Picking the Bones of the Raw Diet Debate

Here is where my political and animal lives converge. I'm not even sure which category to put this in. ;)

After the night of hell known as "Election 2004," I picked up and read a couple of books by linguist George Lakoff on the use of language in political discourse. He discussed how conservatives have used language in a way that has been successful for them in framing political debate, and progressives generally have not. Part of why I found his points compelling is that I have noticed similar patterns over the years in discussions of feeding raw diets to dogs and cats.

Pro-raw feeding extremists tend to be bombastic and refuse to admit any variation among individual animals, nor the needs, wants, or desires of the owners of these animals as regards diet. Any problem can be solved by diet, and if problems persist after switching to a raw diet, then the diet needs to be further refined and tweaked. They tend to be anti-vet, anti-commercial foods, anti-cooked food, anti-grain, and often anti-supplement.

If your dog fell down the stairs and sprained his shoulder, diet caused it and a diet change will fix it. Raw meaty bones are the universal prescription.

Anti-raw feeding extremists tend to be bombastic and refuse to admit any possible benefits of a raw or homemade diet. They lump all homemade diets together as unbalanced and dangerous, and all raw meats, from the contaminated ground 4-D meats labeled unfit for human consumption to a $19 a pound grass-fed steak, are considered equally dangerous. Commercial diets are above reproach, formulated by scientists who are completely removed from any marketing, pricing, or competitive realities. Health comes in a sack labeled "Complete and Balanced," and dogs and cats who are fed raw are doomed to have their skeletons dissolve and their intestines turn to raw, bloody jelly, shortly after which they will all die long, painful deaths from parasite infestations.

If your dog is hit by a car, and needs surgery, the accident was caused by diet and putting the dog on kibble will fix it. Commercial diets are the universal prescription.

In the middle is everyone else - those who feed a little "people food" to their pets but feel bad about it, those who wouldn't dream of supplementing Mopsy's "complete and balanced" commercial diet with anything beyond the occasional complete and balanced Milk Bone, those who regularly feed pizza, Big Macs, and french fries to their dogs and can't remember the last time they bought dog food for the dog or ate a salad themselves, those who use a wide variety of fresh foods with premium kibbles, and those who feed an entirely homemade diet but aren't "pure" enough to satisfy the raw-food extremists. And most importantly, there are the seekers - the legions of dog and cat owners flooding the email lists and message boards trying to figure out how to feed their pets better, wanting to understand what "the raw diet" is exactly, looking for hints on switching their pets, trying to find out if switching to a better commercial diet or completely to homemade will help a pet with a health problem.

These folks are met with a hailstorm of advice, most peppered with acronyms that make no sense to them. They are given suggestions to read certain books by some, and admonitions that they should forget the books and listen to their common sense and/or Mother Nature and/or evolution by others. Feed bones, don't feed bones, don't feed raw, you are killing your dog by feeding it kibble, keep feeding kibble until you're ready to feed raw responsibly, and above all, don't commit heresy. ("Heresy" would be advocating Billinghurst to a crowd of Lonsdaleians - and if you don't know what I mean, be thankful and move on.)

It's kind of funny that I am often criticized as being "not holistic enough" by the raw-feeding extremists, not because I myself don't feed in a way they approve of, but because I tend not to shove my way down everyone's throat. I usually recommend several books laying out a number of approaches to canine and feline nutrition, and suggest that people experiment and see what they like best and what their pets do best on. To me it makes sense, but there's a problem with that seemingly reasonable approach.

David Brock in The Republican Noise Machine points out that television "news" shows often bring on a conservative spokesperson or guest to represent one side of an issue, and then "balance" that with a supposedly "liberal" guest who in reality is a journalist or academic who sees themselves with a mission to take each issue seperately, look at it from all sides, and form an objective opinion on it. The conservative guest will relentlessly and often powerfully deliver the message d'jour of the conservative movement, while the supposedly liberal guest will appear weak and uncommitted because they are not interested in being "on message" or converting people to a point of view - they are interested in ideas, in thoughts, in the process of decision-making itself. They feel that if they lay out the facts and the analysis, people will make up their own minds.

