cyborgsuzy (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} cyborgsuzy) wrote,@ 2008-02-09 10:44:00 |
|
| Entry tags: | mmm... meat, pets |
Pets Getting a Raw Deal
If there's one school of thought in that can make me twitch like an epileptic rattlesnake, it's the one that goes: "Wild = Natural = Better!"
Several of the blogs I read were talking about “raw meat pet diets” the other day. I didn’t know much about it but I seem to be running into it everywhere lately: forums, Craigslist, even flyers outside the pet store. So I went a’googlin’. And what I found made me want to rant. So here I am.
The reasoning for feeding raw food can be summed up thusly: “Dogs descend from wolves. In the wild, wolves eat mostly raw meat and appear to be perfectly healthy. Therefore, dogs should eat a raw meat diet.”
Ok, sure. Here are some other "natural" conditions for wild canines: parasites, bacterial and fungal infections, ingrown nails, exposure and frostbite, uncontrolled disease, dehydration, mineral deficiencies, and high pup mortality. “Natural” =\= Healthier.
Of course, living in the wild has positive conditions, too, like an abundance of exercise. The difference is that getting plenty of exercise has well known, documented health benefits. This is why vets recommend that pets get exercise, but won't recommend a raw food diet: there’s no documentation. There’s no evidence. At all.
The main website for these raw food fanatics seems to be this one: http://rawfed.com
I’m astounded (if not terribly surprised) by their ‘special’ brand of logic and selective reasoning. There’s this awesome list of 'myths' accompanied by essays meant to debunk arguments or precautions against RMD.
The site spends more time attacking or breaking down "the other side" than actually providing evidence that RMD is good. What's worse, they’re dishonest about the arguments against it, deliberately mis-framing things and setting up straw men to knock down. Nowhere on the website do they admit there may be negatives to RMD. They frequently and ironically complain about the biased opinions of vets who are in bed with pet food industry, but they themselves are hardly unbiased.
As a sure sign that their irony meters are broken, they have this quote at the beginning of their "there’s no scientific research” essay:
They freely admit there are no scientific studies to back up their claims. But instead of, I don’t know, talking about future plans to get some actual evidence, they whine for the ENTIRE ESSAY that it's "too hard" to get those studies done and/or there's a conspiracy by the Big Evil Kibble Companies against such studies.
Note to Raw food fanatics: I just don't have sympathy for you. You're the ones trying to convince people - it's YOUR job to provide evidence that your hypothesis has merit. Get the attention of university researchers, apply for grants, get the research done. Do what everyone else does - WORK. I know it's easier and more fun to make a pretty website, but you're not impressing anyone.
If a raw food diet is actually good for dogs, then researchers WILL be interested. Vets WILL be interested. Even the Big Evil Corporate Kibble Companies will be interested, because the possibilities are there for commercialization of raw foods: Maybe Science Diet raw chicken packaged in individual meal-sized baggies that are sealed against bacteria. Or Milk Bone Brand raw meaty bones.
These companies will also love the idea of marketing it as “healthier” than traditional kibble, even as they continue to sell traditional kibble from the other side of their face, as it were. Corporations have no trouble selling seemingly contradictory items: it’s why the same company sells Diet and Coke Zero without worrying about sales for regular Coke.
Ah, the beauty of capitalism. This is why I don’t buy the RMDer's conspiracy theories or weak, flappy-handed cries of “it’s too haaaard!”
My favorite of the “myths”, and another good example of faulty logic combined with a straw man argument, is the one where RMDers try to claim that dogs aren’t omnivores.
Their logic is, again, a little confusing, but what I think they’re really trying to say is that dogs should have a diet that is more animal than plant. Wow. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is not news; this is the same recommendation of 99% of vets out there. No one (except kooks on the other end of the spectrum) is saying that vegetarian or cheap, corn-based kibble is the ideal diet for dogs.
