*** Fixed Links ***[P&M] - (but not verified)

"Char" wrote in message
...
The big news that has a lot of dog owners talking and even up in arms right
now (especially dog owners who feed a raw diet to their therapy dogs) is
that the Delta Society put out a shocking statement regarding a new policy
prohibiting animals fed raw meat or raw animal products from participating
in their Pet Partners program. http://www.deltasociety.org/Page.aspx?pid=638

This policy was established because of "research indicating dogs fed raw
meat are much more likely to be shedding harmful bacteria like Salmonella
and drug resistant E. coli in their feces compared to dogs fed commercial or
home cooked diets, and the fact that these dogs come into close and frequent
contact with people that are more susceptible to infections and at increased
risk having severe infections." The Delta Society is large national charity
that trains and registers therapy animals and organizes pet visitations to
the sick and elderly.

Now, please let it be understood that their decision is based on (extremely
limited) research showing pets consuming a raw meat diet could shed risky
bacteria (in their feces). However, they have no evidence what so ever to
prove that any pet fed a raw diet has ever sickened anyone, ever!

A fellow pet blogger pointed out that the answer as to how and why the Delta
society could make such a policy, banning raw fed dogs and cats from being
part of their program could very well lie on this page of the Delta Society
website – the listing of Board of Directors…
http://www.deltasociety.org/Page.aspx?pid=252

Listed there, as Secretary for the charity is Brenda Bax; Marketing
Director, Purina.

So, you have to wonder, is it possible that Purina Pet Food influenced The
Delta Society's move to ban pets fed raw meat, Please read and consider the
following letter sent to Delta Society from one educated person…

"Dear Delta Society,

While checking http://www.google.com to investigate your claims of raw
protein causing a significant shed of pathogens in the dog's stool, I found
the largest amount of information on an internet search shows that dry dog
food is the biggest offender of carrying salmonella contamination:

http://www.webmd.com/news/20080915/s...et-food-recall
http://health.usnews.com/health-news...continues.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19076207/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356203,00.html
http://pet-nutrition.suite101.com/ar...ecall_expanded
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051502363.html
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1/117/24691.html
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/dog...onella-problem
http://health.usnews.com/health-news....html?PageNr=2

One expert thinks contamination of pet food is likely to become more
commonplace.

"There have been problems with pet foods before," said Dr. Pascal James
Imperato, chairman of the department of preventive medicine
http://health.usnews.com/health-news....html?PageNr=1

and community health at the State University of New York Downstate Medical
Center in New York City. "If the food had any animal product in it, there
could have been contamination, or if it was being processed in a plant where
they were also processing animal product, then contamination can easily
occur," he said. "There is greater industrialization of the production of
food products, both for humans and animals, and these are complex processing
systems. Therefore, there is greater opportunity for contamination,"
Imperato said. "We are likely to see many more of these problems."

Secondly, a large percentage of all dogs carry salmonella, regardless of
diet. This has been known for some time:
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_f...product_id=223

Animal-to-Human — Salmonella can be acquired directly from pets (e.g. cats
and dogs), reptiles, and birds. The feces of pets, especially those with
diarrhea, contain Salmonella and humans can become infected if they do not
wash their hands after contact with pets or pet feces.15
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_f...duct_id=223#15 The pets may
suffer Salmonellosis as a reverse zoonosis, with infection transmitted from
human-to-pet and subsequently back to other humans. Salmonella can also be
found in healthy dogs and cats at rates of up to 36 percent and 18 percent,
respectively. 52
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_f...duct_id=223#52

http://www.bravorawdiet.com/recallinfo.html#merck
Here's what the Merck Veterinary Manual says about Salmonella in pets:

"Many dogs and cats are asymptomatic carriers of Salmonellae. Clinical
disease is uncommon, but when it is seen, it is often associated with
hospitalization, another infection or debilitating condition in adults, or
exposure to large numbers of the bacteria in puppies and kittens." 2

To translate: Many dogs and cats carry Salmonella in their systems (as
evidenced by the presence of Salmonella in their feces), but they rarely
become ill. It is just a natural part of what lives in their GI systems.
When illness does occur it is usually associated with an already ill animal
who is already immune-compromised. Illness may also occur when young animals
are exposed to very high numbers of the bacteria. This might happen if a
puppy finds and licks the inside of an outdoor garbage can that has never
been washed and is teeming with bacteria.

Research indicates that approximately 36 percent of healthy dogs and 17
percent of healthy cats carry Salmonella in their digestive tract.3 The
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) agrees with these numbers.4
It is interesting to note that these numbers are based on kibble-fed
dogs-which means that Salmonella is a natural part of life for our pets
regardless of what they are eating.

The resistance to illness in dogs from Salmonella is apparent in a study of
raw-fed dogs in Canada. In that study 16 dogs were deliberately fed
commercial raw diets contaminated with Salmonella. None of those 16 dogs
became ill. Additionally, only 7 of those 16 dogs shed Salmonella in their
feces.5 While it was not further studied, one might speculate that the 9
dogs who ate Salmonella-contamin ated food but did not shed it in their
feces effectively neutralized the bacteria.