This whole thing reminds me of the famous quote by Robert Frost, "A liberal man is too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel." At some point, I imagine my broad-mindedness and objectivity (as I see it) on the subject of canine and feline diet come across as an unwillingness to take a stand and say what I truly believe. On the other hand, I honestly can't abandon my values and beliefs, and start telling people what I think they should do. I'm allergic to gurus and would rather people make their own decisions than adopt mine, even if their decision is ultimately, in my view, the wrong one. So, what to do?

One thing I think would be very helpful with the seekers, those swing voters of the pet food wars, is to stop using language that triggers fear. I think that the extremists on both sides are, sometimes deliberately and sometimes unconsciously, trying to use fear to get people to do what they think they should do, and I think that the only ethical thing is to stop doing that. Stop telling them they are killing their dog or cat. It's not true and that's apparent soon enough. Millions of dogs and cats live long, relatively healthy lives eating kibble. It's just a fact. Their health may not be as good as it could have been, and many of them would have been healthier on a better diet, but while to say that "kibble kills cats" as one internet guru I know does might technically be true in some cases, it is obviously untrue to nearly everyone who hears it. Just the same, no anti-raw vet can tell me that "raw meat kills pets" when I've had so many cats and dogs live long, healthy lives - longer in the case of my deerhounds then their kibble-fed littermates raised by other people - on raw diets.

Beyond that, those of us who support non-commercial diets can use language that is less exclusionary and judgemental and off-putting. Definitely stop using jargon and acronyms like "RMBs" and "BARF" that mean nothing to most people.

We really need to stop reflexively saying or implying that diets based on bones are the only alternative to kibble. Lead people by the hand through easy stages. You CAN jump from Ol' Roy to whole prey carcass in one step, but hardly anyone does or will. Many of us started out slowly, adding fresh foods to commercial foods, improving the commercial foods we use, or switching to cooked homemade diets, before we started really experimenting with diets based on carcasses and bones and hunks of meat. The process does matter, because it's by going through their own process at their own pace that people become invested in preparing their dog or cat's food themselves. It's a way for them to build confidence in their ability to feed their pet, and to find ways to make it work with their lifestyle, as well as financial and time constraints. If they are by nature someone who goes whole hog with new ideas, there is nothing wrong with making the big leap - but there is also nothing wrong with crawling before you walk and walking before you run. Be gentle.

We also need to take a long, hard look at the words we use. We can use terms like "balanced home-prepared diets" instead of "the raw diet." (Since there is no monolithic "raw diet," such a phrase is meaningless and incorrect anyway.) We can use terms like "fresh," "variety," and "wholesome" to talk about the kind of diets we advocate. We can defuse 90 percent of the past or future criticism of raw and/or homemade diets these seekers hear by simply changing our terms. SPECIFYING the diet be balanced and wholesome somewhat innoculates the seeker from being told they are feeding an unbalanced or contaminated diet.

Political types are welcome to make metaphorical use of these suggestions, while those of us who fight in the pet food wars can take them literally. Isn't language wonderful?

Comments

[Gil. Ash]

Ha. I see myself up there, the one who says, "Just do it" and means it; the "what's wrong with your brain, you feed yourself without a handbook, why not your dog?" approach.

I am willing to grant you the madwomen on either side. Both have a vehement way of making their cases and strong words have a strong effect on uncertain people. If they're caught by the "complete and balanced" crowd of kibble feeders before they can investigate the effects of adding their dog to the list of family members for whom they prepare meals, most likely, they'll never have the nerve to do it.

If they know very well they want to switch from bagged food to fresh and are caught by the raw feeding extremists who will not be happy until, someday, you are loosing your dog on a live mammal and allowing the carcase of the poor critter it brings down to lie out in the back yard, diminishing daily until there's nothing left but hooves or horns as your dog munches on it, one of two things will happen: you'll be incensed at the insult to your intelligence when you're told that you're killing your dog by not feeding only raw food exactly as they tell you to do it and you'll tell them where to get off, or you'll become a junior fanatic yourself.

