The Myth of 100% Complete Processed
Pet Foods
Pet Foods
 |  |
By Randy Wysong, D.V.M.
Every day, people by the millions pour food from a package into their pet’s bowl. Day in and day out, meal
after meal, pets get the same fare. This strange phenomenon is not only widely practiced, but done by
loving pet owners who believe they are doing the right thing.
Why? Certainly because it is convenient, but also because the labels state that the food is “complete and
balanced,” “100% complete,” or that the food has passed various analytical and feeding test criteria.
Furthermore, manufacturers and even veterinarians counsel pet owners about not feeding other foods
such as table scraps because of the danger of unbalancing these modern processed nutritional marvels.
The power of the message is so great that pet owners en masse do every day to their pets what they
would never do to themselves or their children – force-feed the same processed food at every meal.
Think about it. 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 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. It is the reason a similar venture to feed babies a “100% complete” formula has turned out to
be a health disaster.
In that instance, after sufficient disease and death resulted from attempting to retire the human breast to
a mere appendage of adornment, government stepped in and controlled the commercial hype. Now
doctors, nurses and purveyors of baby formulas cannot say these products are complete or that they are
equal to or superior to breast feeding. Good for the regulators. (Although they should have been
proactive and prevented the disaster before it ever took root, not merely step in after enough deaths
accrued.)
Even with that lesson as a dire warning, pet food regulators turn a blind eye. Instead of preventing pet
food producers from claiming a processed food is 100% complete, they in effect promote the death and
disease dealing specious claim by setting bogus standards that must be met for the claim to be made.
They authenticate, legitimize and attach scientific sloppiness to the claim in order to win consumer
confidence. All a manufacturer has to do is guarantee a certain percentage of protein, fat and the like
according to National Research Council standards. In the alternative they can do feeding trials on caged
laboratory animals for a few weeks, measure cursory blood parameters and monitor growth and weight…
as if survival after a few weeks on a food has anything to do with achieving optimal health and long life!
Down the primrose path millions of trusting pet owners go while at the same time unknowingly
condemning their pets to terrible degenerative diseases. Pet food regulators then spend the majority of
their time harassing pet food companies with picayune requirements about terminology on packaging and
where certain words must be placed on labels. It’s like the entire police force busying themselves
ticketing people for jaywalking while turning a blind eye to the murder and rape going on in the alleys.
Claiming that anything is 100% is like claiming perfection, total knowledge, and absolute truth. Has pet
nutrition really advanced that far? Does a chemist make such a claim? A physicist? Doctor? Professor?
Dis Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, Aristotle, Plato, or any of the greatest minds in human history make such
claims? No. Has the science of pet nutrition advanced to the point where everything is known about the
physiology, digestion and biochemistry of animals, or that everything is known about their food?
Certainly not.
The fact of the matter is that the “100% complete” claim is actually “100% complete” guesswork. At best,
one could say that such a claim is the firm possibility of a definite maybe.
Each time regulatory agencies convene to decide how much of which nutrients comprise “100%
completeness,” debate always ensues and standards usually change. 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.”
Moreover, consider that in order to determine the minimum requirement for a certain nutrient – say
protein – all other nutrients used in the feeding trials must be adequate and standardized. Otherwise, if
vitamin E, for example, is in excess or is deficient in the basal diet, 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+ essential nutrients were all set and absolutely etched in stone,
then there would be no problem. But they aren’t. They are constantly changing. This means each time
any nutrient requirement is changed, all test results for all other nutrients using the wrong minimum for
this nutrient would then be invalid. Most nutritionists simply ignore this conundrum, feeling like cowboys
trying to lasso an octopus – there are just too many loose ends. But they continue to perpetuate the
“100% complete” myth, and excuse themselves by saying they make adjustments when necessary.
The point is, don’t believe the claim on any commercially prepared pet (or human) food that it is “100%
complete and balanced.” It is a spurious unsupported boast, intended to build consumer trust and
dependence on commercial products – not create optimal health.
