# Raw Vs Cooked Foods: Perhaps the Most Controversial Current Topic in the Pet World



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

Just put out by Dr. Jean Dodds.

Dr. Jean Dodds' Pet Health Resource Blog | Raw versus Cooked Foods: Perhaps the Most Controversial Current Topic in the Pet World (Part I)


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I don't have the time nor energy for debate, but I will say I'm disappointed by the lack of objectivity by Dr. Dodds. Of course humans bring salmonella and other organisms home in our food, but no human in their right mind eats raw chicken, eggs, ground beef, pork, or whatever. There's a good reason for cooking our foods AND our pet foods. Also, there's more people who have immunodeficiencies than most people realize. The point most veterinarians are making against raw diets is that the small nutrition benefits do not outweigh the huge pathogen risks for both you and your dog, and a raw diet does not provide adequate nutrition.


----------



## shellbeme (Mar 1, 2011)

Great article!  Personally I think raw food diets can be great if done correctly and even though I was disapoined with the decision they made to completely advise against them, I agree with it now after doing some reading. It really should not be the vets responsibility if you contract salmonella because they said 'yea raw food is great!' and you didn't correctly handle the meat. I kinda feel like if they promote it, that's the position they are put in.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm beginning to get ticked off about the raw diet $#!%.

Proponents/feeders should be required to:

pass a college level microbiology class and

spend some time at a human Infection Control Clinic or

spend some time with the Infection Control Department at a major teaching hospital or

spend some time at the Centers for Disease Control


The reason I'm getting pissed is that all of us have enough pathogens just in our environment to battle every day. We don't need to add harmful pathogens.

I have a genetic immune deficiency and I'm having to take a year of liver damaging anti-fungal medicine all because of a pathogen found in our environment (a fungus called cryptococcal neoformans). Before that, I was in the hospital in respiratory failure because of a nasty respiratory virus. 

Maybe you're healthy, but you never know what impact spreading additional pathogens will cause to others. Who knows, down the road you or your dog may join the ranks of those who are immunocompromised. I'm hoping it doesn't take something this serious for you to "get it".

I would welcome Dr. Dodds to tag along with me to my visits to the Infection Control Clinic or to my visits with the Chief of Allergy and Immunology at a teaching hospital.


----------



## shellbeme (Mar 1, 2011)

vjw said:


> I'm beginning to get ticked off about the raw diet $#!%.
> 
> Proponents/feeders should be required to:
> 
> ...


I do not feed raw, nor do I plan to, as I do not want to take on the risk. 

While I can see your point of view and completely understand why you have it, I don't understand why you are so greatly offended. I was not debating anything you said, my response was to the original post, not regarding anything you posted. 

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that!

 There is nothing left that I need to 'get'.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Shelly, my post wasn't at all about your post, but about raw feeding in general. Notice I didn't "quote" yours.


----------



## shellbeme (Mar 1, 2011)

vjw said:


> Shelly, my post wasn't at all about your post, but about raw feeding in general. Notice I didn't "quote" yours.



Understood, I apologize for the misunderstanding


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

vjw said:


> I'm beginning to get ticked off about the raw diet $#!%.
> 
> Proponents/feeders should be required to:
> 
> ...


First, I don't know why you are getting so ticked. No one is going to make you feed raw if you don't want to. Second, I think anyone of normal intelligence can do some research and make this decision on their own. I don't think you need to take micro to feed your dog. ALL food is contaminated with microbes. This is shed in feces. Do you not wash your hands after cleaning up after your dog?? I do, and I wash my hands after I prepare their food, whether it is a kibble meal, wet canned food or the dehydrated or frozen raw I have fed my dogs. Cleaning dishes, prepping and eating surfaces are necessary for ALL FOOD PREP...not just dogs. We are all at risk of eating contaminated foods every day. From fresh vegetables and fruit to prepared products. The best thing for all of us to eat is freshly prepared good quality food. The less prepared the better.

