The Myth of 100% Complete Pet Food

Every day, people by the millions pour food from aglucose) and to extend shelf-life by sterilization. Dry
package into their pet's bowl. Day in and day out,foods are extruded at hundreds of degrees and
meal after meal, pets get the same fare. Thishundreds of pounds of pressure. Canned foods are
strange phenomenon is widely practiced by loving petretorted. Commercial pet foods also contain a mix of
owners who believe they are doing the right thing.ingredients including meats, fats, starches (a variety
Why? Certainly because it is convenient, but alsoof label dressing "natural" ingredient buzzwords) and
because the labels state that such foods arevitamin/mineral "fortifiers." Although the ingredient
"complete and balanced," "100% complete," or thatlabel is evocative and beguiling, what is in the final
they have passed various analytical and feeding testproduct is another matter. Essential fatty acids are
standards. Furthermore, manufacturers, and evenoxidized and isomerized. Cytotoxic, mutagenic and
veterinarians, counsel pet owners about not feedingcarcinogenic cholesterol oxidation products (COP) are
other foods, such as table scraps, because of theformed, including C-7 derivatives, 5,6-epoxides, triols,
danger of unbalancing these modern processed25-OHs and 3,5-dienes - the real culprits in human
nutritional marvels. The power of the message is soatherogenesis, incidently. The cooked meats form
great that pet owners en masse do every day toheterocyclic amines, proteins are degraded and amino
their pets what they would never do to themselvesacids destroyed or racemized. Carbohydrates are
or their children - force-feed the same processedglycated, acrylamides are formed, vitamins
food at every meal. Think about it. Our world isdestroyed, oxidized and racemized and minerals are
complex beyond comprehension. It is not only largelycomplexed into unavailable matrices. The end result is
unknown, it is unknowable in the "complete" sense. Ina potpourri of imbalance, unavailability and toxicity -
order for nutritionists and manufacturers to producenot "100% completeness." Yes, pets can survive for
a "100% complete and balanced" pet food, theya time on such fare, but that is simply a testament
must first know 100% about nutrition. However,to their physiological capacity to adapt. They seek
nutrition is not a completed science. It is, in fact, anequilibrium at higher and higher levels of toxicity until
aggregate science, which is based upon otheradaptive reserve is exhausted. Chronic degenerative
sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and biology. Butdiseases and immune failure is the end result. The
since no scientist would argue that everything ispoint is, don't believe the claim on any commercially
known in chemistry, or physics, or biology, how canprepared pet (or human) food that it is "100%
nutritionists claim to know everything there is tocomplete and balanced." It is a spurious unsupported
know about nutrition, which is based upon theseboast, intended to build consumer trust and
sciences? This is the logical absurdity of the "100%dependence on commercial products - not create
complete and balanced" diet claim. It is the reason aoptimal health. Unfortunately, most people think
similar venture to feed babies a "100% complete"animal feeding is a mystery. It is not. Animal nutrition
formula turned out to be a health disaster. In thatis not a special nutritional science to which common
instance, after sufficient disease and death resultedsense human nutrition principles cannot be applied.
from attempting to retire the human breast to aUse the same reasoning in feeding your pets that
mere appendage of adornment, government steppedyou use for feeding your family. Nutrition is also not
in and controlled the commercial hype. Now doctors,about some special ingredient, the absence of some
nurses and purveyors of baby formulas cannot sayboogeyman ingredient, or claims such as "natural,"
these products are complete or that they are equal"organic," or the like. If you feed processed foods,
to or superior to breast-feeding. Good for theuse discernment since just about anyone can create
regulators. (Although they should have beena commercial pet food. The pet food industry has
proactive and prevented the disaster before it everhundreds of brands. Business profiteers and the
took root, not have merely stepped in after enoughoccasional movie star are the most common forces
deaths accrued.) Even with that lesson as a direbehind the labels. All one needs is a little money and
warning, pet food regulators turn a blind eye. Insteadthey can go to any number of toll manufacturers and
of preventing pet food producers from claiming ahave them slightly modify a shelf formula. Then all
processed food concoction is 100% complete, they inthat is needed is to dress it all up with a fancy
effect promote the death and disease-dealingpackage, a clever brochure, and some advertising.
specious claim by setting bogus standards thatVoila! Another brand is added to the 20-billion-dollar
supposedly justify and authenticate the claim. Theypet food industry heyday. Nutrition is a serious health
legitimize sloppy science in order to win consumerbusiness, not a mere opportunity to turn dollars.
confidence. All a manufacturer has to do is guaranteeCheck the credentials of the decision maker at the
that their percentage of protein, fat and the likehead of the company you are entrusting your pet's
meets National Research Council standards. In thehealth to and examine closely its operating philosophy.
