The Myth of 100% Complete Pet Food

Every day, people by the millions pour food from aextend shelf-life by sterilization. Dry foods are
package into their pet's bowl. Day in and day out, mealextruded at hundreds of degrees and hundreds of
after meal, pets get the same fare. This strangepounds of pressure. Canned foods are retorted.
phenomenon is widely practiced by loving pet ownersCommercial pet foods also contain a mix of
who believe they are doing the right thing. Why?ingredients including meats, fats, starches (a variety of
Certainly because it is convenient, but also becauselabel dressing "natural" ingredient buzzwords) and
the labels state that such foods are "complete andvitamin/mineral "fortifiers." Although the ingredient label
balanced," "100% complete," or that they have passedis evocative and beguiling, what is in the final product is
various analytical and feeding test standards.another matter. Essential fatty acids are oxidized and
Furthermore, manufacturers, and even veterinarians,isomerized. Cytotoxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic
counsel pet owners about not feeding other foods,cholesterol oxidation products (COP) are formed,
such as table scraps, because of the danger ofincluding C-7 derivatives, 5,6-epoxides, triols, 25-OHs
unbalancing these modern processed nutritionaland 3,5-dienes - the real culprits in human
marvels. The power of the message is so great thatatherogenesis, incidently. The cooked meats form
pet owners en masse do every day to their petsheterocyclic amines, proteins are degraded and amino
what they would never do to themselves or theiracids destroyed or racemized. Carbohydrates are
children - force-feed the same processed food atglycated, acrylamides are formed, vitamins destroyed,
every meal. Think about it. Our world is complexoxidized and racemized and minerals are complexed
beyond comprehension. It is not only largely unknown, itinto unavailable matrices. The end result is a potpourri
is unknowable in the "complete" sense. In order forof imbalance, unavailability and toxicity - not "100%
nutritionists and manufacturers to produce a "100%completeness." Yes, pets can survive for a time on
complete and balanced" pet food, they must first knowsuch fare, but that is simply a testament to their
100% about nutrition. However, nutrition is not aphysiological capacity to adapt. They seek equilibrium
completed science. It is, in fact, an aggregate science,at higher and higher levels of toxicity until adaptive
which is based upon other sciences, such asreserve is exhausted. Chronic degenerative diseases
chemistry, physics, and biology. But since no scientistand immune failure is the end result. The point is, don't
would argue that everything is known in chemistry, orbelieve the claim on any commercially prepared pet (or
physics, or biology, how can nutritionists claim to knowhuman) food that it is "100% complete and balanced." It
everything there is to know about nutrition, which isis a spurious unsupported boast, intended to build
based upon these sciences? This is the logicalconsumer trust and dependence on commercial
absurdity of the "100% complete and balanced" dietproducts - not create optimal health. Unfortunately,
claim. It is the reason a similar venture to feed babies amost people think animal feeding is a mystery. It is not.
"100% complete" formula turned out to be a healthAnimal nutrition is not a special nutritional science to
disaster. In that instance, after sufficient disease andwhich common sense human nutrition principles cannot
death resulted from attempting to retire the humanbe applied. Use the same reasoning in feeding your
breast to a mere appendage of adornment,pets that you use for feeding your family. Nutrition is
government stepped in and controlled the commercialalso not about some special ingredient, the absence of
hype. Now doctors, nurses and purveyors of babysome boogeyman ingredient, or claims such as
formulas cannot say these products are complete or"natural," "organic," or the like. If you feed processed
that they are equal to or superior to breast-feeding.foods, use discernment since just about anyone can
Good for the regulators. (Although they should havecreate a commercial pet food. The pet food industry
been proactive and prevented the disaster before ithas hundreds of brands. Business profiteers and the
ever took root, not have merely stepped in afteroccasional movie star are the most common forces
enough deaths accrued.) Even with that lesson as abehind the labels. All one needs is a little money and
dire warning, pet food regulators turn a blind eye.they can go to any number of toll manufacturers and
Instead of preventing pet food producers from claiminghave them slightly modify a shelf formula. Then all that
a processed food concoction is 100% complete, theyis needed is to dress it all up with a fancy package, a
in effect promote the death and disease-dealingclever brochure, and some advertising. Voila! Another
specious claim by setting bogus standards thatbrand is added to the 20-billion-dollar pet food industry
supposedly justify and authenticate the claim. Theyheyday. Nutrition is a serious health business, not a
legitimize sloppy science in order to win consumermere opportunity to turn dollars. Check the credentials
confidence. All a manufacturer has to do is guaranteeof the decision maker at the head of the company
that their percentage of protein, fat and the like meetsyou are entrusting your pet's health to and examine
National Research Council standards. In the alternative,closely its operating philosophy. Health competence
manufacturers can do feeding trials on cagedand principle should come before pretty packaging and
laboratory animals for a few weeks, measure cursorybeguiling hoopla. The public is not well served by
blood parameters, and monitor growth and weight - asexclusively feeding products from companies without
if survival after a few weeks on a food has anythingany real commitment to health… or knowledge
to do with achieving optimal health and long life! Downof how to even achieve it. For the past 25 years, I
the primrose path millions of trusting pet owners gohave been a lonely voice in the wilderness trying to get
while at the same time unknowingly condemning theirpeople to understand the deadly health consequences
pets to terrible degenerative diseases. Pet foodof feeding processed pet foods exclusively. People
regulators then spend the majority of their timewant convenience in a bag and the industry wants the
harassing pet food companies with picayuneflow of billions of dollars to continue uninterrupted. In the
requirements about terminology on packaging andmeantime, the scientific literature offers compelling
where certain words must be placed on labels. In thisproof that millions of animals have been maimed and
regard manufacturers must contend with the USDAkilled as a result of feeding thoroughly tested "100%
(United States Department of Agriculture), FDA (Foodcomplete" foods… with the full imprimatur of
and Drug Administration), AAFCO (Americangovernment regulation. (Exactly the same thing that
Association of Feed Control Officials), and 50 Stateabounds in the FDA-pharmaceutical industry.)