So far, we're agreed in looking at the ends where the fanatics lie in wait and rave. But I disagree with your conclusions.

You say you like Howard Dean. Well, as I recall, Howard Dean didn't mince words. I can't say as I followed him or anyone else, really, but the impression remains that he put some pretty strong words out there and...captured you. He didn't win enough support from the masses...let's call them kibble feeders who take the easy way out, the unthinking way, the righteous and holy way sanctified by use...to convert them to the raw truth. In this case, political but the game's the same.

Nonetheless, he pricked up some ears, yours among them. And that's the value of strong language: it gets attention. If you don't play the language game, you're don't win. Period.

Language does not have to trigger fear. You don't have to say "you're killing your dog by feeding him from a bag" to convince people. You can tell them that they can do "better", that they can be progressive by thinking outside the bag , and ain't progress what it's all about?

Of course, you have the hurdle to get over that most people do not want to assume the responsibility for their dog's wellbeing beyond a vet visit now and then and the monthly trip to PetsMart. Good grief, they turn their children over to the television and pop them full of anything that science says they should have at the moment, from drugs to keep them docile to shots for every disease under the sun. Most people, IMO (acronym ) cannot find the time to ask themselves why they live as they do, they simply accept that they should do "whatever" and all else falls by the wayside, including their ability to think for themselves. It is not, I'll admit, easy for all of us.

Those like me, one of a rare breed who does not believe a dog has to eat "organic food" or tackle pieces bigger than he is to survive and do well, yet will not feed kibble, having become convinced that it is a low-rent thing to do to a companion you love, use strong language because you not only have to capture attention, you have to project certainty in what you're doing. Admittedly, this approach doesn't work with everyone but who ever could convince everyone? You do what you can.

The fanatic raw feeders understand that you don't start a movement by being reasonable; you appeal to emotion. How did Bush win? I know that some say he cheated this time, too, but if you discount that, then he appealed, not to the mind, but to the gut of all those people who put him back into office. Yes, he appealed to fear but he also played on deeply held and very often unexamined beliefs etched into people from the time they were very small.

Science and advertising do the same thing. The tell you that you are doing your best for your dog by feeding a complete and balanced diet from a bag...and if you don't, the implication is you're not really a a good caregiver. And they make it so easy to be one.

Complete and balanced...there's the mantra. And it makes me want to scream. There is where I completely disagree with you. I will never tell anyone they should feed a balanced diet to their dog, whether it's bagged or prepared with loving hands from scratch. It uses "their" language and plays their game. It keeps people fixated on science as the arbiter rather than nature.

I really hate these little windows to type in, I always seem to lose the thread of what I'm saying, so if this is disjointed, your website is to blame.

Nonetheless, if more people would "just do it", stop worrying about the scientific diet; the tons of supplements that they are convinced are necessary to tweak a diet of raw food into a true source of nourishment; the need for "balance", as if nature ever provided scales and spreadsheets along with prey, dogs in general would be a lot better off. (I realize that presupposes they have common sense and if you want to tackle that presumption, I may be in trouble.)

Being gentle is fine...after you rope them in. You have to convince them first. So, perhaps the extremes have their uses. As one of the raw feeding fanatics once said to me, you can't find the middle until you can see the polar opposites. You can't even see that there is a choice until you're told there is one, so much have we forgotten since the advent of complete and balanced diets.

[Doug]

In all the midst of food confusion, perhaps the answer is in your hands. While nature provides abundent foods, we choose those constructed by man. To start where you came from, is benenficial to you. Since before man harnessed fire, RAW FOODS ARE ALL WE KNEW!

