Boogeyman (2004)

About 25 years ago I began formulating pet foods at a time when the entire food industry pet seemed quagmire and focused on things such as protein and fat percentages without any real consideration for ingredients. Since boot leather and soap could make a pet food with the "ideal" proportions, it is clear that the percentages of analysis does not end the story value of food products for pets. I was convinced then, as I am now, that food may be no better than its ingredients. Since this idea was an ingredient in food for pets, he took a commercial life that distorts and perverts the meaning of the underlying philosophy of quality food and feeding practices. Is reducible to health, the ingredients of a commercial product or not? As contradictory as it may seem that I have said, no it is not the case. Here's why.

AAFCO Approved
The official publication of the American Association of Control Officials feed (AAFCO) provides a wide latitude for ingredients that can be used in foodstuffs of animal origin. As I noted in my book, The Truth about pet food, may include ingredients approved by *:
Dehydrated Garbage
undried processed products of animal waste
replacement of roughage polyethylene (plastic)
hydrolyzed poultry feathers
hydrolyzed hair
hydrolyzed leather meal
hatchery byproduct
reservoirs of meat
peanut hulls
Ground almond shells
(* Association of American Feed Control Officials, Official Publication 1998)

At the same time, this same agency regulations prohibit the use of many proven benefits of natural ingredients that can be found readily available for human consumption such as bee pollen, glucosamine, L-carnitine, Spirulina and numerous other nutraceutical products. It would be easy to conclude that reason does not rule when it comes to what may or may not officially be used in foods for pets.

From the perspective of regulators, they operate from the simplistic idea that the nutritional value of food has to do with percentages, and there is no particular merit to a particular ingredient. They deny the tens of thousands of articles from scientific research demonstrating that the type of ingredient and its quality can make all the difference in terms of health. They are also silent about the harmful effects of food processing and the impact of time, light, heat, oxygen and packaging on nutritional and health aspects.

Thus, the regulators are certainly not the place to go to determine how to feed pets health. To their way of thinking, as a packaged food reaches a certain percentage, regardless of ingredients, the manufacturer may ask the food is 100% complete. Pet owners, then make these foods with confidence guaranteed food for every meal all the time thinking they are doing the right thing for their pet. This nutritionally old school is a common practice in hospitals where man and dieticians official flows sick and starving patients in a metabolic rate of jello, instant potatoes, powdered eggs, white flour buns and margarine because their cards say such plans containing the percentages of certain nutrients. Hospitals are a good place to go if you want to get sick!

The Myth of 100% complete
Consumers are increasingly attentive to the value of natural foods. Everyone knows intuitively that the more power is real, fresh food and healthy, the better the chances that good health will result. Unfortunately, people do not apply this same common sense to feed pets. Instead they buy "100% complete" processed foods, maybe even going the extra mile and selecting "super premium" or "natural" brands, thinking they are doing the best we can do. They surrender their minds to a marketing ploy (100% completeness) and to make them.