The-Truth-About-Pet-Foods

conditioned air, do not correlate to real animals in homes and back yards.
Obviously not. If feeding trials worked, thousands of cats fed feedingtrial-proven
diets with “100% complete” claims would not, for example,
have died from taurine deficiency (see Proofs, pages 74-85).
None of this speaks to the unnecessary cruelty of imprisoning animals
for months and years for feeding trials used to perpetuate a mythology.
ANALYSES
Nutrient analyses (reflected as “Nutrition Facts” on labels) can only
prove that foods contain nutrients at levels that regulatory agencies say
are necessary for the food to be “100% complete.” Again, since no one
knows what “100% complete” is, proving that a particular nutrient reaches
a certain level is meaningless in terms of actually achieving optimal
nutrition. Properly analyzed diets meeting guidelines have caused severe
deficiencies (see Proofs, pages 74-85).
Measuring a food’s merit using NRC levels such as percentage of
protein, fat, fiber, ash and about a dozen vitamins and minerals tells only a
partial story. There are over forty essential nutrients known and over fifty
under investigation. How can making sure a food contains the appropriate
amounts of only a dozen nutrients merit a “100% complete” designation
What’s more, testing to establish minimums is cursory and haphazard
at best. For example, in the cat, phosphorus and manganese were NRC
tested directly, but sodium, chloride, iodine, copper and selenium levels
were merely extrapolated from values in other species.* In other words,
a “100% complete” diet for cats could be based on something like sodium
levels for aardvarks and selenium levels for newts. Maybe those
aren’t the species used, but no matter. An extrapolation is a guess regardless,
and does not add up to “100% complete.”
If producers wish to claim their food is X% digestible, or that it contains
certain amounts of nutrients, or that it has been subjected to a certain
feeding trial, that is fine. But don’t you believe it when they take an incredible
leap (actually a fall) in logic and then claim their food is “100%
* J Nutr, 1996; 126(9 Suppl):2377S-2385S, 2452S-2459S. Pediatr Clin North
Am, 2001; 48(2):401-13. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1975; 246:237-48. Cancer Res,
1992; 52(7 Suppl):2067s-2070s.
PAGE 15