The-Truth-About-Pet-Foods

PREFACE
There is, of course, debate among pet food producers. Each believes,
or at least must try to convince consumers to believe, that their product is
best.
The marketing and advertising resources of the 13 billion dollar pet
food publicity machine can be persuasive. For the average consumer,
sorting hype from substance can be very difficult. As a result, most people
take the easy road and follow the most impressive glitz, the brands most
predominant in the media (money makes this possible, not worth), or lore,
myth, rumor and fad.
Most pet food producers (in spite of promotion to the contrary) give
secondary attention to nutrition (other than mandated by regulation) and
have neither depth of scientific understanding nor logical health design.
Primary effort is focused on chasing consumer trends. They follow, not
lead.
The “100% complete” myth absolves producers from nutritional
innovation. Why do more when you’re already perfect How much
more intellectually honest it is to not pretend to have arrived at absolute
truth. Nutrition is a process, not an end result. As research and discovery
proceed, products should be advanced toward the goal of optimizing
health. Products should be better today than they were a year ago, and
better a year from now than today.
But most pet foods are essentially the same, and remain the same,
whether they are generic, premium, or “natural.” Differences are created
by deliberate construction of marketing propaganda, not by what is in the
package. This is not to say that formulas do not vary (mostly in unimportant
ways), only that the philosophic approach to design and processing remains
essentially the same.
As I have explained, it is possible for anyone with some capital (no
expertise necessary) to contract with any of dozens of pet food
manufacturers to make a “new” food to market. “New” may be only the
PAGE 162