Unfortunately most people think animal feeding is a mystery. It is not. Animal nutrition is not a special
nutritional science to which common sense human nutrition principles cannot be applied. Use the same
reasoning in feeding your pets that you use for feeding your family. Nutrition is also not about some
special ingredient, the absence of some boogeyman ingredient or claims such as “natural,” “organic,” or
the like.
If you feed processed foods, use discernment since just about anyone can create a commercial pet food.
The pet food industry has hundreds of brands with officious and beguiling labels, all stamped with the
approval of the FDA, USDA, State Feed Regulatory Agencies and the American Association of Feed Control
Officials (AAFCO). Business profiteers and the occasional movie star are the most common forces behind
the labels. All one needs is a little money and they can go to any number of toll manufacturers and have
them slightly modify a shelf formula. Dress it all up with a fancy package, a clever brochure and some
advertising and voila, another brand is added to the 20-billion-dollar pet food industry.
Nutrition is a serious health business, not a mere opportunity to turn dollars. Check the credentials of the
decision maker at the head of the company you are entrusting your pet’s health to and examine closely its
operating philosophy. Health competence and principle should come before pretty packaging and
beguiling hoopla. The public is not well served by exclusively feeding products from companies without
any real commitment to health… or knowledge of how to even achieve that.
For the past 25 years I have been a lonely voice in the wilderness trying to get people to understand the
deadly health consequences of feeding processed pet foods exclusively. People want convenience in a
bag and the industry wants the flow of billions to continue uninterrupted. In the meantime the scientific
literature offers compelling proof that millions of animals have been maimed and killed as a result of
feeding thoroughly tested “100% complete” foods… with the full imprimatur of government regulation.
(Exactly the same thing that abounds in the FDA-pharmaceutical industry.)
Examples of pet food disasters include dilated cardiomyopathy from taurine deficiency, potassium
imbalances, fatty acid and carnitine deficiencies and numerous other problems that would be expected on
a steady diet of dead, devitalized, carbohydrate-based processed foods. Moreover, the whole panoply of
human chronic degenerative diseases such as cancer, obesity, arthritis, dental deterioration and organ
failure are at epidemic levels in the pet population… as should be expected on such a diet.
Not only is feeding the same processed food day in and day out a formula for disease, it is a cruelty to
pets. It is one thing to take them from their interesting and active wild setting and confine them, but to
not even offer them interesting, natural meal variety is really quite inexcusable. The answer, like
everything else good in life, is a little attention and common sense. Knowledge is the best beginning
point.
To learn more, obtain a copy of my book, The Truth About Pet Foods. I will also see to it that you get a
free copy of my CD, “The Thinking Person’s Master Key to Health,” and the brochure, “How to Apologize to
Your Pet,” which will give you the specific guidelines for how to select packiaged foods as well as prepare
meals and treats to achieve optimal pet health.
Further reading and resources of scientific references:
Wysong, R.L. (2002). The Truth About Pet Foods. Midland, MI: Inquiry Press.
Science, Volume 237, pages 764-8
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 199, pages 731-4
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 201, pages 267-74
Feline Practice, Volume 20, Number 1, page 30
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 202, pages 744-51
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 191, pages 1563-8
Journal of Nutrition, Volume 129, pages 1909-14
Journal of Nutrition, Volume 126, pages 984-8
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 203, pages 1395-1400
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 198, pages 647-50
Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice, Volume 19, pages 527-37
Veterinary Forum, Volume 9, pages 34-5
Veterinary Forum, Volume 9, pages 26-8
American Journal of Veterinary Research, Volume 62, pages 1616-23
Petfood Industry, May/June 1998, pages 4-14
Journal of American Science, Volume 75, pages 2980-5
Veterinary Business, Volume 2, page 1
Waltham International Focus, Volume 3, Number 1, page 9
© Wysong Institute 2005
Every day, people by the millions pour food from a package into their pet’s bowl. Day in and day out, meal
after meal, pets get the same fare. This strange phenomenon is not only widely practiced, but done by
loving pet owners who believe they are doing the right thing.