feed regulatory agencies. All for naught. It's like theExamples of pet food disasters include dilated
entire police force busying themselves ticketing peoplecardiomyopathy from taurine deficiency, potassium
for jaywalking while turning a blind eye to the murderimbalances, fatty acid and carnitine deficiencies and
and rape going on in the alleys. Claiming that anything isnumerous other problems that would be expected on
100% is like claiming perfection, total knowledge, anda steady diet of dead, devitalized, carbohydrate-based
absolute truth. Has pet nutrition really advanced thatprocessed foods. Moreover, the whole panoply of
far? Does a chemist make such a claim? A physicist?human chronic degenerative diseases such as cancer,
Doctor? Professor? Did Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur,obesity, arthritis, autoimmunities, dental deterioration and
Aristotle, Plato, or any of the greatest minds in humanorgan failure are at epidemic levels in the pet
history make such claims? No. Has the science of petpopulation… as should be expected on such a
nutrition advanced to the point where everything isdiet. "Thousands of pet cats die each year with dilated
known about the physiology, digestion and biochemistrycardiomyopathy… observed in… cats
of animals, or that everything is known about theirfed commercial cat food…" (Science, Volume
food? Certainly not. The fact of the matter is that the237, pages 764-8) Not only is feeding the same
"100% complete" claim is actually "100% complete"processed food day in and day out a formula for
guesswork. At best, one could say that such a claim isdisease, it is a cruelty to pets. It is one thing to take
the firm possibility of a definite maybe. Each timethem from their interesting and active wild setting and
regulatory agencies convene to decide how much ofconfine them, but to not even offer them interesting
which nutrients comprise "100% completeness," debatenatural meal variety is really quite inexcusable. The
always ensues and standards usually change. This notanswer, like everything else good in life, is a little
only proves that what they claimed before was notattention and common sense. Knowledge is the best
"100% complete," but this should also make us highlybeginning point. Further reading and resources of
suspicious about what they now claim to be "100%scientific references: Wysong, R. L. (2002). The Truth
complete." Moreover, consider that in order toAbout Pet Foods. Midland, MI: Inquiry Press. Science,
determine the minimum requirement for a certainVolume 237, pages 764-8 Journal of the American
nutrient - say protein - all other nutrients used in theVeterinary Medical Association, Volume 199, pages
feeding trials must be adequate and standardized.731-4 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Otherwise, if vitamin E, for example, is in excess or isAssociation, Volume 201, pages 267-74 Feline Practice,
deficient in the basal diet, how would one know if theVolume 20, Number 1, page 30 Journal of the
results of the study were because of the effects ofAmerican Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 202,
protein or due to something amiss with the level ofpages 744-51 Journal of the American Veterinary
vitamin E? If the minimum requirements for all 26+Medical Association, Volume 191, pages 1563-8 Journal
essential nutrients were all set and absolutely etched inof Nutrition, Volume 129, pages 1909-14 Journal of
stone, that would be one thing. But they aren't. TheyNutrition, Volume 126, pages 984-8 Journal of the
are constantly changing. This means each time anyAmerican Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 203,
nutrient requirement is changed, all test results for allpages 1395-1400 Journal of the American Veterinary
other nutrients using the wrong minimum for thisMedical Association, Volume 198, pages 647-50
nutrient would then be invalid. Most nutritionists simplyVeterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal
ignore this conundrum, feeling like cowboys trying toPractice, Volume 19, pages 527-37 Veterinary Forum,
lasso an octopus - there are just too many loose ends.Volume 9, pages 34-5 Veterinary Forum, Volume 9,
But they continue to perpetuate the "100% complete"pages 26-8 American Journal of Veterinary Research,
myth, and excuse themselves by saying they makeVolume 62, pages 1616-23 Petfood Industry, May/June
adjustments when necessary. An apology of "I'm1998, pages 4-14 Journal of Animal Science, Volume
sorry," when the false premise of "100%75, pages 2980-5 Veterinary Business, Volume 2, page
completeness" is still retained, deserves no forgiveness.1 Waltham International Focus, Volume 3, Number 1,
Also consider that virtually all so-called complete petpage 9 For further reading, or for more information
foods are vigorously heat processed to gelatinize theabout, Dr Wysong and the Wysong Corporation
unnatural starch components (making them "digestible"please visit or write to .
- meaning more easily converted to glucose) and to