Raw, Meaty Bones
by Dr. Tom Lonsdale
 Imagine if all the Big Macs, Happy Meals and Coca-Colas
consumed by Morgan Spurlock during his month-long binge for the film documentary
Super Size Me! were instead tipped into a vat, ground to a pulp and
cooked under pressure. Let us imagine that half the resultant glop was sealed in
cans and the other half dehydrated, extruded into kibble and packed in bags –
with brightly colored labels asserting the health benefits.
Suppose, then, that Spurlock either slurped through the
contents of the McCans or crunched his way through the McKibble. And now – this
is an important aspect – imagine that Spurlock had neither a toothbrush nor the
ability to ask for one, so consequently didn’t clean his teeth for the
month-long experiment. Now I ask: what would Spurlock’s physical, dental and
mental health be like after such a crazy experiment? Would doctors, dentists and
health regulators provide official endorsement for the canned and kibbled diet?
Indeed, would it be likely that Spurlock picked up his McCans and McKibble at
his local medical or dental practice?
For the vast majority of pet dogs (modified wolves), cats
(modified desert predators) and ferrets (modified polecats), a diet of McCans or
McKibble is their everyday reality. Spurlock’s doctor told him he had to stop
his unnatural human experiment inside 30 days because he was killing himself. By
contrast, the world’s pet doctors (vets) encourage pet owners to feed McCans and
McKibble every day of their pets’ lives. I know; I was one such vet.
Poisoned Five Ways
For the first 15 years of my working life as a graduate of the Royal
Veterinary College, University of London, I went along with conventional
veterinary wisdom. I counseled my clients against the feeding of
home-prepared meals because, I suggested, they were unlikely to get the
“balance” of nutrients right. Raw meat posed a risk due to bacteria and lack
of calcium, so I said. As for bones, everyone knew that bones posed a hazard
for breaking teeth and causing obstruction. And whoever heard of feeding
bones to cats? The manufacturers have removed the guesswork, I assured my
clients. “Giant companies understand the science and have the resources to
ensure the best possible fare for your pet. It’s convenient, too!”
With the matter of diet for my patients glossed over, I could return to
the more pressing problems associated with diagnosis and treatment. After
all, that’s what I was trained to do and that’s what my clients expected of
me. And the stream of sick pets with skin disease, heart, liver, bowel and
dental disease, cancer and other maladies was never ending.
Oh, how I cringe! How culpably, horribly wrong I was! As varied as my
patients were in size, species, age, sex and breed, the one common uniting
feature was their junk food diet. They were all fed McCans and McKibble and,
almost without exception, this was the reason why the animals needed my
services. Yes, it’s as simple and dramatic as that, and for the following
reasons:
1. Canned soft foods and grain-based kibble do not clean teeth. In fact,
food sludge sticks to teeth and feeds the bacteria in dental plaque. The
body’s second line of defense, the immune system, mobilizes against the
bacterial invaders. The result: inflamed gums, bad breath, circulating
bacteria and bacterial poisons that affect the rest of the body.
2. Dogs, cats and ferrets don’t have the digestive enzymes in the right
quality or quantity to deal with the nutrients in grains and other plant
material, whether those nutrients are raw or cooked. When grains are cooked
at high temperatures at the pet food factory, the starches, proteins and
fats become denatured or toxic to varying degrees. Junk food is laden with
colorants, preservatives, humectants and a raft of other strange chemical
additives – none with any nutritive value and all toxic to varying degrees.
Once in the bowel of a carnivore, toxic nutrients are absorbed into the
circulation and affect various body systems.
3. Poorly digested grain-based junk food supports a large population of
toxin-producing bacteria in the lower bowel. The bowel lining, in constant
contact with poisons, may be adversely affected. Some poisons pass through
the bowel wall into the blood circulation, are carried to other organs and
create further problems.
4. Like Morgan Spurlock, some pets show signs of ill health after a short
time consuming junk food. For instance, puppies frequently suffer from bad
skin and diarrhea. Long-term exposure to the diet-related toxins listed in
categories 1, 2 and 3 leads to diseases of body organs. Diseased organs
produce more toxins, which enter the bloodstream and add to the spiral of
worsening disease.
