Industry influence in vet matters

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

pete coleshaw — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:19:50 GMT

[quote user="alison howell"]Really??!! The following is a quote from the FAB website:[/quote]

Alison, I hold my hands up - it has changed since I did a lot of my research into cat diets some 18m months ago (moral there!)

and I am delighted to have been proved wrong - and delighted that they have amended their advice.(and dare I say that they may have seen the incorrectness of their prvious emphasis.

[quote user="alison howell"]No Hills ad or logo appears on the page - only in the 'links' section is it mentioned (along with other companies), and then only as a sponsor. I would say that the collaboration between FAB and these various commercial companies is an example of how FAB can work with these companies without them influencing things inappropriately[/quote]

let's face it, no-one is going to say anything that might upset their sponsors, are they?

[quote user="alison howell"] As for incorrect labelling that is not limited to pet food - think of all those childrens products labelled as 'fruit' when they are about 0.05% fruit. Yes there should be stricter rules on labelling[/quote]

We agree, great. My point was that food companies deliberately mislead (or should I say there is purposeful ambiguity) And that we let them invite themselves into our sales areas, and effectively take over the appearance of our surgeries (again I admit to this in my previous incarnation)

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Roger Meacock — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:18:11 GMT

Hi Arlo I think we both were writing posts at the same time so I didn't see yours til after I'd posted mine! ... hence my 2-part bit - the first that matched yours and the second bit that didn't!

Roger

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:11:49 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]To get this thread back on track[/quote]

Thanks Roger. But, er,

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Just from the logic perspective ... if the recommended diet for diabetic cats is to move to a high protein/low carb diet and many cats respond to the point where they are maintained on this diet alone, by definition the original high carb diet itself has to have been the cause because if you stay on it the cat would deteriorate further to the point of death. That tells you that the high carb diet caused a sliding deterioration in health which at some point along the way became clinically recognised as diabetes. Remove the drive for the deterioration and the cat recovers. It doesn't need a double blind trial to see that surely?[/quote]

Back off topic

Again, please can we keep the rights and wrongs of diet out of the discussion, and stick rigidly to the question of 'industry influence in vet matters', which the firswt part of your post was doing nicely.

If you'd like to debate diabetes / high carb / low carb, please do feel very welcome to start a new thread.

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Roger Meacock — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:41:32 GMT

[quote user="alison howell"]All of them?? As I said there is no evidence for this opinion![/quote]

All of them - yes. What more evidence do you need other than diabetes is a disease that is on the increase? To get this thread back on track .... with universities now being sponsored by outside industries with a vested interest in results do you honsetly think a study will be peformed to provide the sort of evidence you seem to want to have in a random double blind trial? It aint gonna happen cos they know their feed causes it! Trials might be done to find different ways of treating it (sponsored by the pharma making the drug of course) but whereas universities used to be independent research houses they no longer are. This is a problem for clinicians who it seems are only willing to do something different with a trial to prove it instead of seeing what's walking through your door and adjusting your practice based on your own observations. If there is no truly independent research it is entirely possible for "bad practice" to become established in different aspects of clinical life backed up by questionnable research from seemingly reputable establishments.

Just from the logic perspective ... if the recommended diet for diabetic cats is to move to a high protein/low carb diet and many cats respond to the point where they are maintained on this diet alone, by definition the original high carb diet itself has to have been the cause because if you stay on it the cat would deteriorate further to the point of death. That tells you that the high carb diet caused a sliding deterioration in health which at some point along the way became clinically recognised as diabetes. Remove the drive for the deterioration and the cat recovers. It doesn't need a double blind trial to see that surely?

Roger

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:27:38 GMT

[quote user="alison howell"]

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]... Apart from all the cats who got diabetes in the first place on high carb "complete" diets?[/quote]

All of them?? As I said there is no evidence for this opinion![/quote]

OK - we're going off-topic here, and back onto the merits of a diet. Please could we stick to "industry influence in vet matters", and if anyone wishes to have a ding dong about diet, start a new thread.

If the new thread is intended to include RMB within the discussion, it should be posted in the RMB Debate Forum. If not, and it is strictly the carb debate, it may go in the main forums.

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

vs0u — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:36:11 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]... Apart from all the cats who got diabetes in the first place on high carb "complete" diets?[/quote]

All of them?? As I said there is no evidence for this opinion!

