Cautions Agaisnt Raw Food diet

Talk about diets, exercise, and disease.
User avatar
pblove
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 15599
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:28 pm
Location: east coast

Cautions Agaisnt Raw Food diet

Postby pblove » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:15 pm

I finally found a study about raw feeding.

http://www.azmira.com/StudyRawFoodDiets.htm


Cautions Against Raw Food Diets

PET CARE EXPERT CAUTIONS AGAINST RAW FOOD DIET FOR DOGS
An Evaluation of Raw Meat, Bones and Food in healthy dogs and cats
Lisa S. Newman, N.D., Ph.D., Azmira’s Director of Research
Lee Veith, D.V.M. Veterinary Regulatory Board


ABSTRACT
It is shown that a long term B.A.R.F. (bones and raw foods) diet is likely to decrease the overall health of the pet. The pet’s ability to digest the raw foods is compromised by evolutionary changes to the digestive tracts of domesticated pets. The difficulty in digesting raw foods combined with this evolutionary weakness creates a systematic breakdown of immune responses, leading to a variety of nutritionally-based symptoms. Elimination of the raw foods protocol resulted in a reversal of the obvious symptoms reported during long term use. When the B.A.R.F. approach was resumed, the return of symptoms occurred within two months. Nutrients including viable proteins still available in slightly cooked foods and some higher quality, easy-to-digest commercial diets -- to fuel curative processes such as detoxification (blood purification), improved organ function (to increase nutrient utilization), and superior tissue growth -- can be utilized, long term, with vastly improved “health responsesâ€

User avatar
starrlamia
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Canada

Postby starrlamia » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:46 pm

Interesting but A) thats a very small group of animals and B) they dont outline what they were feeding to the raw group they could have been feeding whole veggies and only chicken for all we know, which would lead to malnutrition.
I do believe that the digestive system of domesticated dogs has changed somewhat since domestication, but commercial pet foods as they are now have only been around about 100 years, before this dogs were fed some cooked food, but also some raw food, in some cultures dogs are still fed raw food in the majority of households with no more associated health problems then normal.

The other problem I see with this study is that it is in association with a person promoting a product, also, the kibble fed group were given said product, a suppliment, which does not denote that the kibble was what made it healthier, it could have been the added suppliment that made up for any different factors in the health and wellness.

Dont ever trust anything that is funded by a corperation or business who sells a product that will benefit from a specific outcome of said study, they are often biased and not conducted properly.

Both the kibble and suppliment in this study were products of the place funding and promoting it which are owned or at least developed by the doctors conducting it.

User avatar
angus
Bully Lover 4 Life
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:13 pm

Postby angus » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:15 pm

starrlamia wrote:Interesting but A) thats a very small group of animals and B) they dont outline what they were feeding to the raw group they could have been feeding whole veggies and only chicken for all we know, which would lead to malnutrition.
I do believe that the digestive system of domesticated dogs has changed somewhat since domestication, but commercial pet foods as they are now have only been around about 100 years, before this dogs were fed some cooked food, but also some raw food, in some cultures dogs are still fed raw food in the majority of households with no more associated health problems then normal.

The other problem I see with this study is that it is in association with a person promoting a product, also, the kibble fed group were given said product, a suppliment, which does not denote that the kibble was what made it healthier, it could have been the added suppliment that made up for any different factors in the health and wellness.

Dont ever trust anything that is funded by a corperation or business who sells a product that will benefit from a specific outcome of said study, they are often biased and not conducted properly.

Both the kibble and suppliment in this study were products of the place funding and promoting it which are owned or at least developed by the doctors conducting it.


Exactly. Sounds like Azmira nutrition and Dr. Newman are just trying to sell their supplements.

User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10498
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Postby Misskiwi67 » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:53 pm

That is actually a HUGE study group when it comes to modern research using animal subjects.

I agree its highly weighted towards Newmans supplements, but interesting results nonetheless.

User avatar
El_EmDubya
Bully Lover 4 Life
Posts: 1367
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:21 pm
Location: Today? Overlooking Alcatraz or the French Alps

Postby El_EmDubya » Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:05 am

Misskiwi67 wrote:That is actually a HUGE study group when it comes to modern research using animal subjects.

I agree its highly weighted towards Newmans supplements, but interesting results nonetheless.


