Why?

Some do. That's why companies like Nature's Variety, Aunt Jeni's, Paw Naturaw, etc. were STARTED.




Sorry, you lost me on this one.


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.

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.

I posted info as to the existence of a petition as re: this issue. It's up to people to click on the link or not, and then to sign it or not. 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.

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

 

Written communication is always a bear!  

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

 

Oh, no. That was just stupid.  

 

 

 

 

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

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.

Yep, I'M laughing at me!

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.



And Emily? Your ability to avoid questions you don't want to answer is beautiful.

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

 

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.

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..

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.

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

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:

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/

Bold, my emphasis.

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?

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

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