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:41:34 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"] seems like I've had my account suspended retrospectively without notice!!! ........... as I seem to have stopped receiving emails from this site.[/quote]

No Pete, you haven't! I'd have told you if that were the case. Not sure why you are no longer getting email alerts, though it might have happened as I split the two threads, in which case you just need to check you are subscribed to the thread (should be automatic when you post, unless you untick the box under the text entry box marked 'Email me replies ...'

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Roger Meacock — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:55:16 GMT

[quote user="alison howell"]Also, I don't think there is any evidence to show that a high carb diet is bad for non-diabetic cats as long as it contains all the necessary amino acids etc, so what is wrong with feeding it?[/quote]

... Apart from all the cats who got diabetes in the first place on high carb "complete" diets?

Roger

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

vs0u — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:49:48 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]

So, lets look at the FAB website (and I respect FAB highly) - sponsored by Hills.

No mention of the dangers of high carb diets in their articles on diabetes - talks all about the sedentary cat, and getting them to chase a fish on a cane for a few minutes. Anyone who has tried to lose weight will realise that they will have to chase said fishy for several hours to properly increase metabolic rate, and to burn up significant amounts of calories. No mention of the high carb congtent of Hill's food [/quote]

Really??!! The following is a quote from the FAB website:

"High protein and low carbohydrate diets are recommended for diabetic cats of any bodyweight and can also be used as a weight loss diet

● Feeding a high protein and low carbohydrate diet will result in better glycaemic control and increase the chance of being able to discontinue exogenous insulin

● Examples of commercially available high protein/low carbohydrate diets include Purina Veterinary Diets DM, Hill’s m/d and Royal Canin Feline Diabetic"

No Hills ad or logo appears on the page - only in the 'links' section is it mentioned (along with other companies), and then only as a sponsor. I would say that the collaboration between FAB and these various commercial companies is an example of how FAB can work with these companies without them influencing things inappropriately.

It's certainly not saying you can't feed a diabetic cat RMB - from the above quote I would infer that RMB would be the perfect diet. [Ed's note: strikethrough added as RMB is now only allowed to be discussed within the RMB forum. I ask that 'Industry influence in vet matters' is discussed in this thread without reference to RMB. There is a thread within the RMB forum where the same subject may be discussed WITH reference to RMB]

Also, I don't think there is any evidence to show that a high carb diet is bad for non-diabetic cats as long as it contains all the necessary amino acids etc, so what is wrong with feeding it?

As for incorrect labelling that is not limited to pet food - think of all those childrens products labelled as 'fruit' when they are about 0.05% fruit. Yes there should be stricter rules on labelling.

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

pete coleshaw — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:24:51 GMT

seems like I've had my account suspended retrospectively without notice!!! ........... as I seem to have stopped receiving emails from this site.

I agree, Evelyn (note the use of first name, not surname!)

So, lets look at the FAB website (and I respect FAB highly) - sponsored by Hills.

Fortunately, on the same site Peter Neville discusses the need to feed wool-eating cats on raw prey - seems that the natural instincts of some cats are not met by some of the modern ways of feeding. Perhaps the breeds that do this are less removed from their wild counterparts than others.

Industry influence of clients (and vets?) - are the tricks used by a company indicative of the tactics and morals of a company ? (maybe this should be another thread)

Let's consider Butchers All-meat loaf with gravy, and All-meat chunks with gravy. How much meat? 100%???

4%!!!! - took me a few minutes to realise that the chunks were all meat, but there was only 4% of chunks/loaf in the product. But maybe I'm stupid, and Joe Public will realise this straight away - I always was a bit naive.

Last year I was sent samples of Hills CD - tender chunks in gravy (shame the chunks were vegetable protein!)

I took iams to task on their advertisement 'everything your cat needs and nothing it doesnt'. The advertising standards bods accepted that carbohydrates were not an essential nutirent of cats (i.e 'not needed' in my understanding of the king's english) but accepted that they - carbs- were a useful source of energy, and therefore upheld the claims of Iams. No influence within the ranks here! - and this subtle insidious influence pervades the whole petfood industry.

I phoned my local food mill to ask the carb content of their own-branded food. The reply was that 'we know it is crap but that is what people want'. I can tell you categorically that this is not what most of my clients want - they want to do right by their pets and be given honest unbiased advice. But where does Joe Public go to? their vet?

