Bonkers pet food prices?

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:23:29 GMT

I listed aspartame as one of a list of things that have continued to sell despite a reputation of being bad in answer to a point made by Arlo, so no I didn't try to switch the topic as you are doing. Why not stick to the RMB topic and try answering some of the points I've raised?

Nobody has answered the points raised so far so I can only conclude nobody including you have any answers to justify your stance.

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Niall Taylor — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:48:14 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Niall, I haven't provided links re aspartame because this is a debate on RMB.[/quote]

O... K... - so you bring up the subject of aspartame then, when challenged to back up your ridiculous claims, refuse to provide references because it's off topic... Well, I certainly didn't expect that excuse. I'll add it to my list for future reference.

Niall

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:41:02 GMT

Niall, I haven't provided links re aspartame because this is a debate on RMB. If you want to start a thread on aspartame I'm sure Arlo will let you. Until I see that pet foods are using it I'm not interested beyond what I've already said as I don't like the taste anyway so there's no choice to make on health grounds personally - I don't like it so I don't eat/drink it.

Back to RMB - sorry Rob I missed this earlier post

[quote user="Rob Davis"]but the relationship between diet and periodontal disease is condiserably less clear cut in humans. Next time I go to the dentist I will ask him about what links have been established between diet and periodontal disease (he knows I have an interest in dentistry and we generally have a comparative discussion of some sort). Some studies I have found appear to show a relationship between poor diet and periodontal disease in humans, but this does not prove causation - those on a poor diet are less likely to practice good oral hygiene, which I suspect may be more significant in the development of periodontal disease.[/quote]

Firstly we are talking about periodontal disease in our pet carnivores so I'm not sure why you are wanting to get human data to justify your stance on cats and dogs. However from this I gather that you do not have scientific peer-reviewed evidence to back up your argument that commercial pet foods don't cause periodontal disease as I have stated.

OK, well Sir Frank Colyer published the following on periodontal disease in a peer-reviewed British Dental Journal in 1947 "Cats and dogs which lead a freer life and obtain a diet more nearly approaching their natural food, are practically free from the disease."

On the same subject in 1993 Prof Colin Harvey wrote in his text book on small animal dentistry "In a healthy dog or cat fed a ‘natural’ diet that requires tearing and separation of swallowable pieces, the teeth and gingival tissues are largely self-cleaning; that is, plaque is wiped off before it has time to mature to a pathogenic thickness and bacterial mix. When circumstances change so that plaque accumulates, the disease process starts."

So when the profession has no scientific peer-reviewed literature to give commercial pet foods the thumbs up regarding periodontal disease how can it justify recommending this diet when there are 2 endorsements of the natural diet with regard to this? In other words if dogs and cats not fed commercial pet food but a natural diet very rarely get periodontal disease aught we not to be recommending it?

The logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that if the incidence of periodontal disease rises significantly by changing from a natural diet to commercial then either the commercial diet is responsible for it by an unknown mechanism, or the lack of natural diet leads to periodontal disease. If the former reason is true there are only 2 possible mechanisms by which commercial pet food can cause periodontal disease - 1) the diet itself has a direct effect on the mouth that causes it or 2) the commercial diet creates a systemic effect that enables periodontal disease to take hold. Neither are great so no doubt you'd prefer that the lack of the natural diet causes it in which case why recommend its replacement?

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Niall Taylor — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 22:09:15 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

Maybe not ...

[/quote]

Don't tell me, but you're [not prepared to/can't be bothered to/don't see why you should have to/don't have time to*] provide any links to any of this. Neither are you able to say what the "problems" with Aspartane were.

Niall

* Delete where applicable

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 20:16:30 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Wrong again I'm afraid [/quote]

Maybe not ...

An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton analyzed 164 studies which were felt to have relevance to human safety questions. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry money.

Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 7 studies which did not find a problems, 6 of those studies were conducted by the FDA. Given that a number of FDA officials went to work for the aspartame industry immediately following approval (including the former FDA Commissioner), many consider these studies to be equivalent to industry-sponsored research.

Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame. This is reminiscent of tobacco industry research where it is primarily the tobacco research which never finds problems with the product, but nearly all of the independent studies do find problems.