I have not chosen (after careful research) to home cook, or feed a non-commercially prepared diet. I have used a variety of foods for a variety of reasons. I have used both dehydrated and frozen raw. My dogs did not care for the frozen diet. They liked the dehydrated for a while, and then tired of it. I am now feeding a combo of kibble, and a cooked rolled food with additional fresh veg and fruit added. My dogs are healthy. I have had a sick dog as well. She had an auto immune disease, and was on immunio suppressive meds. She ballooned to 13 lbs (previous weight was 5.5) on prednisone and looked like she might have keeled over on the spot. I was feeding her a vet prescribed diet at that time. I (after doing my own homework) switched her to a grain free dehydrated raw diet. She thrived, lost weight and looked and acted much healthier on that diet. But as Dr. Dodd’s pointed out in her article, it did have the bacteria killing step in the preparation. She returned to close to her normal weight and lived for an additional year. In all the time I was using this diet, we had no diarrhea, no issues at all for anyone in my house.

I'm so sorry that you are ill, but as I'm sure you know, cyrptococcal neoformans can be found in soil throughout the world. People at risk can become infected after inhaling microscopic, airborne fungal spores. Not food borne at all. I work in a hospital and can assure you that there are some very scary microbes out there and we all need to be aware of that. Knowing how to prevent the spread of infection is key.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Pam, it's more complicated than being clean after feeding your dog or after picking up their feces. Any of us on here long enough have read about dog recalls because dogs have become sickened from COOKED dog food. Why the heck raw feeders think feeding uncooked food is safe is beyond my comprehension. Unless there's a very recent study that concludes raw is nutritionally adequate, there is not one academic study out there to support raw feeding for nutrition purposes. In fact, there have been studies that prove raw isn't nutritionally adequate. My point about my illness is that a year ago I didn't know that I was immunosuppressed. IF I had been feeding raw, there is a strong possibility I could have added salmonella poisoning to the respiratory infections and this would not have been a good thing. I was critically ill with one infection and seriously ill with the cryptococcosis. I could not have tolerated another infection. Who's to say that some of you, your family, your friends, OR your dogs are not going to have a situation where you or they are immunosuppressed. I don't really care about feeding dry kibble at this point in the game either. I'm just saying at this point, feeding raw is not worth it because of the nutritional inadequacy and the risk to humans and dogs because of the pathogens.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Just one more point......(maybe). I'm not falling for the anecdotal stories about raw being a "cure all"for all dog's health problems. Many times dog food doesn't agree with them for whatever reason. My two dogs are on different brands of dry dog food because one does better allergy wise on one food, the other does better gastrointestinally with the other brand.


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

vjw said:


> Pam, it's more complicated than being clean after feeding your dog or after picking up their feces. Any of us on here long enough have read about dog recalls because dogs have become sickened from COOKED dog food. Why the heck raw feeders think feeding uncooked food is safe is beyond my comprehension. Unless there's a very recent study that concludes raw is nutritionally adequate, there is not one academic study out there to support raw feeding for nutrition purposes. In fact, there have been studies that prove raw isn't nutritionally adequate. My point about my illness is that a year ago I didn't know that I was immunosuppressed. IF I had been feeding raw, there is a strong possibility I could have added salmonella poisoning to the respiratory infections and this would not have been a good thing. I was critically ill with one infection and seriously ill with the cryptococcosis. I could not have tolerated another infection. Who's to say that some of you, your family, your friends, OR your dogs are not going to have a situation where you or they are immunosuppressed. I don't really care about feeding dry kibble at this point in the game either. I'm just saying at this point, feeding raw is not worth it because of the nutritional inadequacy and the risk to humans and dogs because of the pathogens.


 I eat sushi at least once a week and love beef carpaccio too. I do just fine, no troubles. Thanks.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Nice try Pam, but we're talking salmonella on poultry products and e-coli in ground beef.