5. Mostly pets suffer in silence; they can’t speak in words. But when
animals are affected by the above four categories of poison, their body
language tells observant owners to seek help from the vet. Some vets say:
“Stop! Stop feeding junk food.” Sadly, though, most vets ignore categories
1, 2 and 3, and instead they diagnose diseased organs as mentioned in 4
(above). Treatment usually involves strong pharmaceuticals, which then
contribute another level of toxic insult.
You may ask: What about the genetic diseases, infectious diseases,
parasitic diseases, the broken legs, other traumatic diseases and the
diseases of old age? For sure, these are all important factors governing the
well-being of our pet carnivores. But clearly, undeniably, pets worn down by
the toxic effects of a junk food diet are at greater risk of succumbing to
other diseases, and the recovery phase is likely to be longer, too.
Stop!
Stop feeding junk pet food is the first and best bit of advice I can give
you – for the benefit of your pet(s), the human economy and the natural
environment. By stopping doing harm, we take the first step on the road to
doing good. It gains us some breathing space, allowing us to survey
the scene, investigate further and harness the benefits of our newfound
wisdom.
Actually, it’s not so new. Hippocrates, the famous Greek physician of the
fifth century BC, said: “Leave your drugs in the chemist’s pot if you can
heal your patients with food.”
So why did we lose sight of the ancient wisdom? Why did we ignore the
teachings of nature? And of utmost importance, why is it so difficult to
discuss, let alone reverse, the current orthodoxy? By way of explanation,
let me tell you a story that, when taken to a conclusion, should provide
medical, scientific, social and environmental benefits worth billions of
dollars.
Since 1955, when Juliette de Bairacli Levy published her Complete
Herbal Book for the Dog, there have been mutterings about the
inadequacy of processed-food diets for pet dogs and cats. By the late 1980s,
Australian vets were passing comment and by the early 1990s, they were
registering open dissent. Dr. Breck Muir often remarked about the foul odors
given off from both ends of dogs fed canned food. In the December 1991 issue
of the Australian Veterinary Association News, he wrote:
"The pet food situation has concerned me for some years, my feelings
brought to this by the current competitive marketing of various dental work
stations for veterinary use.
"The scene as I see it goes like this: “Here is the best food ever
made for your dog, Mrs. Jones,” handing her a can of commercial dog food or
dry food, “but he may develop problems with his teeth, so here is a special
toothbrush and paste for you to use to clean his teeth regularly and then,
if that doesn’t keep the periodontal disease at bay, we...have the very
latest in dental equipment just like your own dentist has, and we can give
Fido that perfectly enameled ivory grin” – that he would have had had you
not fed him the commercial food in the first place.
"Here we have the perfectly engineered commercial circle – a problem
doesn’t exist, so we create one and then come up with all the remedial
treatments."
Also in December 1991, my article “Oral Disease in Cats and Dogs”
appeared in the newsletter of the Sydney University Post Graduate Foundation
in Veterinary Science:
"The stench of stale blood, dung and pus emanating from the mouths of
so many of my patients has finally provoked this eruption of dissent.
"The sheer numbers passing through the practice, when extrapolated to
the world situation, tell me that oral disease is the source of the greatest
intractable pain and discomfort experienced by our companion animals.
"This is a great and mindless cruelty we visit upon our animals from
the whelping box to the grave. Just imagine having a mouth ulcer or
toothache for a lifetime.
Whilst the chemical contents (masquerading as nutrients) of junk pet foods
are a major cause of concern, the new emphasis on oral hygiene opened an
important chapter focusing on the physical form of the food. Indisputably,
lions, tigers, wolves and all other wild predators don’t have access to
toothbrushes, dental floss or annual check-ups at the dentist."
Nature equipped carnivores with the tools of trade to complete a very
necessary evolutionary function: eating and thus regulating herbivore
populations on planet Earth. Strong, precision tools need to be kept sharp
and clean, and it’s by the very act of a carnivore’s gnawing and ripping its
way through tough hide, muscle, sinew and bone that its teeth and gums get
scrubbed, scraped and polished.
For dogs, cats and ferrets, the biological principles are exactly the
same as for their wild cousins. Nutrients need to be raw and easily
digested; physically, the food should be raw, tough and chewy. In practical
terms, that’s a diet of whole chickens, rabbits, fish or similar. A raw
meaty bones-based diet provides a good second-best option.
