August 11th, 2010
The argument AGAINST feeding dogs and cats RAW pet foods boils down to a single message about safety, in two parts:
1. Concerns over nutritional completeness and balance
2. Concerns over parasites and contamination
Gains Have Been Made
Our pets live longer than they once did thanks to both consistent, convenient nutrition and advances in veterinary medicine. There are other things, of course, like protection from dangers of cars and predators.
Still … dogs and cats in the developed world enjoy tremendous lives, free from the stress and strain of finding food, water, and shelter on their own.
Raw Pet Food Concerns
After Keith Niessenbaum (a veterinarian with Crawford Dog & Cat Hospital in Garden City Park, NY) commented on an earlier post about Dog Food Rotation Schedules, I asked him for some insights into why he does NOT recommend feeding raw food diets, or BARF diets, or even bones, to his patients.
Before we get into his concerns, Niessenbaum says, “I would like to say that it is possible to formulate raw diets that are safe and nutritious. There is nothing inherent in a raw diet that would render it automatically nutritionally inferior. I am just concerned that the processing of these foods makes the risks of feeding greater than the benefit. If my clients wish to feed a more ‘basic’ diet, I work with them and a nutritionist to help them formulate a home-cooked diet that is balanced and safe.”
That said, here are his main concerns over feeding RAW pet food:
Lacking nutritional completeness and balance since these raw foods are “often made by small companies that have not done enough research to determine if the diets are nutritionally adequate” based on AAFCO standards, he says.
Food contamination introduced into our family kitchens.
“Human beings have proven time and time again that we are unable to produce food on a consistent basis without the danger of contamination. Our own food is contaminated with dangerous bacteria, and prudent handling is needed to prevent food born illness,” Niessenbaum says.
“The same is true for our pets,” he adds. “It simply is not true that dogs and cats have some sort of immunity to food born salmonella and E. Coli infections. I have seen them and treated them.”
“In addition,” Niessenbaum says, “pet food preparation is often done in the same area as human food preparation in the home. This can potentially contaminate the kitchen with bacteria that are harmful to owners.”
Seriously icky parasites. Cooking and processing kills parasites found in pet food ingredients. No cooking? Meats from organic sources that may not use deworming medications? Creepy things may come along for the ride. Some of them are “zoonotic,” meaning they can pass from pets to people. (Children and the elderly are particularly at risk.)
Lack of proof that these diets are nutritionally superior. Niessenbaum says, “I am not aware of good scientific study that shows that raw diets are nutritionally superior to premium processed diets.”
The Evolutionary Argument?
In response to the idea that today’s domestic dogs and cats are hardwired from an evolutionary perspective to eat raw, Niessenbaum says, “My shih tzu isn’t killing anything and is no closer to that theoretical wild beast than I am to early hominids.”
He adds that many “natural” things aren’t exactly good for us (or our pets) … like:
- Infectious disease
- Parasites
- Predators
Processed Foods & Nutrient Assimilation
I think it’s important to note that Niessenbaum is himself VERY health conscious. “Look” he says, “I cook for myself, minimize the amount of highly processed foods that I eat, and exercise regularly. OK, more than regularly. My credentials include a full Ironman Traithlon and a couple of 1/2 Ironman length races every year.”
“I understand the value of a quality diet and readily assimilated nutrients,” he continues. “However, I don’t think that the only way to get these nutrients is by a raw, unprocessed diet. In fact, a certain level of processing makes these nutrients more available to me. The same is true for my dog.”
No Food is Perfect
Both processed foods and raw foods have experienced recalls. Niessenbaum treated several pets for melamine toxicity stemming from a processed pet foods.
“However,” he says, “there was just a recall last week of a raw diet that was found to be contaminated with enteric bacteria. I feel that this is a risk that pet owners do not address. The risk is to them and their pets.”
***
What about you? If you do not feed raw, why not?
P.S. If you’re just joining the discussion, we’ve now covered both sides of this debate. Last week, we posted The Case For Feeding Raw. Check it out.
Stay tuned … the discussion continues in the next couple of weeks.
