I didn't realize that scientists have a consensus that raw feeding is bad? Why would they reach such a consensus when there hasn't even been enough work done on the topic? That would be pretty irresponsible of scientists to reach a consensus based only on minimal research.
The avma has links to scientific papers on their position statement.
That's not what scientific consensus is. Scientific consensus isn't a bunch of scientists deciding something or agreeing on something. Its just whatever the current bulk of science indicates. While research in cat nutrition is relatively small, its big enough to draw conclusions in a few areas. But scientific consensus changes as more studies are performed. The more studies, the stronger the consensus and the less likely it is to change.
There's a lot I want to address here, but I think we're getting a bit off topic. I'm not saying that raw food is bad, or that any food system is better; this isn't a discussion about how nutrition is studied. I was just bringing up current literature and recommendations and trying to point out to OP that they should simply use their own discretion and not feel guilty for whichever choice they make. They should just choose whichever feeding system works best for them and their cat and use their own personal discretion.
My point is that there isn’t enough research on the topic of raw food for there to be a consensus at this point. The evidence is inconclusive.
I don't know about that, but again, that's getting off topic. The point is that it's not required that someone feed raw. If OP wants to feed raw or doesn't want to feed raw, as long as the diet is balanced they should just go with whatever is better for them. There is debate about all the diets, so they should primarily focus on what works for their cat and lifestyle and not feel bad if they don't follow what one nutritionist says since another nutritionist will probably say something entirely different. That's the point I was trying to get at.