The 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies are those which one inveriably sees cited in PR/news reports and reported by organizations funded by Monsanto/Benevia/NutraSweet (e.g., IFIC, ADA). These studies have severe design deficiencies which help to guarantee the "desired" outcomes.

Unfortunately "scientists" seem to be very good at engineering trials to produce desired results which makes it very difficult to assess what is good/bad especially in literature reviews. Luckily, I don't like the taste of aspartame so I'm not left in a quandry about whether its safe or not - I just don't eat/drink anything containing it because I dislike the taste.

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Niall Taylor — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:27:06 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Aspartame isn't safe either and was originally banned by the FDA on health grounds until it was maneuvered through on a technicality that's well documented.[/quote]

Wrong again I'm afraid -

The notion that aspartame is unsafe has been circulating almost since it first appeared, and like rumors and misinformation have a tendency to do, fears surrounding aspartame have taken on a life of their own. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/aspartame-truth-vs-fiction/

Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies:

The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener. Click for link

Aspartame - Review of Safety Issues:

Available evidence suggests that consumption of aspartame by normal humans is safe and is not associated with serious adverse health effects. Click for link

Links between private habits, psychological stress and brain cancer: a case-control pilot study in France:

... we found no significant effect of head trauma, aspartame, tobacco or alcohol consumption, place (rural or urban) of residence, sociodemographic data, and experience of psychological stress at work/home. Click for link

Artificial sweeteners and the risk of gastric, pancreatic, and endometrial cancers in Italy:

CONCLUSIONS: The present study adds further evidence on the absence of an adverse effect of low-calorie sweetener (including aspartame) consumption on the risk of common neoplams in the Italian population. Click for link.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:51:05 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I would also like to preempt your hypothesis that the evil pet food manufacturers are filling commercial diets with highly addictive substances by saying a) if they were, it would be rather a waste of time (I decide what the dog eats, not the dog), and b) despite it being pretty easy to analyse the composition of dog food, there is no evidence to support this assertion.[/quote]

You've answered the question yourself correctly and no it's not a waste of time clearly as the advertisement says "8 out of 10 owners say their cat prefers it" - so contrary to your belief, what a pet chooses to eat does determine what people buy for their pets to eat. Some pet foods contain additives banned in the human food chain because of the behaviour and brain chemistry changes they cause - which is the basis of addiction.

Comparing cigarette sales now with pet food sales is ridiculous. Until the mainstream medical establishment denounced cigarettes I'm sure cigarette sales rose despite the few Drs who were calling for them to be banned on health grounds before the evidence was revealed. Of course it was easy for mainstream Drs to then denounce cigarettes because I doubt many had cigarette dispensers in their waiting rooms and they didn't have a public image of promoting them. I don't suppose the Drs would have fallen for the tobacco industry ruse had they produced different cigarettes to treat the diseases the harmful ones caused either! They obviously missed out on that trick!

I think it has now been widely established that "diet" soda drinks don't contribute to weight loss either. Aspartame isn't safe either and was originally banned by the FDA on health grounds until it was maneuvered through on a technicality that's well documented.

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:32:18 GMT

I thought this thread was over, but obviously not ...

[quote user="james herriot lied"]And there you go again. There is no battlefield here, save for the one that you're trying to construct[/quote]

"Middle ground" is a well known and commonly used phrase to describe a stance/position that is not at either extreme of opinion. It may have been derived from military background as many phrases in common use are but the only person describing this as a battlefield is you.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]Please don't try to butter me up, either: it ought to be plainly obvious that I'm not seeking your approval here, Roger, nor attempting to be on your team.[/quote]

Don't flatter yourself either. Why would I try to butter someone up who hasn't the guts to use their own name in a debate?

Why don't you answer some of the points I've raised instead of trying to dodge them by attacking me?

To put it bluntly - you have admitted that you are prepared to recommend RMB under some circumstances. That means you see it has advantages over other options under those circumstances. What advantages do you recognise and under what circumstances do you recommend RMB?

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:17:16 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Arlo will you please lock the thread [/quote]

No doubt if I do that I will be accused of stifling free speech and being in the pockets of the evil capitalist pet food manufacturers. So instead, I think it finally goes in our equivalent of Room 101: the controversial forum.