Arguing semantics proves nothing except how desperate you are to mis-frame the arguments against your raw meat diet. You can’t wish away the fact that CANINES EAT MEAT AND PLANTS. You can’t change that. It happens. You can call dogs omnivores, or ‘opportunistic carnivores’ or make up a new word like “caroquodbacca”. A rose called by a different name does not change its nature. It’s still a rose. Nice try though.
They also don't seem to understand what "anecdotal evidence" means. They whine that they're persecuted because all they have is anecdotal evidence of the benefits of a raw food diet. They then try to argue that vet reports of raw bones fracturing teeth, lodging in throats, and blocking GI tracts are also anecdotal.
No. No, no, no. A vet report of this nature is not anecdotal. It is the observation of a professional: "this dog was chewing on a bone and the teeth cracked" or "this cat was eating a bone and it got lodged in its throat, causing injury and expensive surgery". It’s simply a fact that eating bones (part of the raw food diet) carries these risks. It can't be refuted any more than you can refute that skateboarding carries the risk of skinned knees.
On the other side, all the ‘evidence’ that raw food fanatic have are success stories. All that the success stories consist of are owners observing their pets “becoming healthier” over a period of time. There are several, equally likely, reasons for such an observation:
There’s no way, at this time, to know which explanation is actually true. Therefore, all the evidence in favor of a raw food diet is anecdotal.
It’s never obvious that the raw diet actually improved the health of a dog, but it’s usually very obvious when there’s a bad outcome from RMD. So what you get are people advocating a lifestyle with known, proven risks, but no proven benefits. Based on the website and from the different forums where the arguments are taking place is that these people are dishonest conspiracy theorists with a feeling of entitlement, who spend most of the time refuting arguments against them instead of providing evidence in favor.
These are the tactics and attitudes of cranks, frauds, and fundamentalists. This is why I'm extremely skeptical of RMD. If you want to convince me, drop the conspiracy theory, and get some scientific research done. I will gladly switch my dog to such a diet if it truly proves to be better than the expensive kibble she’s on right now. Until then, I’m not going to experiment on my pet for no reason.
The main website for these raw food fanatics seems to be this one: http://rawfed.com
I’m astounded (if not terribly surprised) by their ‘special’ brand of logic and selective reasoning. There’s this awesome list of 'myths' accompanied by essays meant to debunk arguments or precautions against RMD.
The site spends more time attacking or breaking down "the other side" than actually providing evidence that RMD is good. What's worse, they’re dishonest about the arguments against it, deliberately mis-framing things and setting up straw men to knock down. Nowhere on the website do they admit there may be negatives to RMD. They frequently and ironically complain about the biased opinions of vets who are in bed with pet food industry, but they themselves are hardly unbiased.
As a sure sign that their irony meters are broken, they have this quote at the beginning of their "there’s no scientific research” essay:
"…the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views." — Dr. Who
They freely admit there are no scientific studies to back up their claims. But instead of, I don’t know, talking about future plans to get some actual evidence, they whine for the ENTIRE ESSAY that it's "too hard" to get those studies done and/or there's a conspiracy by the Big Evil Kibble Companies against such studies.
Note to Raw food fanatics: I just don't have sympathy for you. You're the ones trying to convince people - it's YOUR job to provide evidence that your hypothesis has merit. Get the attention of university researchers, apply for grants, get the research done. Do what everyone else does - WORK. I know it's easier and more fun to make a pretty website, but you're not impressing anyone.
If a raw food diet is actually good for dogs, then researchers WILL be interested. Vets WILL be interested. Even the Big Evil Corporate Kibble Companies will be interested, because the possibilities are there for commercialization of raw foods: Maybe Science Diet raw chicken packaged in individual meal-sized baggies that are sealed against bacteria. Or Milk Bone Brand raw meaty bones.
These companies will also love the idea of marketing it as “healthier” than traditional kibble, even as they continue to sell traditional kibble from the other side of their face, as it were. Corporations have no trouble selling seemingly contradictory items: it’s why the same company sells Diet and Coke Zero without worrying about sales for regular Coke.
Ah, the beauty of capitalism. This is why I don’t buy the RMDer's conspiracy theories or weak, flappy-handed cries of “it’s too haaaard!”