alternative, manufacturers can do feeding trials onHealth competence and principle should come before
caged laboratory animals for a few weeks, measurepretty packaging and beguiling hoopla. The public is
cursory blood parameters, and monitor growth andnot well served by exclusively feeding products from
weight - as if survival after a few weeks on a foodcompanies without any real commitment to
has anything to do with achieving optimal health andhealth… or knowledge of how to even
long life! Down the primrose path millions of trustingachieve it. For the past 25 years, I have been a
pet owners go while at the same time unknowinglylonely voice in the wilderness trying to get people to
condemning their pets to terrible degenerativeunderstand the deadly health consequences of
diseases. Pet food regulators then spend the majorityfeeding processed pet foods exclusively. People want
of their time harassing pet food companies withconvenience in a bag and the industry wants the
picayune requirements about terminology onflow of billions of dollars to continue uninterrupted. In
packaging and where certain words must be placedthe meantime, the scientific literature offers
on labels. In this regard manufacturers must contendcompelling proof that millions of animals have been
with the USDA (United States Department ofmaimed and killed as a result of feeding thoroughly
Agriculture), FDA (Food and Drug Administration),tested "100% complete" foods… with the full
AAFCO (American Association of Feed Controlimprimatur of government regulation. (Exactly the
Officials), and 50 State feed regulatory agencies. Allsame thing that abounds in the FDA-pharmaceutical
for naught. It's like the entire police force busyingindustry.) Examples of pet food disasters include
themselves ticketing people for jaywalking whiledilated cardiomyopathy from taurine deficiency,
turning a blind eye to the murder and rape going onpotassium imbalances, fatty acid and carnitine
in the alleys. Claiming that anything is 100% is likedeficiencies and numerous other problems that would
claiming perfection, total knowledge, and absolutebe expected on a steady diet of dead, devitalized,
truth. Has pet nutrition really advanced that far? Doescarbohydrate-based processed foods. Moreover, the
a chemist make such a claim? A physicist? Doctor?whole panoply of human chronic degenerative
Professor? Did Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, Aristotle, Plato,diseases such as cancer, obesity, arthritis,
or any of the greatest minds in human history makeautoimmunities, dental deterioration and organ failure
such claims? No. Has the science of pet nutritionare at epidemic levels in the pet population…
advanced to the point where everything is knownas should be expected on such a diet. "Thousands of
about the physiology, digestion and biochemistry ofpet cats die each year with dilated
animals, or that everything is known about theircardiomyopathy… observed in… cats
food? Certainly not. The fact of the matter is thatfed commercial cat food…" (Science, Volume
the "100% complete" claim is actually "100%237, pages 764-8) Not only is feeding the same
complete" guesswork. At best, one could say thatprocessed food day in and day out a formula for
such a claim is the firm possibility of a definite maybe.disease, it is a cruelty to pets. It is one thing to take
Each time regulatory agencies convene to decidethem from their interesting and active wild setting
how much of which nutrients comprise "100%and confine them, but to not even offer them
completeness," debate always ensues and standardsinteresting natural meal variety is really quite
usually change. This not only proves that what theyinexcusable. The answer, like everything else good in
claimed before was not "100% complete," but thislife, is a little attention and common sense.
should also make us highly suspicious about whatKnowledge is the best beginning point. Further reading
they now claim to be "100% complete." Moreover,and resources of scientific references: Wysong, R. L.
consider that in order to determine the minimum(2002). The Truth About Pet Foods. Midland, MI:
requirement for a certain nutrient - say protein - allInquiry Press. Science, Volume 237, pages 764-8
other nutrients used in the feeding trials must beJournal of the American Veterinary Medical
adequate and standardized. Otherwise, if vitamin E,Association, Volume 199, pages 731-4 Journal of the
for example, is in excess or is deficient in the basalAmerican Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 201,
diet, how would one know if the results of the studypages 267-74 Feline Practice, Volume 20, Number 1,
were because of the effects of protein or due topage 30 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
something amiss with the level of vitamin E? If theAssociation, Volume 202, pages 744-51 Journal of the
minimum requirements for all 26+ essential nutrientsAmerican Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 191,
were all set and absolutely etched in stone, thatpages 1563-8 Journal of Nutrition, Volume 129, pages
would be one thing. But they aren't. They are1909-14 Journal of Nutrition, Volume 126, pages 984-8
constantly changing. This means each time anyJournal of the American Veterinary Medical
nutrient requirement is changed, all test results for allAssociation, Volume 203, pages 1395-1400 Journal of
other nutrients using the wrong minimum for thisthe American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume
nutrient would then be invalid. Most nutritionists simply198, pages 647-50 Veterinary Clinics of North
ignore this conundrum, feeling like cowboys trying toAmerica Small Animal Practice, Volume 19, pages
lasso an octopus - there are just too many loose527-37 Veterinary Forum, Volume 9, pages 34-5
ends. But they continue to perpetuate the "100%Veterinary Forum, Volume 9, pages 26-8 American
complete" myth, and excuse themselves by sayingJournal of Veterinary Research, Volume 62, pages
they make adjustments when necessary. An apology1616-23 Petfood Industry, May/June 1998, pages
of "I'm sorry," when the false premise of "100%4-14 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 75, pages
completeness" is still retained, deserves no2980-5 Veterinary Business, Volume 2, page 1
forgiveness. Also consider that virtually all so-calledWaltham International Focus, Volume 3, Number 1,
complete pet foods are vigorously heat processed topage 9 For further reading, or for more information
gelatinize the unnatural starch components (makingabout, Dr Wysong and the Wysong Corporation
them "digestible" - meaning more easily converted toplease visit or write to .