Even the FDA, in the FDA Consumer magazine, acknowledges that healthy pets
rarely become ill from Salmonella contamination. 6

2. http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/in...m/bc/20900.htm
3. Hand, M.S., Thatcher, C.D., Remillard, R.L., and Roudebush, P. (2000)
Small Animal Clinical Nutrition. Mark Morris Institute. Pg. 36-42,188.
4. http://www.avma.org/reference/zoonos...monellosis.asp
5. Finley, R., et al. (2007) The Risk of Salmonellae Shedding by Dogs Fed
Salmonella-contamin ated Commercial Raw Food Diets. Can Vet J. Vol 48
#1. Pg. 69-75.
6. http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/departs/2000/500_upd.html#pigs

It is also interesting to note that humans can transmit salmonella to dogs:

http://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/pbs/zoono...almonella.html
Dogs and cats may suffer salmonellosis as a "reverse zoonosis," with
infection transmitted from human-to-dog and subsequently back to other
humans. Similarly, outbreaks of Salmonella infections in large animal
teaching hospitals have been linked to the introduction of bacteria from
infected human personnel, with subsequent spread to animals and then back to
other human workers.

In one of the studies quoted on your website as part of your proof, in the
first article only ten dogs were used to test for salmonella. The authors
themselves state: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/
Although these results are suggestive, they are not statistically
significant owing to the small number of dogs studied. Larger numbers of
dogs or multiple stool samples from each dog might have allowed the results
to reach statistical significance. Unfortunately, the limited funding to
this private clinic for this study did not allow for the inclusion of more
study animals or multiple cultures from individual subjects.

And, in another study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716752/
Since this study was an experimental trial with laboratory beagles, results
may not be completely indicative of what would be experienced with owned
dogs of various breeds. Determining that the raw food diet was the main
source of salmonellae shedding in owned dogs would be more complicated, as
they could be exposed to several other possible sources of salmonellae,
including other animals; other food items, including treats; the
environment; and their owners.

http://www.asph.org/vetmed/ppt/lefebvre.ppt
www.asph.org/vetmed/ppt/lefebvre.ppt
And information from your friends in Canada again. This is slide show that
has been prepared to show the dangers of raw fed foods for therapy dogs. It
was a great job of skewing the results. They show the high incidence of
bacteria found in 40 raw fed dogs stools, but somehow tend to downplay the
amounts found in dogs fed a dry diet. This study shows:

Raw fed dogs (40)
Dry food fed dogs (156)

0 – for Vanomycin resistant enterococci 1 – for
Vanomycin resistant enterococci

1 for Methicillin resistant S Aureus 8 – for
Methicillin resistant S Aureus

5 for Clostridium difficile 40 -
for Clostridium difficile

19 for Salmonella 12 -
for salmonella

31 for E Coli
32 – for E Coli

While this study may show more Salmonella and E Coli in raw fed dogs, it
shows higher results for the bacteria Clostridium, Methicillin resistant S
Aureus and has Vanomycin resistant enterococci. And the amount of Salmonella
and E Coli, while not as high as raw fed dogs, is significant.

My conclusion is that, in your hurry to label the raw diet as the culprit,
and eliminate its use from your volunteers in your program, you are only
putting the spotlight on the issue that all dogs can carry pathogens
regardless of diet . This could cause all dogs to be banned from use in any
health facility. In essence, I see your new rule as 'shooting yourself in
the foot'. I feel in your confidence and your bias of proving a raw diet
could spread pathogens, you forgot to do a full research on the issue.
Salmonella is everywhere, including dry dog food, the soil, pond water and
even from humans. Understand you are looking at narrow parameters that need
a more careful and extensive study on how pathogens are spread and how to
use sensible and effective prevention.

I don't see a problem with allowing dogs into nursing homes, hospitals or
hospices, as long as good hygiene is applied. That would include bathing the
dogs, insuring therapy dogs are flea and tick free, making sure the dog's
are properly exercised (ie pottied) before a visit, and carrying
sterilization equipment (bleach, bags and paper towels) in case of an
accident. All research points out pathogens are spread by stool or saliva.
That would mean not allowing the dogs to lick the clients, making sure the
coats and skin are recently bathed and trusting your volunteers. Your
volunteers are the backbone of your organization, and they do this loving
volunteer work without compensation and give the Delta group thousands of
volunteer hours. I hope you take this email in the light it was written, in
that sometimes, we need to look at any situation with more study and
thought, and understand the healing, joy and encouragement dogs give so many
people. Being a patient with serious illness and being away from home often
stifles recovery. Pets, as you know, bring hope, happiness and support to
begin the process of healing.

I hope you rethink your position on this matter, and continue to allow your
therapy dog work to bring joy to both your clients and your volunteers. My
interest in researching this and writing to you is in memory to my Ch
Blackwood Dante V Lyvngwerth CD and Ch Bourbon's Bravo of Blackwood, two
Rottweilers I owned who were the recipients of the American Rottweiler Club
TRUE award, for their many hours of therapy work. And yes, they both were
fed a raw diet. They both worked in the intensive care units of hospitals in
Tyler, Texas, for many years.

Lew Olson PhD Natural Health
http://www.b-naturals.com
Author of, "Raw and Natural Diets for Dogs"

So, could it be that this ban of raw meat pet food was initiated/motivated
by board member Purina executive?

It does make you wonder doesn't it?

This move also does have to make you wonder if other such bans or reverse
endorsements (not an official pet food brand endorsement, but a back handed
endorsement of commercial pet food in general) will be seen from other
charities or pet organizations that accept large donations from Big Pet
Food?

It sure makes me wonder if the multi-billion dollar Pet Food industry is now
scrambling, possibly trying to hold on to their ever slacking control of the
pet food market? After all, the more educated we pet owners become…the less
pet foods we buy. This is a very exciting thought – that just maybe we are
more headway in education on the benefits of a raw diet and natural health
than we at first thought.

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote

*** Fixed Links ***[P&M] - (but not verified)

Thank you Paul! Must have taken a bit of time there.