Related Posts
Tags: feeding raw, pet allergies, pet food allergies, raw cat food, raw dog food, raw meaty bones, raw pet food
Posted in Dog Food Debates, K9 Nutrition | 18 Comments »
18 Responses to “The Case Against Feeding Raw”
A professional writer based in Colorado, Roxanne Hawn doesn't just love dogs. She deep-down requires them in life. Something inside her genes, perhaps? That's why it's such a joy to write about all things canine. Roxanne began writing about pets in 1995, when she worked for the American Animal Hospital Association and later for the American Humane Association. During this period in her career, Roxanne served on the board of directors for the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (a coalition of animal welfare groups). Roxanne also volunteered for many years at an animal shelter, where she witnessed firsthand what happens when the human-animal bond breaks or never forms.
Here’s a question I’ve been wondering about. Many of the proponents of feeding raw make the argument that the dog’s digestive system is very similar to their wild ancestor, the wolf, and therefore should eat as wolves do–raw, and if at all possible, they should ideally eat the whole small animal including guts, eyes, brain, and so on. If that’s not possible, which it usually is not, then feed raw and round out the diet with organ meats, supplemental oils, and so on. My question is, if dogs have evolved to be quite different from wolves in appearance and behavior (often do to our selective breeding), wouldn’t their digestive systems have evolved also such that they could do well on diets that are not entirely raw or raw at all. Or, did their digestive system not evolve even as their appearance and behavior did? Does this make any sense? Just wondering.
Deborah, I have many of the same questions/doubts … to be honest. Next week, I’m posting my thoughts, and your point is one that I have as well.
Deborah, the many proponents of raw diets often get the information they base their opinions on from other feeders and ‘raw folk lore’. I feed my dogs raw, however, it is supplemented and controlled and don’t have an issue with anyone feeding a commercial diet. I enjoyed this article because it highlighted where a raw diet can go wrong. I’m a huge advocate of basing opinion on scientific fact.
In a real nut shell, the domestic canine has a digestive system that is CAPABLE of digesting raw meat without problems simply because of the enzymes in the stomach. Different enzymes break down different matter and those required to break down and process raw food are different from those needed to process a cooked diet.
Many people quickly start to draw comparisons with wolves and we have to maintain perspective. This has nothing to do with wolves!
Everything about the dog has evolved to adapt to the domestic environment it has now been bred in. So, this means that it has to have a stomach with enzymes present to digest both raw and cooked foods as this is what its food source is made up of.
I hope that goes some way to explaining that the focus shouldn’t be on the great and often misguided wolf/domestic canine debate but on what a dog can and cannot process. The answer in this case is both types of food. However, if you look at input = output, commercial pet foods full of wheats and additives create a lot of waste product (unusable substance to the dog). Raw diets create a lot less waste as it is processed and absorbed by the dog.
Great to hear interest and questions being asked.
Jez Rose
canine & wolf behaviour specialist
(PhD Canine & Wolf Behavioural Psychology)
I think the whole balance meal thing is a false premise. Humans don’t eat a balanced meal every meal … it’s about balance over a period of time, maybe several days. Most raw feeders I know don’t advocate the same raw food day in, day out either – that would be just like feeding the same bowl of kibble day in, day out. If you’re going to feed raw, you need to mix it up with different kinds of raw meat, organs, etc. – which assists in getting balance.
And the whole hygiene issue is a non-starter. Niessenbaum’s food preparation argument in the kitchen is just as valid if you are preparing raw food for human consumption as it is for pet consumption. Doesn’t matter who the food is for – you need to follow the same clean up practices if you’re making it for yourself or your pet.
Is it really believed that domestication = evolution? So, if a tame male and a tame female were bred, resulting in at least one tame offspring, then that species has evolved? Or, has it become more domesticated?
The Institute of Cytology and Genetics, in the Soviet Union, did a 40+ year study with the silver fox where only the tamest of animals were bred. It was found that these animals changed color and changed in other physical characteristics like floppy ears and curled tails. While I do not have a working knowledge of this study, I do not recall it ever being sited that their diets changed, or that their dietary needs changed, because of domestication.
I believe diet has everything to do with the similarity between dogs and wolves. A dog’s DNA varies almost negligibly with that of the grey wolf and the two can be interbred AND have viable offspring. If the resulting offspring is in fact viable, then should it be fed a species-appropriate diet or should it be fed kibble? I see the obvious answer as being a species-appropriate diet, or raw as defined by most people.
Much like the fox have changed in this experiment, people have had thousands of years to breed the characteristics they want out of the wolf to make our many breeds of dogs. Smell hasn’t changed much – but in some breeds the olfactory sense has been improved. Sight hasn’t really changed, but sight hounds have been developed. Is it believed that humans have bred out the dietary and nutritional needs of the wolf so dogs can eat kibble? If so, then they’ve completed a magnificent feat since kibble was introduced in the 1940′s.
