More Pentobarbital In Brands That Include Cat Food

Carolina, you make some pretty incredulous statements, particulary regarding the FDA. I would like to see your fact sources.

Also, you seem to imply that raw feeders are smarter than those of us who choose to **gasp!!** feed kibble.

sweetblackpaws said:

Carolina, you make some pretty incredulous statements, particulary regarding the FDA. I would like to see your fact sources.

Also, you seem to imply that raw feeders are smarter than those of us who choose to **gasp!!** feed kibble.

Click to expand...

Raw feeders are FAR smarter than those who think it's ok to feed foods contaminated with pentobarbitol... I say, stop gasping and start reading and educating yourself

laura mae said:

What if it is related to simply reporting because people involve their pets in medical care more than they did in the past and so there are greater numbers to report about diseases that simply killed animals in the past without any diagnostics?

Click to expand...

I really think this is key. Prior to the past few decades, obtaining medical care for companion animals was virtually unheard of, and diagnostics were rudimentary where they existed at all. So it's true that cats weren't diagnosed with cancer or IBD or allergies or kidney disease - they just died, or wasted away and died, or disappeared and their owners never knew what happened to them, or they were "put out of their misery." While I don't think it's impossible that there has been a rise in some diseases, it's mere speculation because you can't get an accurate number on something that wasn't diagnosable at the time.

For every anecdote about a cat living to a ripe old age without modern veterinary medicine or a species-appropriate diet, how many died unnoticed at a young age from something that is now preventable?

There's an H. P. Lovecraft story where part of the plot revolves around a cat that has lived an unusually long life and is considered elderly. The text states that the cat is seven. Yes, it's a fictional story... but it gives a glimpse at the expectations of pet owners in the past versus today.

I think our pets just appear to have more health problems now because we actually know about them, not because there has been a huge upswing in pet disease.

C'mon now. I think you need to differentiate between "smart" and "knowledgeable". In 2007, I spent approx. 200 hours reading everything I could get my hands on to scare me away from feeding a raw diet as well as everything I could find to convince me that it was the diet my pets should be eating. All that research didn't increase my IQ. It did allow me to make a knowledgeable decision.

It was the widespread melamine contamination of pet foods in 2007 which inspired my personal research into pet nutrition.

Before 2007, I trusted the FDA, CDC, AVMA, AAFCO, NRC (and whichever other alphabet soupers I may have omitted) to make sure what I fed my pets was safe and nutritious. They failed. I wasn't "dumber" back then. I was simply too trusting and naive.

Many many raw feeders transitioned to feeding raw food because they had pets with illnesses or were unsatisfied with the mainstream pet food industry. For myself, I had a cat struggling with IBD and none of the "prescription" or vet recommended foods worked for him. He was suffering. I started to educate myself and the more I learned the more I realized that the pet food industry is set up in a way to please pet owners and to make profit, it does not have the health and best interests of pets in mind. (Kibble is cheap, both to make and to sell. It's also convenient, leave it out all day and go about your business). Then, I started doing research into feline nutrition and educating myself on what cats need to eat to be healthy. This led to me to the area of raw foods. So yes, when we say that on average, raw feeders are more knowledgeable than non-raw feeders about feline nutrition, it's because they likely either started feeding raw because their pets were ill and they needed to educate themselves on nutrition or they needed to know about feline nutrition to make their own food.

This doesn't mean that those who continue to feed kibble are not smart. They likely, for whatever reason, have never questioned the foods they feed. When I started feeding raw and saw the remarkable impact it had on my IBD cat I wanted to share my new-found knowledge with all of my friends who also had cats. None of them wanted to hear it. No one wants to hear that what they have been feeding their cat for years is unhealthy or potentially dangerous. No one wants to hear that an organization that is supposed to be protecting consumers may be jaded, or that veterinarians, the people they are supposed to trust with the health of their pets, might provide misleading information about their pet's nutrition. And a lot of people don't want to put in the work to educate themselves. But believe me, most of us who feed raw have taken the time (sometimes months and years of time) to educate ourselves.

No one is out here arguing that if you feed raw food your cat will never get sick and life will be perfect. Of course not, but based on the knowledge that we have acquired, we are trying to do what's best for our cats.

I can't edit my post but I wanted to add that if you are living in a world where you think that corporations don't have power or influence over your day to day decisions or over the organizations that are supposed to work for the people then you are living in a fairy tale. We live in a consumerist society where corporations hold enough power to have political and social influence -- you better believe that they also have influence over the health of you and your pets.

Azazel said:

I can't edit my post but I wanted to add that if you are living in a world where you think that corporations don't have power or influence over your day to day decisions or over the organizations that are supposed to work for the people then you are living in a fairy tale. We live in a consumerist society where corporations hold enough power to have political and social influence -- you better believe that they also have influence over the health of you and your pets.

Click to expand...

That holds true for both sides. Do you really think Mercola is a non-for-profit? There's a HUGE industry of raw feeding including supplements. Earlier in the thread someone posted links to several pro-raw sites. Most if not all of them are in some way making money from the trend. I do believe at least one pro-raw person posting in this thread is involved in it as well. Just because you Google something doesn't mean you're getting the full picture - from either side.