Why? Certainly because it is convenient, but also because the labels state that the food is “complete and
balanced,” “100% complete,” or that the food has passed various analytical and feeding test criteria.
Furthermore, manufacturers and even veterinarians counsel pet owners about not feeding other foods
such as table scraps because of the danger of unbalancing these modern processed nutritional marvels.
The power of the message is so great that pet owners en masse do every day to their pets what they
would never do to themselves or their children – force-feed the same processed food at every meal.
Think about it. 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 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. It is the reason a similar venture to feed babies a “100% complete” formula has turned out to
be a health disaster.
In that instance, after sufficient disease and death resulted from attempting to retire the human breast to
a mere appendage of adornment, government stepped in and controlled the commercial hype. Now
doctors, nurses and purveyors of baby formulas cannot say these products are complete or that they are
equal to or superior to breast feeding. Good for the regulators. (Although they should have been
proactive and prevented the disaster before it ever took root, not merely step in after enough deaths
accrued.)
Even with that lesson as a dire warning, pet food regulators turn a blind eye. Instead of preventing pet
food producers from claiming a processed food is 100% complete, they in effect promote the death and
disease dealing specious claim by setting bogus standards that must be met for the claim to be made.
They authenticate, legitimize and attach scientific sloppiness to the claim in order to win consumer
confidence. All a manufacturer has to do is guarantee a certain percentage of protein, fat and the like
according to National Research Council standards. In the alternative they can do feeding trials on caged
laboratory animals for a few weeks, measure cursory blood parameters and monitor growth and weight…
as if survival after a few weeks on a food has anything to do with achieving optimal health and long life!
Down the primrose path millions of trusting pet owners go while at the same time unknowingly
condemning their pets to terrible degenerative diseases. Pet food regulators then spend the majority of
their time harassing pet food companies with picayune requirements about terminology on packaging and
where certain words must be placed on labels. It’s like the entire police force busying themselves
ticketing people for jaywalking while turning a blind eye to the murder and rape going on in the alleys.
Claiming that anything is 100% is like claiming perfection, total knowledge, and absolute truth. Has pet
nutrition really advanced that far? Does a chemist make such a claim? A physicist? Doctor? Professor?
Dis Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, Aristotle, Plato, or any of the greatest minds in human history make such
claims? No. Has the science of pet nutrition advanced to the point where everything is known about the
physiology, digestion and biochemistry of animals, or that everything is known about their food?
Certainly not.
The fact of the matter is that the “100% complete” claim is actually “100% complete” guesswork. At best,
one could say that such a claim is the firm possibility of a definite maybe.
Each time regulatory agencies convene to decide how much of which nutrients comprise “100%
completeness,” debate always ensues and standards usually change. 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.”
Moreover, consider that in order to determine the minimum requirement for a certain nutrient – say
protein – all other nutrients used in the feeding trials must be adequate and standardized. Otherwise, if
vitamin E, for example, is in excess or is deficient in the basal diet, 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+ essential nutrients were all set and absolutely etched in stone,
then there would be no problem. But they aren’t. They are constantly changing. This means each time
any nutrient requirement is changed, all test results for all other nutrients using the wrong minimum for
this nutrient would then be invalid. Most nutritionists simply ignore this conundrum, feeling like cowboys
trying to lasso an octopus – there are just too many loose ends. But they continue to perpetuate the
“100% complete” myth, and excuse themselves by saying they make adjustments when necessary.
The point is, don’t believe the claim on any commercially prepared pet (or human) food that it is “100%
complete and balanced.” It is a spurious unsupported boast, intended to build consumer trust and
dependence on commercial products – not create optimal health.