Thank you Dave and Jez for your replies. Both are very interesting to me. Clearly, at least to me, there is an academic question here as well as a more practical one–what diet works best for my particular dog? After experimenting with many approaches, I do feed Sadie mostly raw with some supplements.
Thanks again.
Deborah – There are many folks on Twitter that are fans of raw and who are also very knowledgeable. Feel free to ask questions. I can be reached by addressing to @rawk9s.
I don’t share the belief that one has to find the diet that works best for a specific dog. I’ve seen people “claim” that their dog can’t eat a species-appropriate diet, but I’d put that akin to a cow not being able to eat grass. Do I think there could be sensativities to specific foods – Yes. Do I think a dog will not thrive on species-appropriate diet – No.
Dogs/wolves in the wild eat the proper balance of meat, bone and offal. We humans just need to tinker with what we feed to get the “balance” correct. That balance is meat, bone and offal, not meat and vegetables.
Good luck!
I’ll post the same question here as I did on the previous blog.
Is there some sort of nutritional deficiency created by taking a raw diet and cooking it?
I hate handling raw foods before cooking them for myself and as the veterinarian stated, dogs are not immune to things like salmonella and Ecoli. Considering both my personal preference and the threat of infection, I’m more apt to do a home cooked diet. But is there something I’d be losing with that?
Karen – YES – cooking destroys the nutrients in food. I’ll offer this link: http://www.rawfed.com/myths/cookedfood.html.
The link didn’t work
Sorry, the period was included in the link: http://www.rawfed.com/myths/cookedfood.html
Thanks for reposting that.
As a journalist, I’m always looking for an “about” page that explains something about who is responsible for the website and what his or her credentials are. I didn’t see anything of that sort on this website. It’s a real shame.
I know it is the natural way to go, but I really don’t like the idea of feeding a raw diet for the fear of contamination.
I feed my cats raw some of the time, and I have no worries at all about contamination. When I’m preparing their food, I handle the raw ingredients w/ the same precautions I use in the kitchen when I’m preparing food for human consumption.
Hi Dave, just to make my post clear (I intentionally kept it succinct), I’m not saying that there isn’t a link between dogs and wolves – I’m focusing purely on the argument of feeding raw diets. If we’re talking about feeding raw to a domestic dog we really don’t need to think about or even mention wolves. For the same reason that you sited – they’re similar. Which was my point: both are capable of eating different diets because of adaptive enzymes – or more specifically appropriate enzyme production. You could feed a wolf on a commercial dog food diet fine – bu the point is they don’t. The same way that we can feed a dog either raw or commercial food and the appropriate enzymes are produced in order to break the food down.
The issue isn’t to do with evolutionary domestication and that wasn’t my point; apologies if I didn’t make myself very clear! It’s just that all too often people compare wolves with dogs as being similar and they’re not. Yes, we know there are almost identical genetic structures (but so have apes and humans) but thousands of years of genetic evolution have changed the wolf from the domestic canine. So, I always try to steer people away from the “what would wolves do” when thinking about domestic dogs. Why is it never “what would wild dingo do?” or “what do jackals do?”. Neither offer any relevant answers.
Deborah’s question was quite specific in asking about the evolution of dogs from wolves and I wanted to answer that specifically.
Hope that helps!
Jez
Even the very best kibbles out there like Orijon which is considered by the Glycemic Ressearch Institute in Washington D.C. as the helthiest DRY food there is, are way too high in starch. You do not have to have a special degree to know that dogs should not be fed starchy foods. And kibble sure is not working. It is an almost 100 percent certainty that a dog on a kibble food diet will have more dental and ear and allergy problems than a dog on a properly done raw diet. Kibble fed dogs at some points in their lives will be put on meds like prednisone to cope with their bodies going haywire from food that they are not biologically equipped to handle. The kibble ,even the best, is a clear failure over time. The anecdotal evidence in favor of raw is overwhelming. I give my dog at least one full meal per day of Stella and Chewy’s raw. It is safe, pathogen free, nutritionally complete, balanced, and whatver short comings it may or may not have, it is better for him than the Orijen and Instinct kibbles he used to get. And raw recreational bones make much more sense than brushing your dog’s teeth with the CET toothpaste that vets are peddling, which contains dextrsoe, the same sugar in soda-pop, and sorbital which feeds undesirable yeasts and (though it is not likely) can cause irritable bowles syndrome and stomach problems.