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:47:14 GMT

[quote user="Mark Frost"]My concerns are, that a life without sponsorship would be great, however in reality financial life for students is tough enough already as it is and getting worse by the year. The funds have to come from somewhere and it is the regulation of what that sponsorship buys rather than the sponsorship itself that needs to change. I have never been to a sponsored CPD event, or sponsored lecture back at uni and ended up using a product more as a result - peer reviewed articles, specialist recommendation and to an extent practice policy (where a variety of very similar products are made by different companies with no obvious clinical difference) have resulted in changes to my usage patterns however.[/quote]

Sponsoring lectures or meetings or even associations (assuming the agreement is right) is OK; not that different from paying for a fullpage colour advertisement in an association's journal and thus allowing the journal to be in colour. But the Dick correspondence to me smacked of the company trying to buy total control; and, more sinister, the vet school principal cosily colluding in this.

I don't suppose every Dick student thereafter qualified with a burning resolve that everything Pedigree (Royal Canin, Waltham, Mars) make is absolutely the bee's knees. The risk is more the insidious daily drip-drip-drip of Pedigree everything. As someone els has remarked I think, it's more a subconscious effect.

Does it achieve what the company desires? Well, the company marketing people are not fools. I reckon they were feeling they got a bargain for twenty grand.

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Mark Frost — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:25:33 GMT

I posted a similar reply on a different thread before this one was created.. so here is a similar reply with some changes;

I graduated only a few years ago and our nutrition notes have no sponsorship or mention of any commercial brand or company, simply a description of requirements, calculations and changes in disease processes etc.. A variety of other subjects had sponsorship from a variety of pharma companies but it was pretty obvious that it hadn't altered the content in any way, just their logo was on the front and I couldn't tell you without looking back which they were. I was aware of food & pharma companies sponsoring events etc.. during the course & it hasn't swayed me in what I recommend, which is what I believe to be best for the individual animal based on the evidence I have available.

My concerns are, that a life without sponsorship would be great, however in reality financial life for students is tough enough already as it is and getting worse by the year. The funds have to come from somewhere and it is the regulation of what that sponsorship buys rather than the sponsorship itself that needs to change. I have never been to a sponsored CPD event, or sponsored lecture back at uni and ended up using a product more as a result - peer reviewed articles, specialist recommendation and to an extent practice policy (where a variety of very similar products are made by different companies with no obvious clinical difference) have resulted in changes to my usage patterns however.

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:02:23 GMT

RMB FREE CERTIFICATION
This thread is a copy of the original, but with all mention of RMB removed.

This thread is now certified 'RMB Free'

Anyone who re-introduces RMB into this discussion will have their account temporarily suspended.

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

pete coleshaw — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:45:09 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Why can't you grant people a little discernment? [/quote]

Would the food compamies go to such expense if they didnt expect a financial return?

Or are they just altruistic, and want to give vets a good education?

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Getting money from pet food companies is as good a way of getting University funding as any.[/quote]

bit like mcdonalds sponsoring colouring books at infant school - they are good altruistic people too, helping school funding

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]trying to promote "Leo" diets (remember them?)[/quote]

So you were a pawn in the leo campaign too ? - as I was. Crap food, well marketed,

I believed in what they said, used it for years, local Leo rep was a client.

I now believe I have moved forwards, but certainly onwards

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Getting money from pet food companies is as good a way of getting University funding as any.[/quote]

Anyone who does not realise that we are all pawns in the world of marketing is living in cloud cuckoo land (wonder what to feed the cuckoo on? - Alex anywhere?) The danger is when we dont realise it!

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Getting money from pet food companies is as good a way of getting University funding as any.[/quote]

isn't this prostitution? - seems the only criticism is that we didnt charge enough!

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Roger Meacock — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:38:40 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]What business is it of the insurance company...... what have they got to lose? [/quote]

Precisely - in many cases the complimentary alternatives are often cheaper which makes it all the more baffling. It is difficult not to wonder if there are external pressures from outside insurance at play here although that begins to start like a conspiracy theory and I'm not into those just for the sake of supporting conspiracy theories. I try to be objective in assessments that might have that temptation to slip into them. However in the absence of another possible explanation you begin to wonder what agenda is at work and whose when decisions that appear to be not necessarily in the best interest of the company/industry making them are made ...