Blowing the whistle, catching attention
If unnatural pet food injures the health of pets, then the cozy
relationship between the pet food manufacturers and the veterinary
profession injures pets, pet owners and the veterinary profession, too. In
his aforementioned article, Breck Muir complained:
"The infiltration of the commercial pet foods into our lives is one
of the great success stories of the business world. Gross sales figures for
a single product type is probably only bettered by petroleum products
worldwide.
"We as a profession have been led by the nose by vested interests
into a current situation where most younger vets actually recommend
commercial pet foods as the best available way of feeding domestic pets –
because they have never known of any other way. Before they had their first
pet, they were bombarded with constant mass media advertising instilling
into them that various commercial foods are the only way to go. And when
they graduated and went to postgraduate nutrition courses, again, they had
this idea reinforced by visiting lecturers who actually mentioned brand
names in their notes."
Breck and I thought that blowing the whistle on the processed pet food
issue might trigger debate. We also hoped it might lead to reappraisal and
resolution of a gathering crisis. However, we were about to be taught the
first of several lessons: The pet food industry/veterinary profession
alliance is extensive, strong and hostile to criticism.
Upper echelons of the veterinary profession (veterinary associations,
veterinary schools, research institutes) and junk food makers do deals
behind the scenes. The Australian Veterinary Association sent Breck’s letter
to John Wingate, the then-president of the Pet Food Manufacturers
Association Inc. (now the Pet Food Industry Association of Australia Inc.).
Wingate, in his self-serving response published alongside Breck’s letter,
told vets: “The best way to feed a pet animal is with reputable brands of
pet food… Analytically speaking, the...contents of these products are known
and designed to satisfy the requirements of the animal as defined by the
National Research Council of the U.S. Academy of Sciences, which is the
accumulation of the most up-to-date world-wide knowledge on the subject.”
Yes, that’s right: the junk pet food culture extends all the way up to
the U.S. Academy of Sciences – and along the way, animal welfare
organizations, dog and cat breed societies, pet magazines, books, print and
electronic media all sing from the junk pet food makers’ song sheet.
But as practicing vets ministering to the needs of a steady stream of
sick pets, we found that our senses and our daily experience told us that
the weight of so-called veterinary evidence was wrong. We delved deeper,
looking in textbooks and research papers. And everywhere we stumbled,
tripped and fell, we found new evidence of the harmful effects of junk food.
Most pets are fed junk food and never clean their teeth. By simply
cleaning diseased teeth and gums and changing pets over to a more natural
diet, otherwise intractable diseases disappear – never to recur. Penicillin,
hailed as a wonder drug, is used to treat some bacterial diseases but has no
long-term disease prevention benefits. Using dentistry and diet, we could
cure many and prevent most of the diseases afflicting pets.
Tentacles of the monster
Communicating the good health, good news message to other vets became
paramount, and so began a cat-and-mouse game with the Australian Veterinary
Association (AVA). As fully-paid-up members of the association, we could
submit letters to the letters page of the AVA News. The AVA and pet-food
company sponsors were not so keen. Nevertheless, between December 1991 and
March 1993, a small band of raw meaty bones enthusiasts managed to get 10
letters published – until AVA News announced it would run no further
correspondence.
At a stroke, AVA members were forbidden to discuss fundamental health
issues. In response, and with the annual general meeting fast approaching,
we drafted a motion calling on the AVA to lift the correspondence ban and to
conduct a full investigation of the diet and disease issue. After “lively”
debate, both parts of the motion were approved.
The AVA report on the diet and disease link was released in February
1994, nine months after the 1993 AGM. Although “assisted” by pet food
company vet Dr. Barbara Fougere and other pet food company sympathizers, the
committee nevertheless reported that, instead of investigating the full
impact of diet and disease, it had limited its enquiries:
- The committee believed the concerns raised required urgent
attention and comment. It was considered that within the time frame set
by the AVA it was not possible to explore every aspect of dietary
interaction with disease.
- Information which could be gathered on the broader issues would
be unlikely to add more than is already well known.
- Concentration should be placed on periodontal disease and diet
because this was the principal area of current concern to the Australian
veterinary profession.
- It was felt that if periodontal disease could be prevented then
any secondary complications from this problem would be reduced.