The bottom line is simple. There is not a whole lot of good scientific evidence on nutrition. That holds true for human nutrition and even more so for feline nutrition. What we do have now does not suggest any major advantages to feeding raw and does suggest some risks. Could that change in the future? It could. But for now that's where the evidence points which is why a major organization like the AVMA is clearly against the practice. They're not the only ones.

I will try once again to bow out of this thread. Again, I think feeding raw is a legitimate choice at this point, as long as the owner understands the risks involved. Not because it's necessarily riskier but because these are the kind of risks you could potentially mitigate at least to some extent. Understanding them is where it begins. Feeding raw responsibly is an option for some people and some cats. I don't believe there is any one type of cat food that's good for everyone under all and any circumstances.

A Scientific Take On Cat Nutrition By Dr. Rachel Boltz

Last but not least, please let's stay respectful here. I understand the topic is emotional for some of us. I can only assume someone linked to this thread from some pro-raw group somewhere, bringing back passionate supporters to the forums. Welcome back guys and remember you're posting on TheCatSite here.

Anne said:

That holds true for both sides. Do you really think Mercola is a non-for-profit? There's a HUGE industry of raw feeding including supplements. Earlier in the thread someone posted links to several pro-raw sites. Most if not all of them are in some way making money from the trend. I do believe at least one pro-raw person posting in this thread is involved in it as well. Just because you Google something doesn't mean you're getting the full picture - from either side.

The bottom line is simple. There is not a whole lot of good scientific evidence on nutrition. That holds true for human nutrition and even more so for feline nutrition. What we do have now does not suggest any major advantages to feeding raw and does suggest some risks. Could that change in the future? It could. But for now that's where the evidence points which is why a major organization like the AVMA is clearly against the practice. They're not the only ones.

I will try once again to bow out of this thread. Again, I think feeding raw is a legitimate choice at this point, as long as the owner understands the risks involved. Not because it's necessarily riskier but because these are the kind of risks you could potentially mitigate at least to some extent. Understanding them is where it begins. Feeding raw responsibly is an option for some people and some cats. I don't believe there is any one type of cat food that's good for everyone under all and any circumstances.

A Scientific Take On Cat Nutrition By Dr. Rachel Boltz

Last but not least, please let's stay respectful here. I understand the topic is emotional for some of us. I can only assume someone linked to this thread from some pro-raw group somewhere, bringing back passionate supporters to the forums. Welcome back guys and remember you're posting on TheCatSite here.

Click to expand...

I don't get my information from Mercola and I don't know many raw feeders that rely on that website.
Yes I'm aware of the fact that there is a raw pet food market, I'm also aware of the fact that many of the commercial raw foods on the market are imbalanced, from poor meat sources, and are far too high in bones. Just because I feed raw doesn't mean that I'm not critical about the raw pet food that's available on the market.

Actually, there have been a couple of studies showing that raw food is more easily digestible for cats than dry, there have been some studies showing that some commercial raw food contains pathogens, and there are those 2 case studies you linked to written by veterinarians who suspect that cats who entered their practices were poisoned from raw food. None of this evidence is conclusive, but I do notice that both pro- and anti- raw feeders like to pick and choose which studies they emphasize in discussions and try to argue that research is on their side. It's really on neither side because there isn't much research.

I have read the article by the veterinarian that you linked to and I think it's quite poorly written. Based on personal experience, I don't trust most veterinarians for feline nutrition advice (I actually don't trust most of them with the general health of my cats, but that's a different and more personal topic). I also don't trust the AVMA and certainly don't turn to them for advice on what to feed my cats.

I also believe that feeding kibble is a legitimate choice, as long as the owner also recognizes the risks involved.

Azazel said:

I don't get my information from Mercola and I don't know many raw feeders that rely on that website.
Yes I'm aware of the fact that there is a raw pet food market, I'm also aware of the fact that many of the commercial raw foods on the market are imbalanced, from poor meat sources, and are far too high in bones. Just because I feed raw doesn't mean that I'm not critical about the raw pet food that's available on the market.

Click to expand...

I use Mercola as a metaphor at this point He employs several vets that tout the benefits of raw (plus his supplements of course). Again, most online resources are biased to some extent and they don't even clearly state how they benefit from what they do (often via consultations). Basically, anyone with a very strong opinion on what to feed cats has to be extremely biased because there is not enough evidence out there to form a consensus. Sounds to me like you have a far more balanced and skeptic approach and I do respect that.

Azazel said:

I have read the article by the veterinarian that you linked to and I think it's quite poorly written. Based on personal experience, I don't trust most veterinarians for feline nutrition advice (I actually don't trust most of them with the general health of my cats, but that's a different and more personal topic). I also don't trust the AVMA and certainly don't turn to them for advice on what to feed my cats.

Click to expand...