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Two, make your clients well aware of Petplan's charges before they take out insurance.[/quote]

I don't promote any pet insurance policies to clients within my work - I just get asked to fill in the forms at times although in many instances horse owners are reluctant to put in valid claims for fear of irrational exclusions for the future. As my work is primarily referral I don't interact with clients on the same annual basis that first opinion vets do so I'm not in the position to advise clients at the time they might usually consider taking out insurance. I don't know how well Petplan highlighted this change in policy to existing clients or even to practices who promote Petplan - probably hidden away in the small print so many may only find out when they come to claim.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Ooh, couldn't resist this. If treatments were complimentary, there would be nothing to claim [/quote]

LOL - I often think this is a strange term to use for that ambiguous reason!

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:34:45 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]It has also been brought to my notice that Petplan have also introduced an additional excess charge for complimentary therapies - £75 for dogs, £65 for cats and £55 for rabbits. [/quote]

Yes.... that is baffling. What business is it of the insurance company...... what have they got to lose? They are contracted to meet the veterinary costs, less the first "excess", up to the limit for each illness....... why should they care how those costs are made up? If the costs are high, they will just reach the limit sooner.

However there are two answers. One, tell the company treatment was conventional. Two, make your clients well aware of Petplan's charges before they take out insurance.

Ooh, couldn't resist this. If treatments were complimentary, there would be nothing to claim

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Niall Taylor — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:32:43 GMT

[quote user="pete coleshaw"]

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]This thread seems to have gone a bit cold[/quote]

Roger, I have two ideas why the (for once silent) voices are not pursuing this topic

no 1 it takes a little humility to admit that one has been an unwitting pawn in the pet-food industry's marketing.

no 2 one has a vested interest in being a pawn in their campaigns[/quote]

Or, no 3 - People are no way as stupid as you seem to think. Why can't you grant people a little discernment? When I was at college pedigree petfoods flew me to their Melton Mowbray factory, gave me a guided tour and a free lunch and the result was that when I graduated i spent most of my time telling clients that Pedigree chum was too rich for dogs and gave them diarrhoea and trying to promote "Leo" diets (remember them?).

Getting money from pet food companies is as good a way of getting University funding as any.

Or, no. 4 - People can't understand why Tom/roger prefers to winge about things on forums like this instead of doing something about it like doing a study or taking evidence of corruption to the proper channels - you'd find there were a lot of people behind you on both counts (provided you haven't already alienated them by calling them pawns of the petfood industry).

Niall

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Roger Meacock — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:29:56 GMT

It has also been brought to my notice that Petplan have also introduced an additional excess charge for complimentary therapies - £75 for dogs, £65 for cats and £55 for rabbits. Many complimentary referrals result from having exhausted more conventional treatments with little or no success. To then introduce an extra excess payment for clients who have already paid an excess with regard to a claim on conventional treatment initially creates a barrier that inhibits a referral in that direction. Whilst I appreciate some colleagues do not have much respect for some complimentary therapies it is nonetheless questionnable that an insurance-imposed surcharge has the potential to limit access to any therapy that might be successful in treating an animal where conventional practice has failed or has nothing to offer and also creates a barrier for the inclusion of complementary modalities into clinical practice so that owners are treated by vets with training and qualifications in those techniques.

Acupuncture is probably the most widely accepted of complementary modalities with more vets taking courses to learn and introduce it into their practice. If clients are to be charged a higher excess for this along with the present policy of a significantly reduced maximum claim regardless of the efficacy of that modality for an individual it will do nothing to encourage vets to educate themselves in these practices and limits the potential for the profession to evolve along with the current trend in demand by owners towards these practices. In contrast physiotherapy has been upgraded to full cover regardless of whether it is carried out by anybody who has a recognised qualification or not.

It would appear again that financial pressures are being imposed on our profession that have the potential to influence what vets choose to offer their clients for treatment with no regard for the efficacy of what is on offer in individual cases.

Roger

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

vs0u — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:28:26 GMT

[quote user="beldather"]As an aside, how long do you think it'll take before insurance companies start recommeding clients buy all products from online pharmacies, rather then forking out the big bucks to vets. We as a profession are doing alot of promoting for companies which I very much doubt is going to be result in any long term benefit to our profession or our patients.[/quote]

Some of them already are - I saw a letter a client had - I think from Argos pet insurance - advising them to get their drugs from a specific internet pharmacy.