Unfortunately most people think animal feeding is a mystery. It is not. Animal nutrition is not a special
nutritional science to which common sense human nutrition principles cannot be applied. Use the same
reasoning in feeding your pets that you use for feeding your family. Nutrition is also not about some
special ingredient, the absence of some boogeyman ingredient or claims such as “natural,” “organic,” or
the like.
If you feed processed foods, use discernment since just about anyone can create a commercial pet food.
The pet food industry has hundreds of brands with officious and beguiling labels, all stamped with the
approval of the FDA, USDA, State Feed Regulatory Agencies and the American Association of Feed Control
Officials (AAFCO). Business profiteers and the occasional movie star are the most common forces behind
the labels. All one needs is a little money and they can go to any number of toll manufacturers and have
them slightly modify a shelf formula. Dress it all up with a fancy package, a clever brochure and some
advertising and voila, another brand is added to the 20-billion-dollar pet food industry.
Nutrition is a serious health business, not a mere opportunity to turn dollars. Check the credentials of the
decision maker at the head of the company you are entrusting your pet’s health to and examine closely its
operating philosophy. Health competence and principle should come before pretty packaging and
beguiling hoopla. The public is not well served by exclusively feeding products from companies without
any real commitment to health… or knowledge of how to even achieve that.
For the past 25 years I have been a lonely voice in the wilderness trying to get people to understand the
deadly health consequences of feeding processed pet foods exclusively. People want convenience in a
bag and the industry wants the flow of billions to continue uninterrupted. In the meantime the scientific
literature offers compelling proof that millions of animals have been maimed and killed as a result of
feeding thoroughly tested “100% complete” foods… with the full imprimatur of government regulation.
(Exactly the same thing that abounds in the FDA-pharmaceutical industry.)
Examples of pet food disasters include dilated cardiomyopathy from taurine deficiency, potassium
imbalances, fatty acid and carnitine deficiencies and numerous other problems that would be expected on
a steady diet of dead, devitalized, carbohydrate-based processed foods. Moreover, the whole panoply of
human chronic degenerative diseases such as cancer, obesity, arthritis, dental deterioration and organ
failure are at epidemic levels in the pet population… as should be expected on such a diet.
Not only is feeding the same processed food day in and day out a formula for disease, it is a cruelty to
pets. It is one thing to take them from their interesting and active wild setting and confine them, but to
not even offer them interesting, natural meal variety is really quite inexcusable. The answer, like
everything else good in life, is a little attention and common sense. Knowledge is the best beginning
point.
To learn more, obtain a copy of my book, The Truth About Pet Foods. I will also see to it that you get a
free copy of my CD, “The Thinking Person’s Master Key to Health,” and the brochure, “How to Apologize to
Your Pet,” which will give you the specific guidelines for how to select packiaged foods as well as prepare
meals and treats to achieve optimal pet health.
Further reading and resources of scientific references:
Wysong, R.L. (2002). The Truth About Pet Foods. Midland, MI: Inquiry Press.
Science, Volume 237, pages 764-8
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 199, pages 731-4
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 201, pages 267-74
Feline Practice, Volume 20, Number 1, page 30
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 202, pages 744-51
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 191, pages 1563-8
Journal of Nutrition, Volume 129, pages 1909-14
Journal of Nutrition, Volume 126, pages 984-8
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 203, pages 1395-1400
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 198, pages 647-50
Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice, Volume 19, pages 527-37
Veterinary Forum, Volume 9, pages 34-5
Veterinary Forum, Volume 9, pages 26-8
American Journal of Veterinary Research, Volume 62, pages 1616-23
Petfood Industry, May/June 1998, pages 4-14
Journal of American Science, Volume 75, pages 2980-5
Veterinary Business, Volume 2, page 1
Waltham International Focus, Volume 3, Number 1, page 9
© Wysong Institute 2005