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I am sure much of this will end up in one of the apparently endless pseudo scientific RMB newsletters![/quote]

Which would be a breach of copyright.

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Bob Russell — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:32:01 GMT

As the original OP, Arlo will you please lock the thread as it is going round in circles!

Your summation of the RMB argument is excellent! It is sad that a valid feeding option seems to be relegated to the lunatic fringe.

I am sure much of this will end up in one of the apparently endless pseudo scientific RMB newsletters!

I promise to check all further posts (especially new threads!) carefully to try to prevent the annual arguments that seem to erupt at the mention of pet food, especially at voting time!

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:27:20 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Cigarettes, alcohol, sugary soda drinks, sweets, aspartame, narcotics etc ...[/quote]

I just knew you would come back with this, Roger!

Cigarettes contain a molecule that is more addictive than heroin. I spent long enough time in hospital on morphine to have a sense of just how addictive that is. The answer is very. To some degree, it takes away freedom of choice, because the craving for a fag is just so powerful you have to go and buy a packet. Clearly normal market forces are skewed with a product as powerfully addictive as nicotine, heroin, or for that matter, crack cocaine. I would also like to preempt your hypothesis that the evil pet food manufacturers are filling commercial diets with highly addictive substances by saying a) if they were, it would be rather a waste of time (I decide what the dog eats, not the dog), and b) despite it being pretty easy to analyse the composition of dog food, there is no evidence to support this assertion.

DESPITE the immensely addictive nature of smoking, the market for cigarettes in the UK has been on the decline for some time, for precisely the reason I said:

(Source Cancer Research UK)

Meanwhile, for comparison, here is a chart showing the value of dry dog food sales (in ££ millions) in the UK over the last twenty years, which shows the market delivering a resounding 'yes' vote for commercial diets in the UK:

(remember that if there was evidence that commercial diets were bad for animal health, we would expect to see the reverse of this, as we do with smoking).

I am surprised you use the example of sugary soda drinks, because hardly a day goes by at the moment without there being an announcement from a cola maker about reducing sugar in its drinks. I see here that 68% of Pepsico's UK sales are now low sugar / sugar free. Sugar free cola didn't even exist when I was at school. This is the market economy at work. You may argue that it isn't happening quickly enough. I might even agree with you on that. But the fact is that the market economy does work.

Aspartame? I don't really know enough about aspartame, other than the FSA thinking it is OK for public consumption (after reviewing the research that exists).

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

james herriot lied — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:38:30 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

As one of the few vets perhaps in the middle ground you have yet to challenge those who are rigidly opposed to RMB as you do those who are strong proponents of it ...

[/quote]

And there you go again. There is no battlefield here, save for the one that you're trying to construct. I think this approach is utter tosh, and it doesn't actually serve animal welfare in any way.

Please don't try to butter me up, either: it ought to be plainly obvious that I'm not seeking your approval here, Roger, nor attempting to be on your team. What you term a lack of comprehension in others might just be what they consider seeing right through your argument: an acknowledgement that you might not have all the answers would go a long way to helping this debate to be where you claim to want it to be.

The them and us thing isn't working for you here; it may do so elsewhere, but not in a forum of your peers.

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:18:28 GMT

Arlo, Just read your post after last post to JHL. I don't entirely agree with your summation but I'm not going to address it further except for one point. If what you say is true then market forces would indeed preside and good would rise and bad would fall. Unfortunately that doesn't happen like it should ...

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Those things we don't want to buy, say because we discover they are bad for our health, don't sell (er, obviously).[/quote]

Cigarettes, alcohol, sugary soda drinks, sweets, aspartame, narcotics etc ...

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:06:08 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

I thought I'd addressed what you were saying earlier but maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at. I gave your observations equal validity to mine. My observation using my terrier was made purely to give a comparison and of course it is up to you whether you still consider Chappie to be as satisfactory as you previously thought on the basis of that.

Other colleagues observations are equally as important provided those observations are objective and rational.

[/quote]

This was an answer to the question that I asked. Thank you.