----------



## Deborah (Jan 8, 2006)

This is an interesting article about why raw food is not good for humans.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/10/raw-food-not-enough-to-feed-big-.html?ref=em


----------



## Leanne (Sep 6, 2012)

Just my 2 cents...many of the organisms spoken about in these threads are prevalent and or occur right outside, in the back yard in our soil. _Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus anthracis, Salmonella enterica, Clostridium perfringens,_ to name just a few can be found right under your grass in your yard. We are ourselves are covered head to toe, inside and out with billions and billions of bacteria. Many yet to be discovered. Science had just begun to understand the symbiosis of bacteria, and these bacteria may be the entire basis for our immunologic systems. Both in agonist and antagonist forms.

Two points I want to make, First you cannot compare the digestive tract of a canine to that of a human. The anatomy is like comparing apples to oranges. So you cannot compare human consumption of raw meat to that of canines. The DNA is different. The digestive system are different and we have evolved different. Genetically speaking canine, feline many other species were designed anatomically for the consumption of raw foods. 

Second, personal practices can increase or decrease the risk. This is true for the foods we feed our animals and our families. Safe handling practices of any food stuff and preparation areas and utensils must be followed, whether you are feeding raw to your animals or preparing fresh meat to prepare for your family. If you were to grow a culture from ground beef from your local store you would be able to isolate many human harmful bacteria, E-coli would be one for sure. Many of these bacteria normally reside in the digestive tracts of our food animals. This is not a new phenomena. They have always been there. What has changed is how we now process the food we eat. Corporate farming, huge feed lots, and mega processing plants have given rise the major contamination out breaks we see in the media today. Once again it comes down the safe handling practices every time there is a recall. These safe practices should also be followed if you work in your garden or yard. I'm positive you that you will find more _E-coli_ in a hand full of dirt from your back yard than you will find on 1 lb of ground beef from your store. So know your risk is everywhere. Not coming from those who chose to feed raw. 

Keep an open mind. Those who have decided to seek alternatives to the mass produced dog food products have spurred research and debate. Debate is good! Those leading the raw movement have made the pet food producers take notice. It can only be win-win for all involved...especially the fur ones...we all want only the best.

Thank you for listening


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

Leanne said:


> Just my 2 cents...many of the organisms spoken about in these threads are prevalent and or occur right outside, in the back yard in our soil. _Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus anthracis, Salmonella enterica, Clostridium perfringens,_ to name just a few can be found right under your grass in your yard. We are ourselves are covered head to toe, inside and out with billions and billions of bacteria. Many yet to be discovered. Science had just begun to understand the symbiosis of bacteria, and these bacteria may be the entire basis for our immunologic systems. Both in agonist and antagonist forms.
> 
> Two points I want to make, First you cannot compare the digestive tract of a canine to that of a human. The anatomy is like comparing apples to oranges. So you cannot compare human consumption of raw meat to that of canines. The DNA is different. The digestive system are different and we have evolved different. Genetically speaking canine, feline many other species were designed anatomically for the consumption of raw foods.
> 
> ...


 :goodpost::goodpost:


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

And I ask the raw feeders to keep an open mind also. 

Please pay attention to the food recalls. These give us a small window into the risks associated with pathogen laden dog food. The last Diamond dry dog food contamination sickened 49 people and hospitalized 10. Keep in mind these were just the confirmed cases reported by the CDC. Most likely there were many more unconfirmed cases. Also want to add that cases of dogs who get sick from contaminated food is way under reported because stool samples have to be collected and the testing is expensive.

I agree that dogs' gastrointestinal systems are different from ours, but this doesn't keep them from becoming sick from Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium, E. Coli, Listeria, or Staphyloccus. And this is often healthy dogs. 

At least one study has been done on the shedding of Salmonella in the feces of dogs who were fed food with Salmonella, and about 50% shed the Salmonella in their feces. This alone is environmental contamination and is a risk to humans and other pets.