- There is prima facie evidence to justify concern by
veterinarians. Pet owners should consider the need to provide some
“chewy” material as well as the basic nutrient intake of their dog or
cat.
Periodontal disease may be associated with the occurrence of other
diseases but the available evidence is inconclusive. Periodontal disease is
arguably the most common disease condition seen in small animal practice and
its effects on the gums and teeth can significantly affect the health and
well-being of affected animals. This is sufficient in itself to give reason
for concern. Proof of additional systemic effects is not necessary to
justify further action.
Further research is required to better define the relationship
between particular diet types and oral health in dogs and cats. Those
investigating small animal health problems should also take diet and diet
consistency into account when researching systemic diseases – possible
confounding effects of diet and poor oral health must be considered in such
studies.
Prophetic last words, indeed. Hands-on research in my practice has
confirmed that diet and diet consistency are the prime determining factors
in most diseases treated at suburban veterinary clinics. A range of
previously hard-to-treat conditions disappeared as if by magic when dental
care coupled with diet change became our top priority. Investigation of pets
suffering an acquired immune deficiency revealed a startling restoration of
immune function and return to health when the animals’ foul mouths were
treated and their diet changed to raw meaty bones. The implications are
immense, and not just for AIDS sufferers. It’s relevant for all of us with
an immune system and, as I postulated in a paper published in the Journal of
Veterinary Dentistry, is likely significant to our understanding of the
ecology of health and disease on planet Earth.
The pet food industry/veterinary profession alliance, with a
multibillion-dollar fighting fund, was in no mood to listen, except insofar
as its members wished to consolidate their position. With so many problems
associated with the feeding of junk food, they are adept at turning
adversity to advantage. Their tentacles wrap around a problem; they pour
money into research and present themselves as public benefactors. So it was
with periodontal disease, which became the new hot topic in pet food
company research labs and universities the world over. Their solution: a
plethora of artificial dental products carrying inflated health claims –
often endorsed by the Veterinary Oral Health Council.
Getting the products to the end user depends on a willing sales force
free from independent thought. Veterinarians enjoy status and respect; once
indoctrinated, they are the ideal sales and marketing force. Accordingly,
veterinarians are tutored in the mail, in advertisements and in visits from
pet food company representatives. With minds filled with pet food company
“facts,” vets are then encouraged to support Dental Health Month, Pet Smile
Month or similar. It’s the month when pet owners are bombarded with
advertisements and publicity stunts, urging them to visit their vet for a
“free” dental check for their pets and receive a goody-bag full of samples
and copies of those same company-selected “facts.”
Augmenting the propaganda push, there’s a campaign to denigrate
home-prepared and raw food through articles strategically placed in
so-called professional journals.
I, myself, have been targeted in a series of bogus disciplinary actions
before the Veterinary Surgeons Board of NSW – a government regulatory body
made up of AVA members. Threatened with deregistration, a year in prison or
a fine of $2,000, legal defense strategies became top priority. Documents on
file weigh a combined 12 kilograms (26 pounds) and represent years of hard
work and countless hours spent in lawyers’ offices. Fortunately, the lawyers
and I managed to with- stand the harassment and I’m still registered as a
vet.
The price we pay
The following points provide a summary of the price we pay:
1. Junk food-induced cruelty, ill health and suffering affects the
majority of the world’s pets. Plentiful scientific evidence, experience and
common sense confirm this fact.
2. Misuse of existing scientific paradigms and bogus administrative
techniques produces a body of counterfeit science in the service of the junk
pet food industry. The current mass poisoning of pets starts with the first
lie: that processed pet food is as good as or better than the natural
alternative. So-called researchers swallow the lie and then misuse existing
scientific methods and compliant professional journals to perpetuate and
bolster the lie.
3. Broadly, three methodologies combine to form the scientific paradigm
that underpins the junk pet food enterprise: i) an emphasis on treatment,
not prevention, of ill health and disease; ii) dependence on the germ theory
of disease as a fundamental axiom when in fact Pasteur, one of the
originators of the germ theory, acknowledged that germs are secondary to
other predisposing factors; and iii) dependence on reductionist research
methods when in fact an holistic approach, taking account of all interactive
forces, provides much more satisfactory evidence. Consider that a natural,
raw meaty bones-based diet acts as food and medicine for carnivores. If we
apply the lessons to be learned from a study of the health and disease of
carnivores resident at the extreme end of the nutritional spectrum, we can
derive information of immense medical, scientific, economic and
environmental value to us all. New attitudes and new paradigms are needed
but are blocked by the combined might of vested interests.
