PERCENTAGES DO NOT PROVE THE BEST PET FOOD

Nutrient analyses, reflected as "Nutrition Facts" on labels, are another regulatory gimmick that creates false confidence in commercially processed foods. Proving that a particular nutrient is at a certain level in a food is meaningless in terms of optimal nutrition. Not only is it irrational scientifically and philosophically, properly analyzed diets meeting regulatory guidelines for percentages have caused severe deficiencies, disease, and death.

There is certainly nothing wrong in knowing the "nutrition facts" about a food in order to ascertain a general idea of nutritional values. But these "facts" should not be given more meaning than they deserve. They do not prove the best pet food.

Percentage of protein, fat, fiber, ash and other nutrients tells only a partial story. For example, there are over forty essential nutrients known and over fifty under investigation. How can making sure a food contains the appropriate amounts of only a handful of these merit a "100% complete" claim?

What's more, NRC testing to establish the standards for minimums of nutrients is far less than exact, or even relevant to dogs and cats. For example, in the cat, phosphorus and manganese requirements were NRC tested directly, but sodium, chloride, iodine, copper, and selenium levels were merely extrapolated from values in other species. In other words, a "100% complete" diet for cats could be based on something like so­dium levels for aardvarks and selenium levels for newts. Maybe that's hyperbole, but it's deserved. Each species, and even each member of a species, is biochemically individual. Extrapolating from other species and guessing about percentages cannot add up to complete knowledge like the "100% complete" claim requires.

If producers wish to claim their food is X% digestible, or that it contains certain amounts of nutrients, or that it has been subjected to an AAFCO Feeding Trial, that is fine. But don't you believe it when they take an incred­ible leap (actually a fall) in logic and then claim they have the best pet food, complete and balanced, and should be fed exclusively.

Analyses, digestibility studies and AAFCO Feeding Trials are a futile life-support system for the hopelessly terminal "100% complete" claim. Don't be deceived. The "100% complete" claim is not good science. It is a shameless attempt at credibility by mere fraternization with the distin­guished coattails of science. If science is the sun, the "100% complete" claim is Pluto.

Most importantly, reliance on such dubious information and the false science of digestibility, AAFCO studies, and NRC percentages distracts from the importance of natural nutrition. It fosters dependence and false confidence in commercial products.

Finally, let me mention the waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by manufacturers on testing and licensing to be able to make the "complete and balanced" claim. A huge regulatory and laboratory indus­try now exists to assure the perpetuation of "100% completeness." Who pays for this? You do. This deceptive myth occupies an increasing economic space in your can or bag of pet food.

Thought for the day: "There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face." – Ben Williams

Phrase for the day: 'essential vitamin' - a necessary nutrient that is not produced naturally in the body (in sufficient amounts) to permit biological processes necessary for health and life.