Again, I encourage you to look at past and future recalls of dog food and dog treats and think how much more of a risk would be associated with raw than cooked dog food. More importantly, consider that at this point raw food has not been proven to be nutritionally adequate let alone superior to other dog foods. We now have decades of dog food research by veterinary nutritionists.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

Well I refrained from commenting last night because I hadn't eaten a thing yesterday and on my way home picked up some Italian take out and a nice bottle of wine. And I made the mistake of drinking some wine before I ate because I had to feed the babies and then take them out to potty first. And well...I was advised by someone that wine and the internet are just not a good combo. :HistericalSmiley:

I think the thing that I find just a bit insulting is that simply because someone has a different view or opinion on something, it is assumed by the person with an opposing view that it's because that differing opinion is based on lack of research, education and understanding. I guess I won't be too insulted because we all know what an intelligent and educated woman Dr. Dodds is. And there are several medical people on this forum who have certainly had extensive training and education in this area that have come to the exact same opinion, whether they have chosen to feed raw or not. Feeding raw is not for everyone and everyone should feel free to make their own choice. There are over 7 billion people on this earth and each with their own opinion on things. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to have the same opinion on something. And it's unfair to stop a great conversation where thoughts, questions, knowledge can be shared so those who haven't had the chance to do the research can learn and therefore form their own opinion. 

That being said, I feel that your concerns and problems with feeding raw, Joy, are also the same concerns and problems with feeding kibble and then finding out it's been recalled due to salmonella. In fact, it may be a bit more dangerous to feed kibble because people aren't using the same safe handling procedures when feeding kibble as they do raw. How many kibble users wash their hands after dishing out kibble? And look at how many recalls there have been in kibble. Also, the same concerns and problems you have with feeding raw to an animal is the same concerns and problems you have to deal with every single time you prepare a meal for your family when you prepare meat. So I guess this means we need to live a vegetarian lifestyle to avoid all contact with raw meat to be safe and to keep those we may come into contact with who have compromised immune systems safe. And then I guess even eating fruits and vegetables isn't safe either because how many recalls have there been for e-coli in fruits and vegetables? As several very educated people here have already stated, it's everywhere and we are in contact with it every single day. 

As Leanne already pointed out, you cannot compare the digestive system of a dog or cat to that of a human. But the reason those of us who feel feeding raw is ok to feed to our animals is because even with the kibble recalls, the animals that do not have a compromised immune system, the healthy animals, really don't get sick from even the recalled salmonella kibble. That is why it is always stated that feeding raw is not for every animal. It is not an appropriate diet for a dog with a compromised immune system. And it's an incorrect assumption that feeding kibble is 'sterile' and safe. This is what finds its way into the "sterile" kibbled commercial foods:

"Meat products not intended for human consumption, such as inedible tissues, condemned portions of carcasses, and entire carcasses of condemned animals (eg, animals found to be dead, dying, disabled, or diseased at the time of slaughter), are also used for dog food. Because of the inherent nature of these products and the less stringent handling requirements, compared with products approved for human consumption, these products may contain high levels of bacterial contamination." (LeJuene, J.T. and D.D. Hancock. 2001. Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat diets to dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 219(9): 1222.)

And as for commercial foods being "bacteria free" (an assumption that is often inferred when people put down raw diets because of the bacteria):


"Pet foods, commercial or homemade, provide an ideal environment for bacterial proliferation." (LeJuene, J.T. and D.D. Hancock. 2001. Public health concerns associated with feeding raw meat diets to dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 219(9): 1224.)

So much for bacteria free commercial kibble. In fact, the starches, rancid fats, and sugars in kibbled foods provide much better food sources for bacteria than the proteins in raw meat.

