Myth: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO BACK RAW DIETS.
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the
facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be
one of the facts that needs altering."
— Dr. Who

http://rawfed.com/myths/research.html

The implication here is that because there is "no scientific research"
performed by institutions like the American Veterinary Medicine
Association (AVMA), raw diets should not be fed. This 'no scientific
research' declaration is a cop-out claim that has been used to "debunk"
raw diets and suppress the truth. But one must realize that there is NO
evidence whatsoever to prove that kibbled, processed foods are good for
your pets. The only research that has been done into processed foods was
performed to see a) if dogs could be fed a grain-based food, b) if dogs
could survive acceptably on these processed foods for a short period of
time, c) if X brand of food can do such-and-such for the dog (help with
kidney disease, help with diabetes, help with obesity), and d) if X
brand of food is "better" (more palatable, better liked, less total
stool volume, etc.) than Y brand of food. No research has been done to
determine the long-term effects of feeding kibble, nor to determine if
it is actually healthy for your dog (it is just assumed healthy because
it has passed a 6 month feeding trial, and then manufacturers falsely
advertise their product as healthy.).

But as for raw diets: one million years of evolution apparently is not
enough evidence for those citing lack of research and lack of studies in
scientific literature. Neither the anatomical and physiological evidence
of dogs, nor mtDNA evidence, nor circumstantial and statistical evidence
of diseases in processed food-fed pets, nor anecdotal evidence are
enough from those becrying the lack of "studies" and "research".
Anecdotal, eyewitness evidence is dismissed because it is scientifically
"unfounded" and anecdotal, even when the evidence is standing right
before their eyes in easily seen, wonderful health (It is interesting to
note that eyewitness evidence is enough to help condemn a man in a court
of law, but is not enough for the "scientific" community composed of pet
food manufacturers and their affiliates—which include vet universities
and most vets.). People then expect raw feeders to take their anecdotal
and eyewitness evidence as truth when they have already dismissed the
evidence offered by the raw feeder as anecdotal. "I've seen so many dogs
come into my clinic with nutritional problems because of raw diets!"
(What about all the sick commercially fed pets that come into your
office?) "Bones are going to kill your dog" (Oh yeah? Says who? Prove
it!). This distinct bias has been used in veterinary literature to
"prove" raw diets are not as good as commercial:
"Although there are numerous claims to the health benefits of raw food
diets, all are anecdotal...The raw bones included in many of these diets
carry risks, and although the actual incidence of complications
resulting from ingestion of raw bones is unknown, there are reports of
intestinal obstruction, gastrointestinal perforation, gastroenteritis,
and fractured teeth..." pg 706, emphasis added (Freeman, L.M. and K.E.
Michel. Evaluation of raw food diets for dogs. JAVMA. 218(5): 705-709)

The claims of raw food diets are dismissed as anecdotal, and then the
readers are later asked to consider the similarly anecdotal,
undocumented "reports" against raw food diets! This is nothing but a
head-in-the-sand approach that attempts to maintain the status quo.

There is a lack of "scientific" evidence in the form of research studies
on raw diets. Why? Well, who is going to pay for an extensive research
study on raw diets when the evidence may be damning? People point to all
the studies done by commercial pet food companies and cite the lack of
similar studies done on raw diets as evidence that raw diets are bad and
inferior. But let us look at how studies actually come about.

First, you must come up with a hypothesis and a purpose. What are you
studying? Why are you studying it? What do you expect to prove? After
you figure this out you design your study, including methods, control
groups, and variables. You draw out everything in great detail, and then
you incorporate this into a grant; after all, you need a large amount of
money to run your study. So where do you get the money? You look at
individuals, corporations, and companies that might be interested in
your project. Some of the bigger companies and corporations already have
pre-existing grant monies for which you can apply. Other times you have
to present the grant to a company and ask for funds that have not
already been set aside into a specific grant. How do you ensure the
receipt of this money? You appeal to people who will have a great
interest in what you are doing. You appeal to the companies that in some
way have a financial interest in what you are studying (for example, a
biomedical company that wishes to branch out from artificial joints into
artificial menisci and artificial vertebral discs—which happen to be
what you are studying!), and will therefore fund your project so as to
find out more; it just might pay off for them in some way. That is the
key: you are approaching companies that may offer you money because
there will be something in it for them.