My favorite of the “myths”, and another good example of faulty logic combined with a straw man argument, is the one where RMDers try to claim that dogs aren’t omnivores.
Their logic is, again, a little confusing, but what I think they’re really trying to say is that dogs should have a diet that is more animal than plant. Wow. Thanks for stating the obvious. This is not news; this is the same recommendation of 99% of vets out there. No one (except kooks on the other end of the spectrum) is saying that vegetarian or cheap, corn-based kibble is the ideal diet for dogs.
Arguing semantics proves nothing except how desperate you are to mis-frame the arguments against your raw meat diet. You can’t wish away the fact that CANINES EAT MEAT AND PLANTS. You can’t change that. It happens. You can call dogs omnivores, or ‘opportunistic carnivores’ or make up a new word like “caroquodbacca”. A rose called by a different name does not change its nature. It’s still a rose. Nice try though.
They also don't seem to understand what "anecdotal evidence" means. They whine that they're persecuted because all they have is anecdotal evidence of the benefits of a raw food diet. They then try to argue that vet reports of raw bones fracturing teeth, lodging in throats, and blocking GI tracts are also anecdotal.
No. No, no, no. A vet report of this nature is not anecdotal. It is the observation of a professional: "this dog was chewing on a bone and the teeth cracked" or "this cat was eating a bone and it got lodged in its throat, causing injury and expensive surgery". It’s simply a fact that eating bones (part of the raw food diet) carries these risks. It can't be refuted any more than you can refute that skateboarding carries the risk of skinned knees.
On the other side, all the ‘evidence’ that raw food fanatic have are success stories. All that the success stories consist of are owners observing their pets “becoming healthier” over a period of time. There are several, equally likely, reasons for such an observation:
1) Complete coincidence. This is something that all scientific researchers have to deal with in any experiment. It’s always a possibility, and it should never be ignored.
2) Improved care in general. One thing I will give to the raw food fanatics is that at least they’re paying attention to their pets; they’re looking at their teeth, checking their stool, checking healthiness of the coat. Any perceived health benefits from this type of diet could well be just because the type of people who would administer it are just more conscientious pet owners overall. Pets who have more responsible owners are always going to be at the healthier end of the scale, anyway.
3) Pets aren’t actually healthier. Observer bias is a huge risk in uncontrolled experiments like this. People who want a certain outcome will see anything they want to. It’s possible some of them are outright liars, as well. There’s no way to know.
4) Switching to a raw meat diet actually improves dog health. No one is saying this isn't possible.
2) Improved care in general. One thing I will give to the raw food fanatics is that at least they’re paying attention to their pets; they’re looking at their teeth, checking their stool, checking healthiness of the coat. Any perceived health benefits from this type of diet could well be just because the type of people who would administer it are just more conscientious pet owners overall. Pets who have more responsible owners are always going to be at the healthier end of the scale, anyway.
3) Pets aren’t actually healthier. Observer bias is a huge risk in uncontrolled experiments like this. People who want a certain outcome will see anything they want to. It’s possible some of them are outright liars, as well. There’s no way to know.
4) Switching to a raw meat diet actually improves dog health. No one is saying this isn't possible.
There’s no way, at this time, to know which explanation is actually true. Therefore, all the evidence in favor of a raw food diet is anecdotal.
It’s never obvious that the raw diet actually improved the health of a dog, but it’s usually very obvious when there’s a bad outcome from RMD. So what you get are people advocating a lifestyle with known, proven risks, but no proven benefits. Based on the website and from the different forums where the arguments are taking place is that these people are dishonest conspiracy theorists with a feeling of entitlement, who spend most of the time refuting arguments against them instead of providing evidence in favor.
These are the tactics and attitudes of cranks, frauds, and fundamentalists. This is why I'm extremely skeptical of RMD. If you want to convince me, drop the conspiracy theory, and get some scientific research done. I will gladly switch my dog to such a diet if it truly proves to be better than the expensive kibble she’s on right now. Until then, I’m not going to experiment on my pet for no reason.