Dr. Boltz is not a professional writer so writing is not her forte. She does know a lot about cat health including nutrition. More than you and I can get from Googling. You'll notice that her point actually is that you should not trust anyone's advice because not that much is actually known - in the evidence-based sense of the term. Like you said, there is a lot of cherry picking out there. Pro-raw supporters are often very passionate about their choice but that passion should not be mistaken for actual scientific evidence.

The AVMA does not take a stand on which form of nutrition is best for cats - in terms of the actual nutrients - by the way. Neither does Dr. Boltz. There is not enough good evidence for such recommendations for cats. All the AVMA is saying is that there are very real risks associated with feeding raw and that's why they're against it. Not because of the quality of the nutrition but because of the public health implications (not just for the cats).

I'm glad feeding raw works for you and your cats.

I feed both. Whatever the cat will eat is what I feed. One eats kibble n tuna, the other eats canned, tuna and raw meat from grocery store...Raw meat is most best health contents than cooked unknown materials-and there is no right or wrong answer here. I still say feeding a combo of both is not a bad thing. Personally I steer clear from major pet food companies and stick with smaller companies Like FROMM, Orijen and 4Health for instance instead of grocery store brands but that's my preference. Grocery food has too high content of carbs- corn products- for my comfort. I feel lots of diseases are result from corn products..maybe another 10 years we will see proof from scientists about this..

What roused peoples’ emotions was someone signing up for an account, picking a thread which had been dead for 60 days to make one single post, claiming to be a vet, and essentially saying that pet food adulterated with pentobarbital is preferable to feeding a raw diet.

I don’t particularly care if the euthanization drug pentobarbital was found in tallow from animals, or some other part, like the muscle or organs. “Animals” could mean euthanized pets.

An explanation that the drug was found in the fat is not an excuse for it being in multiple pet food products. We’re supposed to trust all of the alphabet soup of overseers, regulators and administrators to ensure that processed pet food won’t kill or sicken pets. They failed again.

For an assumed vet to act like pentobarbital in pet food is no big deal compared to raw pet food, or any food, is what riled peoples’ passions. Especially when it killed a pet.

Dr_D said:

What I've read from the FDA page is that contaminated tallow--fat from animals--was sold to the manufacturer. Pet foods have to have certain levels of fat, and tallow is used to achieve those levels if there is not enough in the primary meat source. How the pentobarbital got into the tallow is still in question to my knowledge.

As a veterinarian, however, I'd much rather expose my animals to trace levels of pentobarbital than feed them raw foods, which I know to have a high risk of introducing dangerous, contagious bacteria such as Salmonella. I consider this a higher risk. Make your own cooked foods, but if you are worried about contamination, feeding raw food seems like an irrational solution, contrary to what you are trying to prevent. One note on making your own: you have to be very conscientious about making sure trace elements are included in the right proportion for long term health. For a few weeks or even months, it's not an issue. That said, my grandmother raised all her dogs on home cooked food (grandpa wouldn't let her spend money on dog food). She was meticulous about making it from leftovers and way ahead of her time in her knowledge about nutrition. They all lived to 18 and 19 years, which is an amazing record. So it is possible if you want to do the basic research and include the trace minerals and other nutrients.

One reader stated that things are getting better, and I agree. There are plenty of conscientious pet food makers. Back in the day, it was a free for all. For example, in the 50s Alpo tried that "all dogs need meat!" marketing, resulting in high meat diets. Because the calcium/magnesium ratio was skewed, dogs would actually dissolve their own bones by eating a pure Alpo (mostly meat) diet. They'd come into the clinic with "rubber jaw." You could bend their mandibles in your hands during an exam. So balanced nutrition is key and staying informed about contamination is essential.

Click to expand...

I question the tallow. For those with sensitive stomachs please stop reading now.

Can you explain to me what animals are put down with phenobarbital? Dairy farms don't commonly use it due to the fact you must bury the animal. Regular cows are the same. It's usually a gunshot or captive bolt. If you handle many of these animals on a farm you put them down with a gun or a bolt. I've lived on a farm. Here's the one on cattle.
http://www.aabp.org/resources/AABP_Guidelines/Practical_Euthanasia_of_Cattle-September_2013.pdf

Here's the dairy herd management
https://www.agweb.com/mobile/article/euthanasia_done_right/
The euthanasia treatment protocol

So if we look at it logically we are looking at more than likely two culprits. Horses are commonly used with phenobarbital to put them down and pets. You've never heard of chickens given it because they aren't. Pigs, chickens, ducks, rabbits and such are usually not given phenobarbital to put them down (I'm not counting if these are people's pets, I'm referring to on a farm).

Being optimistic let's say it's horse ingredients. It can also be zoo animals. And let's say it is feed grade ingredients. This means animals that aren't allowed to be fed to humans. It doesn't change the fact this should not be in pet food.

This really sums it up.
Pentobarbital Found in Gravy Train Dog Food

The problem is there's no accountability. The fact that it was found in pet food should have you questioning the industry. But we all know how that goes. After the iams incident we know the most that will happen is companies only paid for vet bills. Do you feel paying my vet bill for killing my animal is enough? It's not.