As for petplan - which our practice is a rep for - I was quite annoyed to find they are now doing annual policies, which they hadn't even told us they were doing, after the training session about 2 years ago when they went on about how annual policies are so unethical and they would never offer them!

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

beldather — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:26:57 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

[quote user="alison howell"]I wonder why they are so worried about upsetting supermarkets by undercutting them? Do they have some deal with them as well?[/quote]

I found that one a bit strange too but there's nothing else to link them to the supermarkets so I've no idea as to the thinking behind it. I'm sure Tesco won't go under for the sake of the sale of a few cans of pet food that's for sure!! Maybe there's an onsite campus shop run by one of the supermarkets or something that might have got upset? Who knows?!

Roger[/quote]

I'd say that due to pedigree masterfoods selling to both the supermarkets(differently marketed brand, but will bet they all fall back to a parent company) and the vet school, the company does not want to upset the supermarkets who are quite capable of telling them to sod off and stop selling said products, and since they will likely be their the most profitable outlet they won't want to upset them.
I remember when I first found out that the dick has the boeringer cardiology position I was quite shocked (as far as I was aware my uni never had such blatant associations), but after reading this article I can see that its just par of the course for the uni. Explains the very nice buildings.

Then again, when you have something like the cascade system which strongly protects drug company profits while doing little for the actual patients as such a central part of the profession, I can't help but think its just part of the long slide downwards.

As an aside, how long do you think it'll take before insurance companies start recommeding clients buy all products from online pharmacies, rather then forking out the big bucks to vets. We as a profession are doing alot of promoting for companies which I very much doubt is going to be result in any long term benefit to our profession or our patients.

Regards

Blair

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Roger Meacock — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:25:11 GMT

[quote user="alison howell"]I wonder why they are so worried about upsetting supermarkets by undercutting them? Do they have some deal with them as well?[/quote]

Roger

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

Roger Meacock — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:24:38 GMT

[quote user="alison howell"]I think you are all getting too worried about the effects it may have on students.[/quote]

Great if you're right but given the prevalence of vets selling commercial pet food I'm not so sure. Much of the programming would be subliminal - just the fact that it's there and being sold and pushed to the public at the place of education is a powerful influence that opens the door that much more easily in the future when you graduate and become the boss who makes the decisions. That was brought home to me in a recent article in one of the vet press magazines where a new practice was set up last year during the recession. A picture of the waiting room showed loads of commercial pet food for sale and the article boasted it was believed to be the biggest Royal Canin display in UK practices. They sure know when to turn up to get maximum leverage from a tricky situation! Obviously I don't know the financial arrangement but if RC supplied all the display shelving and waiting room furbishment for free and promised to help the practice through the difficult set-up phase at that time then is the vet boss likely to kick them into touch in the future?

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

vs0u — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:22:44 GMT

I wonder why they are so worried about upsetting supermarkets by undercutting them? Do they have some deal with them as well?

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

vs0u — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:21:39 GMT

Although all this is very concerning in the way we appear to be manipulated by pet food companies, I think you are all getting too worried about the effects it may have on students.

I graduated from Liverpool in 2006. We had a lecturer whose position was paid for by Hills. He never actually taught us about nutrition. The food in the university hospital was mostly RCW/pedigree food. We were all given free nutrition textbooks from all 3 of the major companies - very thick and full of calculations - doubt anyone ever read much of them!

Our small animal nutrition lectures were in the first or second year (I think) and there were only one or 2 hours on it. It mostly centred around simple calculations and guidelines of how to work out nutritional needs eg 3-4x maintenance for lactation. Mention was made of the benefits of puppy food and liquid diets for tube feeding. Prescription diets were probably mentioned at some point but not with any particular emphasis.

I'm pretty certain that specific brands were not even mentioned in the context of these lectures. In fact the only brand specific thing I remember (from a clinical talk) is that you can send a bladder stone off to Hills for free analysis. I certainly have not come away with any brand loyalty. (Maybe it's different for Edinburgh grads?)

Re: Industry influence in vet matters (RMB-free)

pete coleshaw — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:20:48 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]This thread seems to have gone a bit cold[/quote]

Roger, I have two ideas why the (for once silent) voices are not pursuing this topic

no 1 it takes a little humility to admit that one has been an unwitting pawn in the pet-food industry's marketing.

no 2 one has a vested interest in being a pawn in their campaigns