The Truth about Pet Foods, by Dr. Wysong
There is a veil obscuring the truth about pet foods. It is a tapestry of appliques including faulty science, commercial greed, regulatory imperiousness, professional egoism, marketing legerdemain, and consumer naivete and desire for ease. By and large, the accepted dogma about how to feed and achieve health is wrong, very wrong. It remains in place because reason does not usually rule the mind, rather convention and mythologies reign. The temporary suspension of disbelief is fine at the movie theatre, but has no place in health and nutrition.
Set aside preconceptions and the grip of conformity for the short time it will take to read this. Let’s reason together. But first, let’s unmask the powerful mythologies underlying modern pet feeding practices.
MYTH #1: “FEED A “100% COMPLETE AND BALANCED” PROCESSED PET FOOD.”
Well, that’s what we’re told, isn’t it? Think about it, though. Our world is complex beyond comprehension. It is not only largely unknown,it is unknowable in the “complete”sense. In order for nutritionists and manufacturers to produce a “100% complete and balanced” pet food, they must first know 100% about nutrition. However, nutrition is not a completed science. It is, in fact, an aggregate science, which is based upon other basic sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and biology. But since no scientist would argue that everything is known in chemistry, or physics, or biology, how can nutritionists claim to know everything there is to know about nutrition, which is based upon these sciences? This is the logical absurdity of the “100% complete and balanced” diet claim.
The fact of the matter is that it is actually “100% complete” guesswork. Each time regulatory agencies convene to decide how much of which nutrients comprise 100% completeness, debate always ensues and standards usually change (see G & H, p.19). 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.”
Additionally,consider this. In order to determine the minimum requirement for a certain nutrient–say protein–all other nutrients used in the feeding trials must be adequate. Otherwise, if vitamin E, for example, is in excess or is deficient, how would you know if the results of the study were because of the effects of protein or due to something amiss with the level of vitamin E?
If the minimum requirements for all 26+ nutrients were all set and absolutely etched in stone, then there would be no problem. But they aren’t. They are constantly changed. This means each time any nutrient is changed, all test results for all other nutrients using the wrong minimum for this nutrient will then be invalid. Most nutritionists simply ignore this conundrum, continue to perpetuate the 100% complete myth, and excuse themselves by saying they made the necessary adjustments.
The point is, don’t believe the claim on any commercially prepared pet food that it is “100% complete and balanced.” It is a spurious unsupported boast, which builds consumer trust and dependence on regulators and commercial products.
Nutrition rests upon the pillars of the basic sciences. But since no one claims 100% knowledge in these supporting pillars, how can 100% be known in nutrition? If 100% is not known in nutrition, how can nutritionists create a 100% complete diet?