[will]

Hi -

I came upon your blog from a link to this post, and was curious to know if you have references as to the subject of cats and vegetarian diets - I'm not sure if you've posted about this elsewhere on your blog, but I'm trying to find info on the subject (pro and con)and, after reading this post, I thought you might be able to suggest a few. I'll check back in the comments - thanks for whatever you might be able to provide.

[Christie]

Cats, as obligate carnivores, are the LEAST vegetarian mammals on the planet. They have dietary requirements for pre-formed amino acids that are available only from animal sources, and have no dietary requirement for carbohydrates at all.

Can a cat be a vegetarian? Sure, as long as you use animal foods other than meat to feed them and the diet is otherwise balanced. I don't advise it and view it as far from optimum, but it can be done. There is no more reason, by the way, to include high levels of carbohydrate in such a diet - or any at all.

Can a cat be a vegan? No. If someone truly cannot bear to feed animal foods to their pets, then they shouldn't keep carnivorous pets. House rabbits are vegeterians and make wonderful pets, for example.

Here are a few citations:

"Cats are strict carnivores that rely on nutrients in animal tissues to meet their specific and unique nutritional requirements. This statement is news to few, yet the importance of these nutritional differences is often underestimated, especially during periods when cats are ill or have prolonged anorexia. In their natural habitat, cats consume prey high in protein with moderate amounts of fat and minimal amounts of carbohydrate (CHO); thus, they are metabolically adapted for higher metabolism of proteins and lower utilization of CHOs (starch, not soluble or insoluble fiber) than dogs or other omnivores. Although cats can use CHOs as a source of metabolic energy, they have limited ability to spare protein utilization by using CHOs instead. Nevertheless, commercial diets are formulated with a mixture of animal- and plant-derived nutrients, most commonly in dry kibble form that requires CHOs for the expansion and cooking process, to provide easy-to-use food for domestic cats. And although cats have adjusted to most manufactured diets, the limitations of substituting animal-origin nutrients with plant-origin nutrients in foods formulated for cats are being increasingly realized. The information reported here is an attempt to describe what it means metabolically and nutritionally to be a strict carnivore, with a focus on differences in nutritional biochemistry of cats. In addition, information is included on possible roles of nutrition in the development of obesity, idiopathic hepatic lipidosis (IHL), inflammatory bowel disease, and diabetes mellitus in cats." ("The carnivore connection to nutrition in cats," Debra L. Zoran, DVM, PhD, DACVIM;
Journal of the American Veterinary Association, December 1, 2002)

"There is no known minimum dietary carbohydrate requirement for either the dog or cat." - The
Waltham Book of Dog & Cat Nutrition (1988), edited by Dr. A. T. B. Edney - (Note - Waltham is a HUGE maker of grain based, high carb cat and dog kibbles. Go figure.)

"Although no known dietary carbohydrate requirement exists for the cat, dry commercial diets usually contain 40 percent or more carbohydrate...
Based on research with chickens, rats and dogs, it is probable that cats can be maintained without dietary carbohydrate if the diet furnishes sufficient fat (and thus glycerol) and protein (containing glucogenic
amino acids) from which the metabolic requirement for glucose can be derived." - Nutrient Requirements of Cats, Revised Edition (1986), published by the National Research Council

[Kaye]

Excellent article ... and now that Inova has recently come out with Evo, the 'raw food' high protein [42%], low carb, no grain formula with fresh meats, vegetables, fruits, etc., feeding the raw diet has become much easier and less expensive. And, bottom line, much healthier than the normal fast food diet for dogs!

[Teri Johnston]

Excellent article one of the best!!

[Zuzanna Kubica]

That is a very nice article!
I think I might go back to it often when I feel I start loosing patience with people just too afraid to touch a piece of raw meat because they are vegeterian :).
thank you very much!

[Kiki]

Innova Evo is not raw food. It is still cooked, it is still highly processed, and it is still kibble, it just contains no grains and less carbs.

[Kiki]

Oops, I forgot something pretty important --

My raw food bills would never exceed that of the bills I'd have if I was buying Evo instead. Evo's horribly expensive.

