BELIEF CAN RUIN THE CHANCES FOR THE BEST PET FOOD

It is true in any science that once a theory achieves the status of general acceptance as a paradigm (belief in a way of thinking about the world), and particularly if money flows through it, change is tenaciously resisted. It doesn't matter whether the belief is actually right or wrong, good or bad, or even self destructive.

Examples include the practices of witch hunting, bloodletting, lobotomy, unprotected x-ray exposure, physicians refusing to wash their hands between doing autopsies and delivering babies, and the liberal use of opioids as cure alls. Human history is, in fact, all about the rise and fall of beliefs and paradigms that were considered "absolutely true" by the intelligentsia and public of the time.

Of course we now think we have risen above such ignorance. But in our lifetimes we have seen pollution practiced with abandon, the facts about smoking resisted even to this day, the use of drugs that kill, or cause disease and deformities, such as Vioxx, Thalidomide, DES, and the cholesterol lowering pharmaceuticals. (See the book: (The Cholesterol Myth - Believe it to Your Peril.) The chances are, ideas that presently hold sway in society and are assumed true, even seeming no-brainers, may be flat out wrong.

The exclusive feeding of so-called complete and balanced processed foods is one of those wrong ideas that just refuses to let go.

Any problems are seen as mere foibles, idiosyncrasies to be ironed out by research and future modifications. No matter how many pets are maimed and killed, no matter how illogical the idea that nutrition is a completed science, "complete" pet foods just don't go away.

Pet food scientists work within an intellectual straightjacket of blind acceptance of the "100% complete" paradigm. Although not admitted to society or even to themselves, they have considerable investment in its preservation because it is their living. Real science-challenging the accepted norms- confers no economic advantage..

Unfortunately, science is not a fundamentally creative venture. Novelty is not desirable unless it fits the pre-ordained rules of the game. The rule in modern pet food is "100% completeness." That is the premise from which all nutritional activity springs. The pet food scientists works on countless combinations, permutations, and dosages of isolated nutrients to determine "requirements," but never question whether that effort to shore up "complete" diets actually advances optimal health for dogs and cats.

If you want the best pet food, you need not be locked into this mindset. The pet food industry does not want to change because "complete and balanced" is their bread and butter. But you must realize that their bread and butter is your economic and health loss.

Your only cost in changing is a little more work in thinking about what the best pet food is, rather than just opening a convenient bag or can. Your gain is the health of your pet.

Video: The Rescue of Edie

Edie was rescued one hour before euthanasia...

Thought for the day: Feeding a pet is not a job or something for fun, it is an ethical responsibility to its health

Phrase for the day: reductionist nutrition' - the idea that ideal nutrition is achieved through the process of reducing whole foods down to their fundamental elements, then creating foods that meet supposedly known minimums. This nutritional philosophy fails because nobody knows for certain what nutrients are needed and what the minimums are for each individual creature. The Reductionist approach is in contrast to the wiser approach of eating unadulterated whole foods, as practiced by every creature on earth for eons prior to the Industrial Revolution, and before "nutritionists" began to pretend to know what they patently do not.