Karen workman asks:
Is there some sort of nutritional deficiency created by taking a raw diet and cooking it?
My answer: Yes, the proteins become denatured by cooking. A dog cannot use denatured proteins as effectively as they can the proteins in their raw natural states. That is one of the main reasons for feeding a raw diet. Also cooking for as short as thirty seconds at temeperatures above 130 F begins to destroy enzymes in the meat. Dog food companies try to compensate by spraying on enymes, but it is only an approxmation of the enzymes found in raw food. Also you cannot feed cooked bones to dogs. By cooking the boneless meat you have to ad calcium back in with eggshells or supplements, but again we are trying to compensate for a loss of what nature had provided. By cooing hte food many natural vitamins and other nutrients are weakened and lost. When they are added back in they are often synthetic and poor substitutes for he natutal substitutes.
Other things to consider in response to other people here: The best credentials that one might have to speak on dog nutrtion are not always formal ones. Mnay health conscious pet owners have studied pet nutrtion far more extensively than vets, who mostly get there few hours of nutrtion education from dog food compnaieslike Hills — th makers of Science Diet, which is a food loaded with cron wheat and soy that dogs are allergic to. The Amercian Vetrinary Medical Association eve partners with Hills, so how can anyone take seriously anything that the AVMA has to say about nutrtion. According to dgfoodanalysis.com Science Diet gets their lowest possible rating. Yet the Vets who are agaisnt feeding raw diets sell this horrible food to clients.
There are companies who provide raw food that has been made pathogen free from a technique called hydro high pressure. There is no risk of a peson or pet getting harmful bacteria formthe food as long as it is handled sensibly; it has far less harmful bacteria than the raw meat you buy at the grocery store.
I will say upfront, I am a proponent of a raw diet for dogs. There are many great points made in the comment section. There are several components of the original blog post and comments that I find troubling, because I see and hear them all the time.
First, is the sensationalistic tone surrounding raw diets. In the blog post several headings speak directly to the western civilization perception of raw foods: “Food contamination introduced into our family kitchens”, “Seriously icky parasites”- words like “contamination” with “family kitchens” or “icky parasites” only perpetuate the myth that raw food is inherently “bad”. This idea that raw is “bad” for the family or pet because of “icky” parasites is an argument not based on the health and well-being of our pet companions but rather on our feelings and perceptions. When arguing for or against raw the sensationalistic tone should be left out for a comprehensive debate to happen. We have the means to handle and deal with raw meat without an increase in the probability that our pets, family, or selves will be in danger.
Second, “The Lack of Proof that these diets are nutritionally superior”- this comment always gets me too. On the surface part of this comment is correct, it is very difficult to impossible to find a peer reviewed article of a study on raw dog diets in relation to nutritional superiority. I argue this point can be easily reversed and stated that there is a “lack of proof that commercially produced kibble diets are nutritionally superior to raw diets” Again, you will have a difficult time finding any study that addresses this statement directly. Therefore, the statement is circular, because the scientific evidence does not address the comparison between diets. The scientific evidence tends to address the components of a diet that can be present in either diet (raw or processed), and their affect on biological condition. There is one caveat, as eloquently addressed by Whole Dog Journal in the July 2010 issue, a study from the 1940′s. Dr. Francis Pottenger conducted a study and published a report on the condition of cats feed a raw diet and a cooked diet. Dr. Pottenger found that on a raw diet cats thrived and on a cooked diet cats did not.
If we can not look to a current scientific study, then the best resource is to consider the evolutionary history of the dog. An exception I have to Dr. Rose’s comments is the characterization that dogs are very different from wolves and that in her opinion no comparison should be made with regards to raw diets. As Mr. Teetz states the DNA differences between wolves and dogs are negligible. The domesticated dog is no longer classified as a different species from the gray wolf, it differs only in sub-species status. I argue, we should look to the gray wolf, or even the dingo as a reference for the type of diet that is appropriate for our Canis lupus familiaris, because they are all the same species. This is not the same as saying that apes and humans have a similar DNA structure, we do, but we differ enough that apes and humans don’t even share the same genus. We only share the same Family in terms of classification. i.e. domesticated dogs are closer to the gray wolf in regards to evolutionary than humans are to apes.