[glencorgi]

Michael seems to have a love affair with the "nanny state." Reminds me of the first time I brought up Dr. Jean Dodd and the revamped vaccination protocols; he poo-poo'd all the information, scientific research and documentation provided. Yet, when he "discovered" the same information on his own, well then that was the way to go.

This 180 turn on kibble since interviewing Dr. Nick is interesting and IF Michael were a true believer in the AAFCO, he wouldn't still be cooking for Taylor, Taylor would be getting exclusively his Hills because afterall, everything Taylor needs nutritionally is in that bag.


As I have said before, it is possible to meet a human's minimally recommended nutritional requirements as recommended by the FDA by eating at fast food joints three times a day and a whole lot of them have the nutritional "pyramid" (I know I'm dating myself, but I've forgotten which geometric shape we're using these days) posted. Cholesterol, calorie content charts are posted on the walls too. The question though is, is this a quality diet?

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

My point is that looking at labels may not tell the true picture. We can't do research. What research can we do???

Granted labels may not tell the whole picture - a juice box drink may provide 100% of the recommended daily requirements for Vitamin C. The juice source may be from a concentrate and the drink itself loaded with sugar and other artificial flavorings. However, if one bothers to read and employs a little common sense it isn't too hard to figure out that fresh squeezed orange juice would be a "healthier" choice.

As far as what research "we" can do well,

No one did any research on the products in the world until a few months ago and that was laboratory research by a couple of senior high school girls as part of a class project.

So two high school students discovered Ribena was a fraud. In the US I don't think FDA labels are that lax.

What research is done on dog food ?who knows if a great deal of the claimed contents is not a fraud.

TONS is the amount of research done on dog food in the US at least. There are also publications and investigative journalists devoted to doing research on dog foods. Canine nutritional specialists are also a growing specialty service for pets.

At least AAFCO are attending to the important components of the dog food that they fully approve.

AAFCO is like the FDA in setting minimal recommended dietary requirements for humans. Actually the whole argument is a bit moot. During the time we've been beating this dead horse, I have been doing even more reading of dog food labels. Between the number of sample packages I have here, the empty bags of a wide variety of foods I've fed (I'm saving them for a garden project to use a "mulch" of sorts) and my visits to the pet supply stores - with the exception of two foods - one a human grade specialty canned and not available on the majority of food supply shelves, the other a roll food, which more like a sample - so a full size roll probably does have it on there; to the bag everyone has AAFCO statement on it. I have a wide range in quality of foods - everything from near Ol' Roy quality to top of the line, and they all have AAFCO approval statements on them. So the "worry" that "unenlightened John Q Public" might walk into their local grocery or pet supply chain superstore or even the high end specialty shop and not get an AAFCO approved food is pretty much for naught in the US. In other words, it "ain't gonna happen."

So may we please finally bury this horse?

Debbie