[/quote]

This was the answer you wanted re whether I consider your individual observations and others as valid as mine. From what you say you aren't as polarised as many are in this debate against RMB which is great and I respect what you say and that you are prepared to consider and recommend RMB as you see appropriate. You are in a very small minority or so it seems. Many others don't consider RMB a valid feeding option under any circumstances and seemingly have no appreciation or comprehension on it at all, even for the more accepted benefits, which is why I went on to answer your other question about why the observations of those who do not have your more balanced approach make observations that cannot be considered rational and are therefore of questionable validity. You asked the question so please don't complain when you get an answer and explanation. I provided the evidence to back up what I said and you provided no mitigating answer to my observations to make me reconsider my position in any new light. As one of the few vets perhaps in the middle ground you have yet to challenge those who are rigidly opposed to RMB as you do those who are strong proponents of it ...

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

james herriot lied — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:25:12 GMT

Sorry, Arlo - hadn't noticed your post.

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

james herriot lied — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 23:23:54 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

Other colleagues observations are equally as important provided those observations are objective and rational.

[/quote]

This was an answer to the question that I asked. Thank you.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]

I would hope that by now anybody who has shown any interest in the RMB/junk food debate has grasped the idea that one of the central arguments in favour of raw fed dogs and cats is that they have significantly cleaner teeth and much less periodontal disease - that's backed up by papers already listed ad infinitum so I won't go into that here again. It is probably the one area in these discussions where there seems to be some concession made in favour of RMB. How a survey published in the Vet Times in Nov 2012 can show results that puts RMB at the bottom of the list of diets that are healthy for teeth just beggars belief. Unfortunately it would appear to demonstrate that when it comes to raw diets the daggers are automatically drawn and even in an area where published papers highlight the dental health benefits of raw diets yet the survey demonstrated a complete denial of this. Amazingly kibble came out best for teeth too which shows a degree of polarisation in the face of significant evidence to the contrary that undermines the observational accuracy and reliability of those not in favour of RMB. What other conclusions can be drawn from this?

Similarly, vets opposed to RMB trawl out all the same bogus objections that are highlighted by the PFMA and there are unhealthy alliances with that organisation that undermines the perception of impartiality of vets in debates on nutrition. I call the objections bogus because thousands of owners are now feeding RMB without ever having any of the problems we're supposed to get without fail. I acknowledge that some raw feeders don't do it properly and get it wrong but when vets on the whole are largely ignorant as to how to support a proper RMB diet that is not surprising. However it is not right or justifiable to dismiss a proper RMB diet on the basis of those who try but get it wrong. Yet that is what frequently happens - I suspect again because there is unsufficient knowledge taught at vet schools about how to properly feed RMB. Some vets attitude towards owners feeding raw can be disproportionately aggressive in some cases and you'd laugh at some of what has been blamed on the raw diet it is so way out! Believe it or not there are some anti-RMB vets who are as passionate and aggressive as you think pro-RMB ones are!

If the pet food industry didn't have such an insidious relationship with the veterinary profession starting with nutrition education resulting in practices that now have such a financial reliance on such pet foods then maybe the observations of more vets would be taken more seriously. The one thing I cannot be accused of is having any vested interest in promoting RMB.

[/quote]

This was not. Why do you insist on doing this, Roger? You've made your point already, and yet you continue to promote a gulf between us, largely by denigrating those who disagree with you. I'm really not sure why you do this: I have a number of theories, but none of them alter the fact that you seem hell-bent on polarising any debate.

For the avoidance of doubt, if I choose to recommend RMB for a patient it's not in any way because of anything that you've stated; it's because I feel it's appropriate for that client. If I consider RMB to be a bad idea for a patient, it's because I've looked at the individual needs and local environment of that patient, and decided against it. There is no point in either situation where I feel I'm taking sides, making an ethical stand or seeking to promote my own self-interests over the interests of my patient. It is, I feel, utterly ridiculous that you not only take such an adversarial stance on the matter but that you continue to try to ram your beliefs down my throat even when I've expressly asked you not to. How does that help the debate? It doesn't.

How does it help you? Well, it sets you apart from the majority of the profession, which by a happy accident won't hurt your USP. Do you honestly want to debate the morality and ethics of our respective approaches, Roger?

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Arlo Guthrie — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 22:55:32 GMT

Is it time to lock this thread and draw a close to this discussion?