So with all this being said, I do feel raw is a safe and actually better way to feed most dogs and cats. No, it is not the correct diet for all dogs and cats. Again, before feeding raw please have complete blood work done to ensure you do not have a Malt with a compromised immune system. If you have someone in your home with a compromised immune system it may not be the right choice for you. But I do feel it can be done safely with proper safe food handling procedures. Most frozen raw is, IMO, too high in protein for Maltese and Yorkies. That is why I have gone to a dehydrated raw. I have found a brand with a lower to moderate protein amount. But frozen raw can be done under the supervision of a vet or vet nutritionist by adding the correct amount of veggies to lower the protein amount. Raw is fine for asymptomatic MVD dogs if it is one that is lower in protein. I would not do raw for a liver shunt dog. I would have to do more research as to whether or not I would do raw for a dog with MVD and symptoms.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Here's a link with more detailed info., including further links to studies:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/FAQs/Pages/Raw-Pet-Foods-and-the-AVMA-Policy-FAQ.aspx


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

vjw said:


> And I ask the raw feeders to keep an open mind also.
> 
> Please pay attention to the food recalls. These give us a small window into the risks associated with pathogen laden dog food. The last Diamond dry dog food contamination sickened 49 people and hospitalized 10. Keep in mind these were just the confirmed cases reported by the CDC. Most likely there were many more unconfirmed cases. Also want to add that cases of dogs who get sick from contaminated food is way under reported because stool samples have to be collected and the testing is expensive.
> 
> ...


http://k9joy.com/dogarticles/doghealth01salmonella.pdf

From the desk of Mogens Eliasen, for immediate release
This article may be reprinted without further permission
when brought in its entirety, including the bio the end.

August 25, 2004
The Salmonella myth

Salmonella is, together with Rabies, a very unique disease: it can affect both humans and dogs! No other known diseases can do that. Unfortunately, this leads many people to fear Salmonella infections from their dogs, and veterinarians and pet food manufacturers alike are quick to support this fear, regardless the risk being utterly negligible.

How dangerous is Salmonella?
First thing to do is to get a serious understanding of what Salmonella is and how dangerous it is to humans. Salmonella is a bacterium that can cause some unpleasant reactions in our gastrointestinal system, like vomiting and diarrhea, and often also fever. The attack might last about a week. From the US Center for Disease Control and the US Center
for Health Statistics, you can find that, out of 1.43 million reported cases over the two years 2001-2002 in the USA, 585 died, almost all them being infants and people over 91. About 556 of those infections are known to be caused by food, not pets. That leaves a maximum of 29 to possibly be caused by infections coming from dogs and all other non-food sources... Considering the USA's population of 293,000,000, Americans thus have a risk of about 0.25% per year of getting infected with Salmonella, and 0.05 ppm (ppm="parts per million") of dying of a Salmonella infection! Compare that to a yearly risk of 108 ppm for a man (33 ppm for a woman) in the USA to get murdered, about 100 ppm for getting killed in traffic, and
11 ppm for a person less than 91 years old to die of Influenza or Pneumonia. Add to this that there has been research done showing that dogs do not carry Salmonella in their saliva or on their skin, not even after eating 100% Salmonella infected raw food! But, when they do eat Salmonella infected food, about one third of them will show a moderate concentration of Salmonella in their feces – yet no clinical signs of being sick. This means that the only way those 29 Salmonella deaths in 2001 and 2002 possibly could have been originating from infection through dogs would be that the people had eaten dog poop from an infected dog… (You can make your own guess at how many of the 29 actually did that!)
 
