11/19/2025
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1472809528180999&id=100063558963681
Who Should We Believe?
These are actual comments made in response to information given regarding popular high processed stand alone (k)ibble diets, many of which are Vet recommended and sold diets.
-" Why should I believe you [ the person who challenges the myth being sold to the consumer] over the word of professional Veterinary Nutritionists? "
-"I use "Vet recommended dog food" and my vet knows this. He has yet to say anything about (k)ibble only diet being harmful so I am going to continue to use it."
-" I have fed Pedigree for 10 years and my dog is fine. I see no need to change what I feed my dog." [ This same person's dog was constantly at the Vet for allergies, chronic ear infections, and chronic digestive issues ].
Are you really sure that your dog is healthy?
It is very sad that there is so much conflicting information circulating about what constitutes a truly healthy and safe diet for your pet to eat. It can make it very challenging for owners to determine fact from profit driven agenda.
A good rule of thumb to determine who tells the whole unadulterated truth is to ask this question,
" What does the person stand to gain by saying this?"
- What does the Big Business Pet Food company stand to gain by telling you that feeding their food is healthy?
According to the American Pet Products Association, in the USA in 2021, over $50 billion dollars was spent on pet food. And the largest share of that pie went to Big Business Mars Petcare, Inc., General Mills, Nestlé Purina PetCare, the J.M. Smucker Company, and Hill’s Pet Nutrition. So when their paid Veterinary Nutritionists describe their foods using words like complete, healthy, and nutritious, is it possible that there is an agenda to sell their food to make larger profits?
Is it possible that research paid for by the company is less than unbiased information? Always look for research done by third party scientists who have not been compensated by the food company.
A good reminder of why unbiased research is necessary where actual truth is being sought ...
Remember when in 1937 to***co giant Philip Morris claimed that doctors proved that when people switched to smoking their brand of to***co "every case of irritation cleared completely and definitely improved"?
Of course Philip Morris neglected to mention that they paid for the research and the findings was heavily biased in favour of Philip Morris.
* What does a Veterinary Clinic stand to gain by recommending these stand alone highly processed (k)ibble diets to you, the consumer?*
These days many Vet Colleges are sponsored and underwritten by Hills and Royal Canin. Often the only nutritional information a Vet in school gets is a two week course provided by the food company sponsoring the college.
There would be no brand bias there, right?
And then when a Vet opens a clinic Big Food Brands like Hills, Purina, and Royal Canin happily and generously provide patronage incentives for the clinics that carry and recommend their foods.
Again, no brand bias or agenda there, right?
I actually had one Vet say to me, "The food science is already done for me so that I don't have to worry about *this* [referring to his need to do independent research about pet nutrition ].
Wow! So it never occurs to him to double check on the the validity of their "research"?
- Lastly, what do I stand to gain from telling you this info?
* Am I selling you anything? Nope. All the info is free and not linked to a specific brand. I make NO MONEY from telling you this information.
*So why am I going against mainstream Allopathic Veterinary practice and calling out the info from paid Veterinary Nutritionists?
.... Because there is growing evidence that their paid for science does NOT support their claims that their stand alone high heat processed diet is a "healthy and complete diet".
You decide who has the most to gain by broadcasting their version of truth.