Seems to me that there's nothing really new in this debate

RMB proponents argue that RMB must be better, because that is a dog's natural diet in the wild. But beguiling as the proposition is, they have not one jot of empirical evidence to support it, instead preferring to hypothesise that there has been an increase in disease, and that this increase is due to diet, and not, say, to the fact that dogs are living longer.

Furthermore, RMB fascists choose to ignore the fact that consumers want the convenience of commercial diets, and that removing it could be detrimental to animal welfare

Nor, it seems, have they considered the wisdom of arguing for greater consumption of battery chickens (don't tell me everyone is going to feed their dog "Tesco Finest"), at a time when just about everyone else argues the reverse.

RMB proponents argue that the onus is on pet food manufacturers to conduct trials comparing RMB to their products. By that line of thought, the manufacturers of all processed food for human consumption should do the same. Of course that is never going to happen in a market economy. What happens in a market economy is that we all decide of our own free will what we want to buy. Those things we don't want to buy, say because we discover they are bad for our health, don't sell (er, obviously). The same market forces apply to our pets. If pet food really was making our pets ill, then consumers would vote with their wallets. Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions worldwide, HAVE voted with their wallets, for commercial diets.

Each bag of pet food bought represents another consumer observing that their dog is fit and well on it. Now these hundreds of millions of dog owners MAY all be wrong. But statistically, that has to count as a bit of a long shot.

If they ARE wrong, any benefit in RMB must surely be marginal, or pet owners would already have noticed, and sales of commercial diets would be in freefall. They are not.

This makes the very unprofessional vitriol which invariably permeates the RMB rhetoric all the more indefensible.

If RMBers really were concerned with animal welfare, they would instead adopt a more conciliatory stance and recruit the help of supporters in order to get proper, independent trials carried out. That would doubtless achieve rather more than all this pissing in the wind

I doubt that day will come. But until it does, or there is some proper evidence, can we leave it at that?

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 22:21:23 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]What I would like your or Roger to do is to respond to my question about validity of conclusions drawn from our respective experiences: my experience of the diet I choose is that it's been great. You have formed an equal and equivalent opinion about the diet you choose to feed. Is there anything about the way that your brain works that automatically makes your opinion more valid than mine? And just to gently remind you, this isn't about the countless commendations that you've received, or the papers that you claim to see. It's about the anecdotal evidence that you propound, and why you think it's intrinsically more valuable than other colleagues'.[/quote]

Other colleagues observations are equally as important provided those observations are objective and rational. I would hope that by now anybody who has shown any interest in the RMB/junk food debate has grasped the idea that one of the central arguments in favour of raw fed dogs and cats is that they have significantly cleaner teeth and much less periodontal disease - that's backed up by papers already listed ad infinitum so I won't go into that here again. It is probably the one area in these discussions where there seems to be some concession made in favour of RMB. How a survey published in the Vet Times in Nov 2012 can show results that puts RMB at the bottom of the list of diets that are healthy for teeth just beggars belief. Unfortunately it would appear to demonstrate that when it comes to raw diets the daggers are automatically drawn and even in an area where published papers highlight the dental health benefits of raw diets yet the survey demonstrated a complete denial of this. Amazingly kibble came out best for teeth too which shows a degree of polarisation in the face of significant evidence to the contrary that undermines the observational accuracy and reliability of those not in favour of RMB. What other conclusions can be drawn from this?

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:36:43 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]Bless you Roger, you are free do do as you wish with my posts - I consider yours as a rich source of amusement, I trust that is ok with you.[/quote]

Bless you too. I'm pleased you find my posts as amusing as I find yours!

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]No, that's your idea of the scientific process, and it's nonsense[/quote]

It's how much "science" is done these days and I agree it's nonsense.

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

but would you care to address an earlier post which someone made regarding the following paper:

Axelsson, E., et al The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet Nature Vol. 495, pp. 360–364

[/quote]

Sorry to drag you back to reality but may I suggest you read an earlier post on 19th March in which I addressed it. Nobody has ever denied that dogs can utlise starch but being able to digest/utilise something does not equate to it being good or the best food source. Dogs still have no dietary requirement for carbs so an evolutionary adaptation that enables their use in hardship does not in itself justify commercial pet foods.