[Kim]

Great job again, Christie, and you've made me a regular reader of this blog of yours. Although I reside in Canada, I find Bush's re-election infuriatingly frustrating, almost so as trying to surf through rescue websites plastered with Dog Chow ads.

Keep up the great work. I realize that you must put extensive time and effort into this site, and I just wanted to let you know that all of who read it are benefited because of it. A pat on the back to you..

a side note....

And yes, Evo IS horribly expensive. And although it is among the top few kibbles I would recommend (let's face it, some people are just not willing to put in the effort required of raw) it's still kibble. It's not fresh, it is processed, and well... do you prefer fresh fruit or dried?

[K Hamilton]

Picking the Bones of the Raw Diet Debate

[Lilli Girvan]

Great informative article

[Kathy]

I came here via Koufax, and coincidentally, I've just started feeding my dog a non-commercial diet. I've been scouring the internets for info, and as you point out, there's loads of dogma about BARF and raw food. I wasn't even tempted by that, as I'm vegetarian and the opening a can of something is about the closest I'm willing to get to real meat. I live in the UK, and there doesn't seem to be an equivalent of Wysong, Innova, etc. here, or I would go that route, at least occasionally. So far, we're both enjoying the experience, though my daughter is a bit dismayed. She ate some pasta from the fridge, and when I told her I was saving that for the dog, she got a funny look on her face. "You mean I'm eating dogfood?!"

Anyway, I've just started a blog of my own-- http://whatdoiknow.typepad.com and there's some doggy stuff there, too. And lots of political rant as well. Cheers!

[maria civetta]

I am so against raw pet food. They need animal protein and fat. The lowfat dog and cat foods are CRUEL! Raw veganism is taking over the world and people and animals are suffering because of it. I was fruitarian for twenty years and nearly died. Now that I eat a cheese omelet once a day I have the best health ever. A good website to visit is www.karenkellock.com about the human and animal need for fauna

dogfood: my four dogs live on cheese and dry chunks and are happy, youthful, shiny and vibrant dogs

[Christie]

Maria, you have totally missed the point of this article. Of COURSE they need animal protein and fat! That's what raw feeders FEED to their dogs!

I have no problems giving cheese to dogs. It's the "dry chunks" of kibble I have the problem with, for the same reason you object to veganism for humans.

You need to read this article again. You didn't get it. I don't mind being disagreed with, I DO mind being disagreed with over stuff I never said.

[maria civetta]

What was it you said? Run it by us again.

[Travis]

Maria,

The really nice thing about the written word is you can go back and read it again without the author having to repeat him or herself. :)

Travis

[maria civetta]

I think the author misunderstood me. I was not discounting his article but speaking generally. Having come from a rawfoods background I am VERY aware of how raw vegetables are being imposed on dogs ("until they eat it") and even poor cats who need fauna (animal fat and protein) even more. Yes, cats are carnivores and dogs are omnivores but they both do best on animal foods. I used to cook barley and chicken with vegetables for my four dogs and they were filled with every parasite. When I suddenly switched them to cheese and eggs it was like an instant transformation as lazy, dry and lackluster dogs became shiny puppies exuberant with new found energy. This should be such a serious matter to all dog and cat lovers. My vegan neighbor FORCED rice and vegetables on her poor dog who had no personality nor energy whatsoever. When people come to my home they are amazed at these dogs "who are more like people". The vegan will say "but meat makes dogs violent" but I have observed just the opposite to be the case. There are no more fights now, whereas with the starch and veg meals they were always fighting.

[maria civetta]

I was buying 66 pounds a month of cheddar for me and my six dogs. That went a month but I have learned a new trick, and there is no more constant begging for more cheese: I now put tuna with it. The flesh is so appetite suppressing they don't beg anymore at all. With just a heaping teaspoon full of tuna and melted cheese, they are satiated for six hours or more. This has turned out to be FAR CHEAPER and far more balanced. The question now is: will this sufficiently fill them up so I can delete the kibble? I don't know if you realize how much kibble is required for six HUGE dogs. I can't possibly feed them all cheese, eggs and fish.