The commercial scaremonger:
Nevertheless, you will repeatedly find articles and posts, online and offline, typically sponsored by pet food manufacturers or veterinary association, about the dangers of Salmonella. Well, given the facts above, it does not make sense from a point of view that is dictated by health concerns. The risk is ridiculously small, if not outright ludicrous to worry about…
But it makes a lot of sense when you consider the commercial aspects of it…You get a serious perspective of the size of the "Salmonella problem" when you consider that the Canadian government a couple of years ago published that an estimated 80-85% of all chicken in North American supermarkets (approved for being sold to consumers!) was in fact infected with Salmonella. When I, back in 2000, phoned the US FDA to get this confirmed, I did indeed get it confirmed... So, it is a "general problem", not just in Canada! As mentioned, raw fed dogs have been show to have a generally higher chance of showing Salmonella in their poop than dogs fed sterile kibble full of poisonous chemicals (called "preservatives" in order to kill all kinds of micro-organisms). No surprise... something would have been seriously wrong with fundamental biology and chemistry if this were not the case!!! (Actually, it might be surprising that only a third of the dogs fed Salmonella contaminated chicken showed Salmonella in their feces – it shows how effective the dog’s stomach is at killing such infections!)
So, if Salmonella seriously were problem for the public health, then why should it concern us that 30% of all dog poop is infected, when it is acceptable to have 80-85% of all edible chicken infected? Which source would be the greater danger for healthy people?

There is only one conclusion: SALMONELLA IS NOT A SERIOUS HEALTH CONCERN FOR OUR GOVERNMENTS! And it shouldn’t be. Now, why are pet food manufacturers (and vets paid by them) then financing studies to the effect of showing the link between raw food and Salmonella in poop?
There is, of course, only one answer: money.

How scaremonger can be turned into profit:
The trick is to see how the leading pet food manufacturers can make money on this. This way: many of them published many "scientific articles" online that point out all kinds of dangers of raw feeding. Why? Because they are seriously concerned about the loss of what in the past was an obvious market they could control! I am no longer alone about advocating raw food for dogs - and the raw-food advocates spread the words about what makes sense. We are a serious threat to their longterm profits, if not to their existence! If everybody fed raw, there would be no Purina or Iams or Alpo: belly up! Shareholders counting their losses.... The pet food manufacturers already know that people are scared of Salmonella,
because it is the only canine disease (except for the extremely rare Rabies) that also affects humans. We have been blown full of this scare of bad hygiene and "dangerous bugs" since childhood. The more it is being published as "something bad" (note: without specifying exactly how bad, so we could make our own judgments!), the bigger the chance of it being ingrained in our subconscious minds! Hitler's propaganda minister in Nazi-Germany (Göbbels) once said: "If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it is the truth". There you go! Tell the lie often enough - and you make people believe that Salmonella is dangerous! Now the pet food manufacturers cannot really do this without some caution. They are smart enough to not want to get a lawsuit on their neck for spreading outright
false information. And they do not have to. All they have to do is to create yet another opportunity for them to publish that there is a link between "raw food" and "Salmonella". Then people will automatically (because of their subconscious fear of bacteria that can case humans to get ill) feel uncomfortable about the raw food - because we connect it with "bacteria", and "bacteria" is already ingrained in our brains as something "bad". We may not be aware of it - but that’s the way it does work! The media play
on this all the time! This way, the pet food industry can play on the average consumer's subconscious mind and (that's what they hope) turn the tide so that more people will be reluctant to shift to raw - and maybe some raw feeders will get scared enough to come back to their comfortable "care"!

Remember, consumers do not make decisions with their logic. They make buying decisions with their emotions - and then use logic afterwards to justify their choices. All well-educated marketers know this, the leading pet food manufacturer's staff most definitely included. All it takes to get the average consumer to not listen to raw-food promotion is such
creation (or support) of an emotional block, put there by someone who confirmed again and again that "raw" is linked to "Salmonella", and "Salmonella" is stored in our brains in the drawer for "bad stuff" we should avoid. End result: the consumer will avoid raw food because of this emotional connection, created by smart marketers and media people!
This strategy is very well thought out. Using our subconscious minds to make purchase decisions is far more effective than using logic. These corporate businesses don't want us to use logic. They just want us to buy their products, no matter our reasons! And they know well that we buy with our emotions. Yes, it is manipulation. It is in fact the same as brainwashing... If we are not very, very careful, it will catch us. It works on the subconscious level of our minds, so we do not need to be aware of this in order for it to work in favour of the big corporations. In fact, it works best for them if we are not aware of it....
But that's why it is so darn important to call this bluff. 