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Roger Meacock — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:22:31 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]It must be, you do use it a lot (incidentally, you've declined to answer or ignored quite a few questions in this topic, but that's fairly standard debate tactics.)[/quote]

Hi Mark

Nobody has presented me with any science that qualifies commercial pet foods on a par with raw so no I'm not ignoring anything I don't like - it's been done as far as I'm aware but hasn't been published because it favours raw. I don't ever remember reclassifying dogs - they're carnivores and classified officially as such as a sub-species of the grey wolf. I haven't just relied on in-house research either. I haven't buried any results and I haven't produced any products to treat diseases anything I've done or created has caused. I'm at a loss to see where you think I'm using the tactics used by commercial pet food companies ...

I don't think I've refused to answer any questions on topic. If I have maybe you can point them out and I'll happily answer them.

Roger

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Arlo Guthrie — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:56:27 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]

Would you mind revisiting that information and then let us know if and where difficulties still arise and perhaps we can refocus?

Cheers,

Tom

[/quote]

Tom

We are indeed having a difficulty in communication here, and I have no idea why: you seem to be a person with some intelligence behind him, you can read and you're ostensibly here to raise awareness of your campaign and maybe even garner a few votes. So I don't understand why you keep reflecting my question with non sequiturs and ruminations on the fallibility of the rest of us idiots.

I'll try one more time, at least.

I don't want a riposte on the quality of Chappie - or for that matter any other 'work of Satan', as you have it. That you don't like my choice of diet is evident; I don't care. Not one jot. I respect your right to make your own choices, and perhaps you should consider this principle in your interactions with others.

What I would like your or Roger to do is to respond to my question about validity of conclusions drawn from our respective experiences: my experience of the diet I choose is that it's been great. You have formed an equal and equivalent opinion about the diet you choose to feed. Is there anything about the way that your brain works that automatically makes your opinion more valid than mine? And just to gently remind you, this isn't about the countless commendations that you've received, or the papers that you claim to see. It's about the anecdotal evidence that you propound, and why you think it's intrinsically more valuable than other colleagues'.

If you still have some difficulty in understanding the question, its parameters or what constitutes a non-answer, do let me know. I'll endeavour to clarify as far as I can.

[/quote]

Game, set and match to James Herriot Lied

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:48:59 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]If you want to argue that annual dentals aren't necessary why are they pushed so hard?[/quote]

They aren't. Are they? Cripes I hope not. (Maybe in the USA, but I'm afraid the USA is beyond my control).

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

james herriot lied — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:57:26 GMT

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]

Would you mind revisiting that information and then let us know if and where difficulties still arise and perhaps we can refocus?

Cheers,

Tom

[/quote]

Tom

I'll try one more time, at least.

If you still have some difficulty in understanding the question, its parameters or what constitutes a non-answer, do let me know. I'll endeavour to clarify as far as I can.

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

Niall Taylor — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:58:36 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"] Remind me again why I might consider taking any of your posts seriously?! [/quote]

Bless you Roger, you are free do do as you wish with my posts - I consider yours as a rich source of amusement, I trust that is ok with you.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]The scientific process you talk so highly of - is that the one where you ignore science that doesn't fit with what you want to prove, try to reclassify dogs to justify cheap inappropriate ingredients, do the research with in-house by employees who select results to fit the preconceived conclusions and bury any results that don't show what you want the world to see and then create a whole new range of even more expensive products to treat the diseases your maintenance range causes?[/quote]

No, that's your idea of the scientific process, and it's nonsense - see my earlier reference to paranoid fantasies.

Sorry to drag you back to reality but would you care to address an earlier post which someone made regarding the following paper:

Axelsson, E., et al The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet Nature Vol. 495, pp. 360–364

(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html)

"... Ten genes with key roles in starch digestion and fat metabolism also show signals of selection. We identify candidate mutations in key genes and provide functional support for an increased starch digestion in dogs relative to wolves. Our results indicate that novel adaptations allowing the early ancestors of modern dogs to thrive on a diet rich in starch, relative to the carnivorous diet of wolves, constituted a crucial step in the early domestication of dogs."

So it appears that dogs are adapted to digest starch after all.

Niall

Re: Bonkers pet food prices?

James Laidlaw — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:11:08 GMT

Tom, do you still run a veterinary practice in Australia, and if so how? I can only assume if RMB cures all that the poison foods create, there are no sick animals to see to derive any income from...