Your dog food may be bad for your pet.

Your dog food may be bad for your pet. Specifically, dog foods with high concentrations of veggies may not be your best choice.
https://thetakeout.com/fda-dogs-heart-disease-veggie-heavy-pet-foods-1827579637

Comments

WSG Gallery said…
Typical fear article. If a certain dog food is bad, then name it. Don't be cute about ".... issued a warning that some dog foods containing peas, lentils, other legumes, or potatoes as their main ingredients”. Name the offending ingredients and why they are bad not a laundry list of ingredients. Am assuming scientists at the FDA did this study not interns.

The article seems to be derived from early results and not final results/white paper on the results. There is no information on methodology of the test (was there any methodology?), how big the sample was, what brought this "problem" to light, is it a singular ingredient or a mix of ingredients etc. .

In summary am not mad at Jason ON for pointing out the article. But vets always tell people, who cook their own dog food, to always make sure that there is adequate protein and VEGETABLES in a chicken and rice diet. So time to call BS on the article for being long on the scare tactic and extremely short on real information much less links to where the author got the story (if the article is based on fact where is the FDA notice that the article is based on).
Jason ON said…
Naming them opens the website an author open to libel suits, so it's especially hard to "name them" for a small site.

And when you cook your dog's food at home it's not put through a processing plant that may or may not cause it to be harmful to your pet.
WSG Gallery said…
I agree that naming the dog food brands would open up the blog to libel suits if the FDA did not name them. But the author could have given a link to the FDA documents that reference this test.

Also agree about fixing dog food at home is different than an industrial operation making dog food.

The backstory to my outrage in my first post was about naming certain vegetables but not saying why they were named. And were all the ingredients guilty individually, not sure if these were the ingredients, or as a group together were they all guilty?

Why does this matter? A vet we know using this article tore into my wife and I for using these ingredients in our made-up dog food. As a Doctor she should have known better than that (Doctors are supposed to think logically before blurting out). She did not bother to do anything other than mouth what the author of the blog said.

So when you posted the article, wanted to make sure that the article was called for the BS that it is. No attribution to any source, from an unknown blog of questionable journalistic integrity, and unverified statements that were dubious.

Jason ON said…
So, your argument is against the content of the post and not the conclusion it reaches?
WSG Gallery said…
I am against the conclusion that certain vegetables for dogs is wrong because the data that the article is based on is not referenced by links to verifiable sources. One has to take the word of an author of a blog that the content is true and that the FDA really did do some "test". To put it bluntly if the content in the article is unsupported/unsubstantiated then the conclusion is also unsupported. So why publicize spurious information?

Since there are no links to the FDA results and no quotes from an FDA spokesperson how true is the article?

How does an article reader know the bias of the author? Is the author biased against a particular brand of dog food which only contains these ingredients and starting a slam campaign against that manufacturer? Did the authors' dog die and the author blames the dog food and no one is taking the authors' grief seriously?

Joseph Goebbels had stated that the best lie starts with a kernel of truth and wrap the lie around on that kernel. This is an excellent study in that philosophy.

Never used to be so skeptical of articles but now in the new world order of Trumpism, if there is no attribution the article is suspect. Being gullible about "news articles" is a luxury that is now past.



Jason ON said…
Almost all articles in all publications take a certain amount of faith to fully believe. "anonymous sources" "asked not to be named" "unnamed officials" etc.

With traditional news sources we trust the editors and the policies that keep reporters honest. With blogs or smaller news outlets, they probably don't have those resources. It's one of the reasons I stay away from "blogs" and if you'll notice at the top, I say "may" twice. I place no credence on this article other than to say it's possible.
WSG Gallery said…
Here is a link to an article about the what we were talking about. Answers most of my questions and has a link to the FDA announcement. firstcoastnews.com - | Grain-free dog food could be linked to canine heart disease, FDA reports

Popular posts from this blog

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.