4. Economic consequences measure in the billions of dollars. Back in the
1860s, Jack Spratt, assisted by Charles Cruft, opened the first processed
dog food business in London and started dog shows as a marketing tool. Now,
in 2007, Business Week estimates that “Americans spend an astonishing $41
billion a year on their furry friends.” Fueled by massive profits, the pet
food marketing machine encourages us to acquire “furry friends,” junk pet
food and vet services.
From dog droppings on the sole of your shoe through to the ecological
footprint of giant pet food factories, there are immense environmental costs
that don’t appear in the figures. Neither do the figures reveal the cost of
the municipal pounds and welfare shelters needed for the millions of
discarded pets. Dogs fed junk food are harder to train and more likely to
bite their owners, leading to increased training and medical costs. What
price the scars on a child’s face?
5. Failure of democratic, administrative and legal systems – whether due
to oversight, incompetence or corruption – facilitates the junk pet food
scam. Despite the moral and ethical problems associated with duping people
into slowly poisoning their animals and the clear illegality of such cruel
treatment, our politicians and lawyers have done little or nothing. Some
animal welfare groups, purporting to care for the plight of pets, consort
with the junk pet food companies and are more a part of the problem than the
solution.
The media, our watchdogs, mostly remain in their kennel, too scared to
comment. Journalists working for the Australian newspaper the Sydney
Sun-Herald and the U.K. Sunday Independent researched and wrote extensive
articles that were never published. Other media outlets engage in
self-censorship and publish tepid accounts or no accounts at all.
Pet food recall
Whilst we discuss the pet food scam, we should keep in mind that two
giant chocolate manufacturers, Mars and Nestlé, jostle for supremacy of the pet food industry. They span the globe and have plans for vast expansions
into India and China. In the second tier, other large conglomerates –
Colgate- Palmolive, Procter & Gamble, Heinz and Del Monte – compete for
consumer loyalty. The companies may seek to differentiate themselves and
their products but, in fact, we know there’s a sameness about them all – as
was amply demonstrated in the March 2007 Menu Foods recall. Dogs and cats in
North America were ill and dying of acute renal failure, traced to the
output of one contract pet food manufacturer, Menu Foods. At first it was
thought that rat poison had contaminated batches of “food,” but as the story
unfolded it turned out that melamine, a chemical used for manufacturing
plastic counter-tops, glue and fertilizer, had been added into Chinese
shipments of wheat gluten affecting almost 100 different brands.
Acute renal failure may be uncommon, but chronic renal failure is not.
Research carried out by Nestlé revealed that the mean lifespan of cats fed
exclusively commercial cat food and receiving regular veterinary attention
was less than 12 years of age, with death largely attributable to renal
failure or cancer. The Mars corporation, advertising its Pedigree
bone-shaped chews, told vets that “80 percent of dogs over the age of three
have gum disease” and that “dental problems are known to increase with age
and are increasingly being linked to vital organ disease – most notably
kidneys and liver.” “Chronic renal disease is a leading cause of death in
dogs and cats,” says manufacturer Royal Canin.
Future prospects
What does the future hold? Who can tell? Peering through my crystal ball,
I see a future of constant change. In a complex world of competing
interests, some change will be for the good and some for the bad. Let’s be
under no illusions: big, bad forces seek to stifle dissent and we are merely
individuals of good will. Echoing Edmund Burke: “All that is needed for evil
to prosper is for people of good will to do nothing.” Let’s do something –
anything – that helps the animals. Let’s start today. Here's
more detail on what to feed your pet.
Veterinarian and author Dr Tom Lonsdale,
BVetMed, MRCVS, graduated from the Royal Veterinary College, University of
London in 1972. In the 1980s, he became aware of the dietary disease epidemics
affecting the animals under his care. Since 1991, Dr. Lonsdale has campaigned to
bring the information to public attention. In 2001, his landmark book Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health was published, followed in 2005 by Work Wonders: Feed Your Dog Raw Meaty Bones.
| 