But what happens if the results actually reflect unfavorably upon the
product you are testing or the method you are studying, and therefore
reflect unfavorably upon the company that makes said product or endorses
said method? It depends on how much is at stake. If there was very
little at stake initially—perhaps it was a small pilot study with the
company looking to see if artificial menisci might even be worth their
time—then there should not be a problem. It tells them what they wanted
to know and it was not a big loss (Some would argue that perhaps pet
food companies did this with raw diets. But if that was the case, they
would have all the facts and figures reflecting negatively on raw food
readily available; they could simply parade out the results of that
study to prove once and for all that raw diets are worthless. But, they
do not do this. Why? Because they do not have these results.). But what
if billions of dollars and an entire existing superstructure were at
stake? What will happen to the results? In human medicine, this has led
to the suppression of information, such as the suppression of
information regarding the dangers of Vioxx (To read more about how this
happens in industry, visit Mercola.com.).

Now let us apply this to the pet food manufacturers and to studies into
raw diets. Almost every single study performed on commercial pet foods
has been partially or fully funded by pet food companies. An example
would be Purina's own study on extending the life of your pet; they
discovered that by feeding smaller amounts of their Purina dog food and
thus keeping the dog from getting fat, you could extend the life of your
dog by two years. This, of course, supports the already well-known
thought that keeping your pets trim is better for their health (once
again, scientific "studies" being used to prove what is common sense.).
But by using only their food in the study, they can then insinuate that
it is Purina dog food that extends the life of your pet—and the little
asterisk on the ad or the fine print on the TV tells you that this is
only if you feed less than the recommended amount on the bag, thereby
keeping your pet trim and not fat. But who reads the fine print?

Let us look at raw diets. Who would support a good, solid study into raw
diets? What would happen if the results reflect negatively on commercial
diets and positively on raw diets? Think of how much they have to lose!!
Personally, I feel the lack of studies and the lack of willingness to do
studies on raw diets indicates a desire to hide something, to cover
something up that people do not want to be found. And I know of no pet
food company that will pay for a raw diet research study. None of their
control groups in their own studies are even fed a raw diet! The studies
are performed under false assumptions that dogs are omnivores and can be
maintained healthfully on grain-based, processed diets. Interestingly
enough, it was the scientific research of the pet food companies that
helped prove that dogs have no need for carbohydrates. The research in
their own files (and in the Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Nutrition)
demonstrates perfectly well that they know dogs are carnivorous animals.
And yet they continue to mislead the public, the veterinarians, and the
vets-to-be.

There have been "studies" done on bacterial content, nutritional
analysis (according to AAFCO standards), and parasites in raw meat
(using only the old, pre-existing literature on what kind of parasites
could possibly be found in raw meat), but there are no studies that go
in depth and objectively study the health effects of raw diets. Why
would there be? This would involve a long, intense study requiring
collaboration of vets nationwide and of multiple pet owners, or undue
suffering to hundreds of "test" dogs who must be fed improper raw diets
in the name of "scientific objectivity" (and there is the possibility
that these poor results would then be used to show that ALL raw diets
are bad). Indeed, funding is a huge issue as well, but I feel there are
underlying issues: a fear of what may be found, that raw diets will
indeed be proven better, that commercial diets will be proven unhealthy.
This drastically cuts against the status quo and would destroy pet food
companies and the veterinarians who depend on them to provide a clientele.

If raw diets were proven better and commercial diets were proven
harmful, there would be a tremendous backlash against the pet food
industries and the veterinary profession that is so entrenched with it.
Legal rammifications would be a highly probable option: people suing
vets for recommending a product that harms their pets; people suing the
pet food companies for creating a harmful product without warning
consumers of its dangers, for falsely advertising that product as
healthy, and for lying and covering up the information that indicated
otherwise; and vets suing the universities for providing an inadequate,
faulty education. Thousands of people would be laid off, a multi-billion
dollar industry would crumble, hundreds of veterinarians would find
themselves jobless, and society would no longer have an 'acceptable'
outlet for disposing of its dead, dying, and diseased meat, its grain
waste, and the some 40% of euthanized pets that find their way into
rendering plants and kibble, barbituates and all (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw
Meaty Bones.; Martin, A. Foods Pets Die For.). All of this is what they
have to lose if the results of a raw diet study reflect unfavorably on
commercial foods. Can one see the incentive in never performing or
publishing a proper study that objectively looks at raw diets and their
effects on the overall health of the dog? Note: if you are a pet owner,
veterinarian, or veterinary student who feels wronged by the pet food
companies or their close ties to veterinary universities, please visit
the Raw Meaty Bones website to get information on your legal options
(click on the "Legal Remedies" link). Additionally, in the UK an
organization known as UKRMB has helped spearhead an Early Day Motion
against the alliance between pet food companies and the veterinary
profession. To read about it, please click here.

This is not the only consideration when it comes to raw food research.
To perform an adequate study that would satisfy all the critics,
hundreds of dogs would need to suffer needlessly on improperly prepared
raw diets, because in the name of 'science' all the major variations of
the diets would be tested. That means dogs will be fed all meat diets,
all chicken-back and neck diets, veggie glop and some meat and mostly
bone diets, all beef-heart diets, etc. when all the researchers need to
do is look to nature, who got it right a million years ago. It is just
needless suffering. Next time someone bemoans the lack of scientific
studies about raw, ask them if they would like to volunteer their dog
for the study.

Instead of pushing for, funding, and advocating an unbiased study (which
is a good thing in the sense it spares animals from unnecessary
suffering in the name of science), vets and other "scientifically
minded" people point out the lack of studies and retreat behind that
facade in an effort to save face while ignoring a million years' worth
of scientific studies performed in nature's laboratory. But there are
some cruelty-free studies that could be performed; for example,
researchers could start looking at the incidence of periodontal disease
in raw-fed and commercially-fed pets. However, even something this
simple-sounding can be a difficult thing to do correctly, as there are
many variables that must either be minimized/weaned out of the study or
that will have to be included. Plus, it requires a large sample size and
great collaboration among pet owners, the vets, and the researchers.
Once again, though, we come to the main impetus behind the study: who
will pay for it, and why?

chardonnay9 wrote:
Myth: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO BACK RAW DIETS.
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the
facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be
one of the facts that needs altering."
— Dr. Who

http://rawfed.com/myths/research.html

1) publishing web material verbatim is tacky.

2) This is NOT any sort of factual anything, it's the rambling view of a
single writer with no cites or other information upon which to base his
claims.

You still haven't provided any documentation to support your claim that
dogs get no nutrition from kibble...

Robin Nuttall said in
rec.pets.dogs.health:

You still haven't provided any documentation to support
your claim that dogs get no nutrition from kibble...

Yup. I have no problem with raw feeding - Done Right!
Proselytizers (like the sort-of anonymous chardonnay9) give
those doing it correctly a bad name.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

Rocky wrote:
Robin Nuttall said in
rec.pets.dogs.health:


You still haven't provided any documentation to support
your claim that dogs get no nutrition from kibble...


Yup. I have no problem with raw feeding - Done Right!
Proselytizers (like the sort-of anonymous chardonnay9) give
those doing it correctly a bad name.


My big issue is that so very, very few do it right. And that there's no
real data out there to show what is "right" and what isn't. Okay,
Billinghurst came up with a diet. And he was a vet. But how much
research did he put into that diet? Controlled feeding trials?

It's all mumbo-jumbo. I do know some people who have been feeding raw
successfully for well over 10 years but frankly, they're eclipsed by
those who used to feed it and no longer do, or those who are feeding it
badly and getting some very scary health issues (gastritis,
pancreatitis, perforated intestines, kidney disease, liver disease, etc.)

Pointing to wild wolves is especially stupid because there's all kinds
of evidence that a LOT of mutation has happened between wolves and dogs,
and also because wolves average, what, 5-6 years in the wild? Gee, I
think I want my dogs to live a bit longer than that...

In article d4GSk.376423$TT4.40829@attbi_s22,
Robin Nuttall wrote:
My big issue is that so very, very few do it right. And that there's no
real data out there to show what is "right" and what isn't. Okay,
Billinghurst came up with a diet. And he was a vet. But how much
research did he put into that diet? Controlled feeding trials?

That's very close to my issue with it, as well. The focus
is almost exclusively on ingredients, and certainly
ingredients and how they've been processed matter a lot.
But still, if the dog's nutritional needs aren't being met
then there's a serious problem and the dog would be better
off with a decent commercially-produced kibble, frankly.
And I almost never see raw feeding proponents talking about
nutrition except either the most hand-wavey kind of way or
in a way that's just insanely wrong ("kibble has all the
nutrition processed out of it").
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

chardonnay9 wrote:

The implication here is that because there is "no scientific research"
performed by institutions like the American Veterinary Medicine
Association (AVMA), raw diets should not be fed.

This statement alone is enough to make any semi-educated person
stop reading right here. First of all, it's American Veterinary
MEDICAL (not "medicine") Association. Second, the AVMA itself
does not perform any medical research, although they do put out
arespected journal that publishes the work of researchers that's
relevant to veterinary medicine (not surprisingly, it's called
the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, or
JAVMA for short).

Really, it's pretty damn ridiculous to expect any of us to
welcome (let alone take) advice from people who are so poorly
educated and sloppy about details.

Dianne

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article d4GSk.376423$TT4.40829@attbi_s22,
Robin Nuttall wrote:

My big issue is that so very, very few do it right. And that there's no
real data out there to show what is "right" and what isn't. Okay,
Billinghurst came up with a diet. And he was a vet. But how much
research did he put into that diet? Controlled feeding trials?


That's very close to my issue with it, as well. The focus
is almost exclusively on ingredients, and certainly
ingredients and how they've been processed matter a lot.
But still, if the dog's nutritional needs aren't being met
then there's a serious problem and the dog would be better
off with a decent commercially-produced kibble, frankly.

Yes. And there's a lot of evidence that commercially-produced kibble
does very well for many, many dogs. Sure, there's kibble-crap out there.
But there are also a number of excellent diets based on real studies and
feeding trials.

Most of the big show breeders feed Pro Plan or Eukanuba, foods that many
sneer at. And granted, these dogs are not running the iditarod. But
they *are* expected to keep coat and condition (and energy and attitude)
while being almost constantly on the road. If those foods didn't produce
results they wouldn't be fed.

In article YZXSk.377605$TT4.78369@attbi_s22,
Robin Nuttall wrote:
Most of the big show breeders feed Pro Plan or Eukanuba, foods that many
sneer at. And granted, these dogs are not running the iditarod.

Actually, virtually all of the dogs that run the Iditarod,
the Yukon Quest, and the other marathon dogsled races are
fed kibble, often supplemented with fatty meat. Granted,
these are special-purpose extremely dense kibbles (Red Paw,
Momentum, Caribou Creek, Gold, etc, by way of example), but
if all the nutrition had been "processed out" (whatever that
means) of them none of those dogs could get a few miles down
the trail, let alone over 100 miles/day.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...

if all the nutrition had been "processed out" (whatever that
means) of them none of those dogs could get a few miles down
the trail, let alone over 100 miles/day.

Heck, if all the "nutrition" is "processed out" out of kibble, even
couch potato dogs would whither up and die. Hey, maybe Chardonnay is
mistaking nutrition for love? It wouldn't be the first time.

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

Shelly wrote:

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...

if all the nutrition had been "processed out" (whatever that
means) of them none of those dogs could get a few miles down
the trail, let alone over 100 miles/day.

Heck, if all the "nutrition" is "processed out" out of kibble, even
couch potato dogs would whither up and die.

No, they don't die because after they process it to death they add
things back in in an attempt to make it a food again. By definition it
is food but then again by definition so is sawdust.

As if anyone could make up a diet from leftovers that don't meet human
requirements that is better than what Mother Nature provides!