[maria civetta]

(Correction of the above post: I give them far more than a heaping teaspoon of the meat/cheese mixture PER DAY--that was just for "one sitting" I was speaking of above)

[Christie]

Maria, I certainly DO know how much food six dogs eat. Over the last almost-20 years, I have fed a raw homemade diet to as many as 11 dogs, 9 of which were giant breed dogs and two of which were large dogs. Plus my cats!

Meat, cheese, and eggs is not a balanced diet for dogs. All those things are good and healthful foods, but not balanced in that they do not provide the full range of nutrients that a dog requires. The most glaring imbalance is calcium and phosphorus. While cheese does contain calcium, it also contains phosphorus, and calcium and phosphorus need to be in a certain balance for calcium to be assimilated. Meat and eggs are high in phosphorus and contain no calcium - same with tuna.

If you do not feed soft, edible bone in the diet, you need to give a calcium supplement. Ground eggshell, calcium lactate powder, bone meal - something like that.

I also strongly recommend some sort of omega 3 fatty acid supplement, such as fish oil capsules. This is because most modern meat, dairy products, and eggs are way too high in Omega 6 fatty acids, resulting in a pro-inflammatory imbalance of essential fatty acids. Giving extra Omega 3s doesn't do anything about the excess of Omega 6s in gross terms, but it does fix the imbalance.

If you can get the meat, milk, and eggs of 100 percent pasture-raised... NO GRAINS EVER ... animals and chickens, then this is not an issue. But such a food supply is rare.

I would never feed canned tuna to my dogs, but canned mackeral, canned sardines, and canned salmon almost always contain the bones, and these are a wonderful choice. Very nutritious foods for dogs, and they usually love them. Using sardines canned in tomato sauce makes the calcium even more bioavailable to the dogs.

And canned mackeral is quite inexensive, too, which helps when one has large numbers of big dogs.

Hope this helps.

[Gabrielle Blackburn]

Hi,

I have a young sheltie who is a little over 14 inches (at the withers) and under 10 pounds. I have been feeding him Nutro puppy food with supplements (such as omega, etc.). He is nothing but ribs, even though I am feeding him about 10 oz. a day. He is a high-energy dog, and he does agility; so, I thought that he must need more calories. I tried increasing his food dosage; but, I accidentally discovered that if I give him 11 oz. a day, he gets sick.

I recently saw his brother who weighed a lot more (a healthy weight) and had a better coat; she told me that he was on a raw diet. I bought a small (trial size) bag of Innova EVO. I would like to slowly start him on a raw diet; but, I am concerned. (I don’t know much about it.) If you have any suggestions as to what might help him, I would be very grateful.

The only thing that concerns me is that my sheltie seems to get sick if I use treats that are high in fat.

Thank you,
Gabrielle Blackburn

-I had another question. My sheltie has a light color coat and his breeder told me it would get darker if I fed him Salmon. This seemed a little odd to me... Have you heard this before or is it an old wives tale? Will Salmon hurt him? Should I buy fresh Salmon or will canned Salmon do the same thing?

[dakota]

I lucked into this blog via 'Snap' search. I love the whole story and had to laugh...at myself...for I am 11 years a 'raw' rah, rah rah! type person. I guess it's partly my personality, and partly cos I saw such a huge difference in my dogs when I switched to the whole prey diet...(whatever you want to call it...within reason) :) It's true. For me it's a 'philosophy' and a 'way of life': that's my bandwagon and I'm stickin' to it.
I have a Jilll Russell terrorist and a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever, and a cat ( who live to age 21). God bless them all.

[Nick]

I've always been a cat lover and never knew that cats required the essential amino acids from animal sources. Very well written!

[diet suppliments]

Nice blog.This blog will help for people who want to loose weight.To loose weight one has to check the calories and required some diet plan in their daily life.