Mogens Eliasen
-------------------------------------------
Mogens Eliasen holds a Ph.D. level degree in Chemistry from Århus University, Denmark and has 30+
years of experience working with dogs, dog owners, dog trainers, and holistic veterinarians as a coach,
lecturer, and education system developer. He publishes a free newsletter "The Peeing Post" containing
lots of tips and advice on dog problems of all kinds, particularly about training, behavioral problems,
feeding, and health care.
For more information about Mogens Eliasen, including


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Please pay attention to your sources folks. According to this article, this dude has no veterinary or veterinary nutrition whatsoever.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Crystal, if you are feeding raw to your dogs and taking them to your store, please, please give serious consideration to the studies that do confirm fecal shedding of Salmonella in raw fed dogs. It's one thing to raw feed your dog and keep them at home in their own backyards and yet another to take them out in public.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

vjw said:


> Please pay attention to your sources folks. According to this article, this dude has no veterinary or veterinary nutrition whatsoever.


I did pay attention to the source. That's why I included his degree and background. I believe a PH.D in chemistry gives him some credit here.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

vjw said:


> Crystal, if you are feeding raw to your dogs and taking them to your store, please, please give serious consideration to the studies that do confirm fecal shedding of Salmonella in raw fed dogs. It's one thing to raw feed your dog and keep them at home in their own backyards and yet another to take them out in public.


I assure you no one is in danger. First off, my dogs are house trained and don't have accidents in the store. Secondly, how many dogs go into the big box stores that have eaten commercial kibble that may have traces of salmonella? Seriously, if this is truly a fear, you should not even have dogs. You should wear gloves and change them every time you touch anything. And you should wear gloves when feeding kibble.

Secondly, when my Dad was diagnosed with cancer and going through Chemo, I asked his oncologist if this was a danger or risk to my Dad since we were living in the same house at that point. His oncologist assured me it was fine as long as I was handling the food and dishes like I would when cooking with and cleaning up after handling raw meat.


----------



## Leanne (Sep 6, 2012)

This is why the debate is good! Through this process we all gain knowledge. 

Look what has happened in the pet food industry in the last 5 years. All though we have seen many recalls from mass produced foods the overall improvement in pet food ingredients has come a long way. This has happened because we the consumer have demanded it. Not because they have the best interest of your dog at heart. Dog/cat food is a billion dollar industry and they very have a strong lobby in Washington and a large group of researchers to keep the industry interests as the primary concern. Much akin to the human drug companies. Commercial dog food as we know it, really only came into the market in the 1950s and did not really gain popularity until the 1970s. Remember ALPO. We would all turn our noses up at that now. Before then animals were fed from the table, either raw or cooked food and a variety of food. Especially the rural working dogs. It should also be noted that the certain types of diseases we now find in the modern canine population were unheard of before commercial dog food saturated the market. Diabetes, autoimmune disorders and certain types of cancer were just not inflicting canine and feline populations. Many studies directly link these disorders to improper nutrition and the feeding of grains. There is no evidence to support that these diseases occur in wild animals.

I do not advocate that anyone dictate how one should feed their own animals. We are all free to educate ourselves and make our choices founded on evidence based practice that is available and what is best for you and your particular animals. I refrain from making decisions on based on probability. There are many studies based on scientific method ( can be replicated) that can support both sides of the food debate. It takes time to research them and one must also use a critical eye to decipher where the studies originate. It is in the best interests of the commercial dog food producers paint a raw diet in an unfavorable light and vice-versa. What I do find interesting is that many cooked food producers are now producing their own lines of raw food. My own food is produced at home. I process food from local organic farmers. I know how my food is raised, how it is processed and exactly what is in my food. Nutritional content has been tailored specifically for each particular animal by my traditionally educated Veterinary Doctor who helps me evaluate the research and make sound decisions. She is well respected in her field.

