The-Truth-About-Pet-Foods

“FREE RANGE”
When we found sources of free-range meats and wanted to describe
on labels that this was more humane, regulators said no.
Further, to even say “free range” on the label would require the same
criminal-type onerous red tape provings as with “organic.”
They disagreed that animals out in fields, on real ground, breathing
fresh air and getting genuine sun were being treated any more kindly than
those in close quartered feedlots standing in manure up to their knees, or
in wire cages, pens or crates crammed inside buildings.
By such reasoning, regulators could argue that imprisonment for humans
is not even punishment.
“OPTIMAL NUTRITION”
Regulators objected to our use of the phrase “Optimal Nutrition.”
They argued that if we used levels of nutrients above their “approved”
levels, that would make our ingredients unapproved food additives.
In other words, if we were to discover that regulatory minimums were
insufficient to prevent diseases such as arthritis, cancer, dental disease,
heart and organ disease, and the like (which we, and scientists worldwide,
have), we could not move our formulas to match this new knowledge.
No, regulators would want us to stay at their minimums, condemning
pets to preventable disease. Public protection
“GENETICALLY MATCHED”
Consistent with the theme throughout this book that creatures require
natural food to which their ancestors were adapted, we attempted to
describe this on our labels by using the term “genetically matched.” Regulators
prohibited this unless we could provide proof by way of “scientific
peer reviewed literature.”
Problem is, there are some things so obvious, scientists would never
spend the time or money to prove or publish them. For example, you
can’t find “scientific peer reviewed literature” proving the sun comes up in
the morning, wind contains air, heavy things fall to the Earth, plants need
PAGE 60