I agree with the fact that this study had a "huge" number of participants. Having worked in pharmaceutical research, I have first hand experience with clinical human trials and the difficulty in finding appropriate test subjects that fall within the narrow specs of research. However, statistically speaking, the number of participants isn't large enough to normalize* the groups for biochemical differences in species and breeds. (Differences in human biochemistry are widely documented w/r/t race and sex, it would be expected that dogs would be the same if not more varied due to selective breeding/inbreeding.)

Good science is difficult to construct! (Hence the need to quote a study that was conducted 20 years ago.)

I would hope that one day a good impartial study will discuss the differences in RAW vs Commercially produced diets, but that study will have to be incredibly complex to control for all the variances in diet, age at initiation, breed, etc that it will be nearly impossible to find enough participants.

Until that time, I'll continue to talk to the growing circle of raw feeders and take my dog to a skeptical vet who provides great feedback.

Pblove, thanks for posting this - really. Anything "we" can do to get to the truth about animal health/nutrition is a win for everyone.



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:01 am

Study group size was fine IMO--my questions are:

- Where's your raw data?
- What exactly are the calculations they used to determine a "X"% increase or decrease in "health"? (aka what tests were done)
- In these tests to determine health, what was used as a control?
- How exactly did they determine an increase or decrease in health?
- What was the nutrient analysis and composition of the food?
- Was this done with laboratory animals or done outside the lab?
- Were the dogs fed nothing but the designated diets exclusively?
- What journal was this published in? (I can probably find this myself, I'm just lazy) lol

My concerns:

- Done by a dog food company...in their lab, by their scientist nonetheless.


This makes me "blah" because I've been wanting to see a good research study involving raw vs kibble, but this one has VERY little credibility IMO....and was conducted pretty poorly (or at least didn't give any information to make it worth taking any conclusions from).

MikeZev
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 4544
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:51 am
Location: jc, nj

Postby MikeZev » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:37 am

i stopped taking it seriously when they mentioned "evolutionary changes"

User avatar
pblove
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 15599
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:28 pm
Location: east coast

Postby pblove » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:38 am

I am sure you can contact them with your questions and post back when/if you get answers??
I have not been able to find any studies re raw feeding and was glad to see this one.

User avatar
Savage Destiny
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2167
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:04 am
Location: Bend, OR
Contact:

Postby Savage Destiny » Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:35 am

When someone finds a kibble that Riddle can eat without her hair falling out, I'll stop feeding raw. :thumbsup:

User avatar
TigerLady
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:10 pm

Postby TigerLady » Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:43 pm

I will continue feeding my dogs prey model raw regradless of what this "study" indicates, becaue frankly, my dogs do best, and are happy & healthy on raw feed.

~Tiger

User avatar
BabyReba
Moderator
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Winter Park, Florida
Contact:

Postby BabyReba » Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:28 pm

I am rather shocked that they put so much product advertising in their study.

Although Azmira’s pet nutrition formulas have proven to be beneficial in reversing general weakness and improve wellness to help stimulate healing, it is with the addition of Dr. Newman’s daily supplementation that the majority of pets have flourished long term.


I also can't help but notice how the only group of animals given any supplementation was the kibble-fed group. The other groups received no supplements, from what I can tell. How can you accurately compare the benefits of the diets when one group is given a beneficial nutrient formula, in addition to the regular feed, that the other groups are not permitted?

Sounds like a company looking to sell pet-nutrition "formulas," not a company looking to do a truly unbiased, scientific study.

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:52 pm

The only literature in the scientific community is regarding bacteria populations and infections in animals fed raw. I will follow this with a post of the full article if it will let me:

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:52 pm

Bacteriological evaluation of commercial canine and feline raw diets
J. Scott Weese, Joyce Rousseau, and L. Arroyo
Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1.
Address all correspondence to Dr. J. Scott Weese; e-mail: jsweese@uoguelph.ca
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Twenty-five commercial raw diets for dogs and cats were evaluated bacteriologically. Coliforms were present in all diets, ranging from 3.5 × 103 to 9.4 × 106 CFU/g (mean 8.9 × 105; standard deviation 1.9 × 106). Escherichia coli was identified in 15/25 (64%) diets; however, E. coli O157 was not detected. Salmonella spp. were detected in 5/25 (20%) diets; 1 each of beef-, lamb-, quail-, chicken-, and ostrich-based diets. Sporeforming bacteria were identified from 4/25 (16%) samples on direct culture and 25/25 (100%) samples using enrichment culture. Clostridium perfringens was identified in 5/25 (20%) samples. A toxigenic strain of C. difficile was isolated from one turkeybased food. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated from 1/25 (4%) diets. Campylobacter spp. were not isolated from any of the diets.