That being said I will continue to feed my animals raw and continue to bring them with me in public. I am sorry if people feel I am a risk to public health. I believe the evidence shows that the fear is unfounded. After a great deal of education and research based on science I have yet to see a single study based on evidence that anyone contracted anything from a raw fed dog. On the other hand I have seen numerous cases transmitted from human to human, food born contaminations from processing plants and restaurants that you may frequent often.

Again thanks for my 2 cents worth. I value all of the ideas expressed here and believe this how we come to educate ourselves with the wealth of knowledge out there.


----------



## maggieh (Dec 16, 2007)

For those who may be asking, I have removed the last few posts that were becoming heated, derogatory, insulting and were resulting in personal attacks on other members. These posts have been quarantined and will be reviewed by Yung and the other Moderators. 

It would be wonderful if we could continue the discourse on raw vs prepared in a manner that is respectful of each other and does not resort to insults and name calling.

Thank you all for bring this back to a rational discussion.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm adding these two points back in because they're important. The Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, therapy dog groups, and many others have put out position statements against raw feeding because there IS a health risk to other people and pets from feeding raw. Please, please consider this. 

Also, no matter how clean you are with the feces clean-up, remember that dogs do use their tongues as toilet paper and pathogens can be spread via their mouths after they lick their butts.


----------



## hoaloha (Jan 27, 2012)

Crystal&Zoe said:


> Well I refrained from commenting last night because I hadn't eaten a thing yesterday and on my way home picked up some Italian take out and a nice bottle of wine. And I made the mistake of drinking some wine before I ate because I had to feed the babies and then take them out to potty first. And well...I was advised by someone that wine and the internet are just not a good combo. :HistericalSmiley:
> 
> I think the thing that I find just a bit insulting is that simply because someone has a different view or opinion on something, it is assumed by the person with an opposing view that it's because that differing opinion is based on lack of research, education and understanding. I guess I won't be too insulted because we all know what an intelligent and educated woman Dr. Dodds is. And there are several medical people on this forum who have certainly had extensive training and education in this area that have come to the exact same opinion, whether they have chosen to feed raw or not. Feeding raw is not for everyone and everyone should feel free to make their own choice. There are over 7 billion people on this earth and each with their own opinion on things. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to have the same opinion on something. And it's unfair to stop a great conversation where thoughts, questions, knowledge can be shared so those who haven't had the chance to do the research can learn and therefore form their own opinion.
> 
> ...


:goodpost:

I think that pet parents have the right to feed their pets whatever they choose. Is raw right for every pet and owner? No, and I think most people understand that nutrition should be individualized. Also, one should find out if he or she is immunocompromised themselves before even owning a pet and handling raw food due to the risks. That's the human's responsibility. But to say that no one should feed raw food is not feasible. 

Humans make poor food choices in many different ways... But that is each person's individual right! What is right for one isn't always right for the other. I can't stop someone from eating 100 candy bars or drinking soda everyday and it is their right to eat whatever they want as long they understand the benefits and risks. Let each person decide for his or herself.

I don't know enough about the canine digestive tract and nutrition requirements to comment on the specifics of raw food digestion, but I do believe each pet parent has the right to decide what to feed his or her pet.


----------



## edelweiss (Apr 23, 2010)

Thank you to all contributors---this is a fascinating discussion!


----------



## Deborah (Jan 8, 2006)

Guys all I said was that this was an interesting article. In no way did I mean to be for or against raw feeding.

Again interesting and will cause you to think.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/10/raw-food-not-enough-to-feed-big-.html?ref=em


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Deborah said:


> Guys all I said was that this was an interesting article. In no way did I mean to be for or against raw feeding.
> 
> Again interesting and will cause you to think.
> 
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/10/raw-food-not-enough-to-feed-big-.html?ref=em


I read the article and thought it was fascinating. Thanks for posting the link.


----------

