5 thoughts on “The AVMA proves it doesn’t really care what the consumer thinks.”
You have show dogs/ pedigrees, I have mutts.
The way I look at it is that dogs are pretty much omnivores so mine get dry dog food, table scraps and raw trimmings.
They’re healthy and lively and all have lived well into the late teens.
Kurt, thats not the problem. Though I’d still be feeding raw even if I did have a pair of muts. The problem is the complete lack of any factual, or logical basis for this policy. The ‘studies’ they cite as proof of the negetive side effects of raw aren’t studies and prove nothing of the sort. Infact there have been NO studies done on raw diets at all. There is no proof that animals fed raw meat become biologically dangerous to the humans around them or that the raw meat is dangerous to a healthy animal. There IS proof, as recent as a few months ago, that processed kibbles CAN BE dangerous to the animals fed them and the humans exposed to those animals. And yet rather than put pressure on the pet food industry to clean up its act and make its foods safer they create a policy with no science or data to back it up. Or at least no ‘data’ other than the money spent by the pet foods industry to convince them….
So it’s like the ‘science” of global warming where the whole thing is driven by the right people making money.
Pretty much.
Even then it wouldn’t be such an issue, except that the AVMA is considered an influential organization. Unless something weird happens I KNOW that policy is going cause other groups, who’d normally never think of it, to stop and look and think maybe they should do the same, and THAT is potentially scary.
You have show dogs/ pedigrees, I have mutts.
The way I look at it is that dogs are pretty much omnivores so mine get dry dog food, table scraps and raw trimmings.
They’re healthy and lively and all have lived well into the late teens.
Kurt, thats not the problem. Though I’d still be feeding raw even if I did have a pair of muts. The problem is the complete lack of any factual, or logical basis for this policy. The ‘studies’ they cite as proof of the negetive side effects of raw aren’t studies and prove nothing of the sort. Infact there have been NO studies done on raw diets at all. There is no proof that animals fed raw meat become biologically dangerous to the humans around them or that the raw meat is dangerous to a healthy animal. There IS proof, as recent as a few months ago, that processed kibbles CAN BE dangerous to the animals fed them and the humans exposed to those animals. And yet rather than put pressure on the pet food industry to clean up its act and make its foods safer they create a policy with no science or data to back it up. Or at least no ‘data’ other than the money spent by the pet foods industry to convince them….
So it’s like the ‘science” of global warming where the whole thing is driven by the right people making money.
Pretty much.
Even then it wouldn’t be such an issue, except that the AVMA is considered an influential organization. Unless something weird happens I KNOW that policy is going cause other groups, who’d normally never think of it, to stop and look and think maybe they should do the same, and THAT is potentially scary.