Introduction
Feeding raw diets to cats and dogs is becoming increasingly popular. A variety of unsubstantiated benefits are used to support the feeding of raw diets, including beneficial effects on immune function, overall health, energy, skin and coat condition, chronic digestive, allergic and metabolic diseases, and provision of a ‘more natural’ diet (1,2). To meet the increasing demand, a number of companies are now marketing raw diets for cats and dogs, and these diets can be found at a variety of pet stores and a smaller number of veterinary clinics.
There is an inherent risk of bacterial contamination of raw meat for human or animal consumption, and a variety of bacterial pathogens are of concern (3–5). In animals fed raw meat diets, Salmonella spp. have received the most attention. One study reported isolation of Salmonella spp. from 80% of homemade raw diets for dogs, and 30% of fecal samples from dogs fed those diets (6), while another reported isolation of Salmonella spp. from 45% of raw meat samples used in diets of racing greyhounds (7). In addition to Salmonella spp., bacterial pathogens that could be of concern to animals or humans include Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli (including E. coli O157), enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium perfringens, and other pathogenic clostridia (3,5,8).
The sole reported study of commercial raw diets only evaluated 2 diets for a limited number of pathogens (9). Larger studies, both in sample size and number of pathogens, are required to make sound recommendations regarding the safety of these diets in terms of both animal and human health. Despite the lack of science, there is abundant conjecture about the feeding of raw diets, much of which may be misleading. On one Website supporting a commercial raw diet, it is claimed that “The FDA has stated that Salmonella is not harmful to dogsâ€

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:53 pm

Oops---sorry for the sections not being spaced out--didn't preview it.

If you have any questions regarding the references let me know and I can post those as well.

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:00 pm

I wanted to add a letter that was published in response to a paper like I mentioned above (different author stating the same thing pretty much):

In support of bones and raw food diets
Dr. Lea Stogdale, DVM, Diplomate ACVIM and Dr. Garcea Diehl, DVM
Aesops Veterinary Care 192–2025 Corydon Ave Winnipeg, Manitoba R3P 0N5
See the article on page 449–450.

Dear Sir,
Drs. Daniel Joffe and Bernard Rollin both replied negatively to the ethical question regarding feeding dogs raw meat diets (Can Vet J 2003;44:449–450).

In our practice, we support owners who feed bones and raw food (BARF) and other raw meat diets. Sometimes we recommend home-prepared diets, which some owners elect to feed raw. We are comfortable and confident in doing this, because we have educated ourselves in canine and feline nutrition. We formulate the diet specifically for each pet's health status, so that the diet is complete, balanced, medically appropriate, and of high quality. In addition, we educate owners as to food preparation, food handling safety, and feeding practices during a 30- to 40-minute consultation with our nutritional consultant. They are given typed instructions for the diet, food handling safety and preparation, and a shopping list. We charge $45 for this service.

Becoming competent in nutrition requires a great deal of reading and research — most of which is boring, contradictory, and confusing. We understand why the majority of veterinarians do not elect to spend their continuing education time on studying this field; it's so much easier and more efficient to recommend a bag of commercial pet food.

With regard to the safety issues of feeding raw meat to pets, safe food handling is essential, whether the meat is to be cooked for human or pet consumption or fed raw to dogs or cats. We advise our clients not to feed raw pork, fish, or wild game offal. We advise them in the safe and hygienic clean-up of all pet feces, irrespective of what they are feeding.

To our knowledge, feeding home-prepared cooked or raw diets has not been proven to control medical problems, based upon prospective, double-blind, statistically significant clinical trials. However, we find that we can control a number of chronic digestive, allergic, and metabolic problems by using home prepared diets. We find that we can prevent a large number of problems from occurring in our feline and canine patients, including bladder stones and feline lower urinary tract disease (FLUTD), intermittent vomiting or diarrhea, seborrhea sicca, and recurrent ear infections. These diets are individualized to the particular pet and its medical diagnoses, formulated with informed nutritional knowledge, and presented to the owner with nutritional and food safety education.
We disagree with the opinions of Drs. Daniel Joffe and Bernard Rollin.

Dr. Lea Stogdale, DVM, Diplomate ACVIM
Dr. Garcea Diehl, DVM
Aesops Veterinary Care


Return to “Health Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests