Melody
Mar 2nd 2007, 11:30 AM
I found a link to a very interesting article, The Myth of 100% Complete Processed Pet Foods (http://www.wysong.net/PDFs/100complete.pdf), by Randy Wysong, D.V.M. The good Doctor and I share the same opinion of the claims made by those who make a killing in the Pet Food Industry. My opinion has always been based on the processing of food itself, along with the need for fresh foods and a varied diet designed to meet the needs of your specific tank occupants.
This quote made me laugh...
Each time regulatory agencies convene to decide how much of which nutrients comprise 100% completeness, debate always ensues and standards usually change. This not only proves that what they claimed before was not 100% complete, but this should also make us highly suspicious about what they now claim to be 100% complete. ~ Randy Wysong, D.V.M
:laugh: How true, be it pet or human research/conclusions.
A poster in another forum tried (I say 'tried' because a salesman wouldn't let her get a word in edgewise) to use the example of breast milk to support a similar line of thinking. She mentioned that years ago we raised babies on canned milk, good ol' Carnation. Then we studied and learned that breast milk is the ultimate and why, resulting in more complete baby formulas. People bought formula because it was better for baby than Carnation milk, yet the forumulas are constantly being improved based on further study of breast milk. The natural completeness is the ultimate goal of the simulation, but it is never actually obtained with any certainty. If this is still the case with something as crucial as infant nutrition, imagine how many gaping holes there are in pet nutrition conclusions?
The article focuses on dog & cat food like most literature does. The fish food concerns are even greater. We aren't just feeding one species with processed foods which claim to be complete, we are feeding countless species the same food. These species include those who are already scientifically known to have different nutritional requirements, classed as herbivores, omnivores and carnivores. On top of that, we have both freshwater & marine species.
I cannot make a food that is nutritionally complete or even suitable for all fish, and niether can anyone else. You can't even put everything into it that all fish could require, because there are digestive concerns. Carnivores can't digest the level of fiber that herbivores do, for example.
Now throw in how the processing destroys the naturally-sourced nutrients and you are feeding little more than a fish multi-vitamin. We pay through the nose for a prettier list of ingredients, but if the fish are getting very little from the sources listed, what's the point? Now factor in that we're also adding preservatives, msg, color, etc to the fish's diet with the processed foods...
Although I don't think that the article tells us much more than we already suspected, it is nice to have our suspicions backed by someone with a degree... again. He is promoting a book so that needs to be considered, but I see no attempt to panic anyone into buying it. He just appears to be stating what we already know, backed with logic and learned conclusions.
So what now? Can we expect the industry to offer 100% complete food? Of course not, if we don't know everything we can't pull that off. However, we can expect them to stop misleading people and use those handy sentences like "Part of a complete diet", rather than claiming perfection. The way I see it anyway.;)
This quote made me laugh...
Each time regulatory agencies convene to decide how much of which nutrients comprise 100% completeness, debate always ensues and standards usually change. This not only proves that what they claimed before was not 100% complete, but this should also make us highly suspicious about what they now claim to be 100% complete. ~ Randy Wysong, D.V.M
:laugh: How true, be it pet or human research/conclusions.
A poster in another forum tried (I say 'tried' because a salesman wouldn't let her get a word in edgewise) to use the example of breast milk to support a similar line of thinking. She mentioned that years ago we raised babies on canned milk, good ol' Carnation. Then we studied and learned that breast milk is the ultimate and why, resulting in more complete baby formulas. People bought formula because it was better for baby than Carnation milk, yet the forumulas are constantly being improved based on further study of breast milk. The natural completeness is the ultimate goal of the simulation, but it is never actually obtained with any certainty. If this is still the case with something as crucial as infant nutrition, imagine how many gaping holes there are in pet nutrition conclusions?
The article focuses on dog & cat food like most literature does. The fish food concerns are even greater. We aren't just feeding one species with processed foods which claim to be complete, we are feeding countless species the same food. These species include those who are already scientifically known to have different nutritional requirements, classed as herbivores, omnivores and carnivores. On top of that, we have both freshwater & marine species.
I cannot make a food that is nutritionally complete or even suitable for all fish, and niether can anyone else. You can't even put everything into it that all fish could require, because there are digestive concerns. Carnivores can't digest the level of fiber that herbivores do, for example.
Now throw in how the processing destroys the naturally-sourced nutrients and you are feeding little more than a fish multi-vitamin. We pay through the nose for a prettier list of ingredients, but if the fish are getting very little from the sources listed, what's the point? Now factor in that we're also adding preservatives, msg, color, etc to the fish's diet with the processed foods...
Although I don't think that the article tells us much more than we already suspected, it is nice to have our suspicions backed by someone with a degree... again. He is promoting a book so that needs to be considered, but I see no attempt to panic anyone into buying it. He just appears to be stating what we already know, backed with logic and learned conclusions.
So what now? Can we expect the industry to offer 100% complete food? Of course not, if we don't know everything we can't pull that off. However, we can expect them to stop misleading people and use those handy sentences like "Part of a complete diet", rather than claiming perfection. The way I see it anyway.;)