Reaction to NY Times article on Dog foods and heart disease

I submitted this to the NY times this morning: The article on brands linked to heart disease was not based on a double-blind study nor did it even mention taurine, the primary amino acid of interest nor did the reporter contact anyone outside of the Pet Food Institute which is nothing other than a corporate megaphone for big companies. Yet it succeeded in providing panic in the minds and hearts of dog owners. Before panic sets in, there are multiple problems that need addressing. I am not a spokesperson for any of the companies implicated in this article because I do not think the healthiest diets would include kibble feeding at all. Yet I have many dogs in my practice feed the kibbles listed and none have developed heart disease from these foods. I recommend home-prepared including many raw ingredients because feeding raw is the best way to make sure all amino acids are left intact; processing food destroys more than just taurine. The greater discussion here needs to be why these foods exist in the first place. Dr. De Jong mentioned, “The grain free myth.” Actually, because I am working with dogs affected by severe allergies, I can say there is no myth. Our GMO-ladened and hybridized grains (as well as chicken and beef) have contributed to itching and ear infections. The FDA and the Pet Food Institute have been propping up big corporations in a multi-billion dollar industry for so many years and now this is their moment to attack some smaller companies. A few months ago, Hills prescription canned foods did kill hundreds of dogs with vitamin D toxicity, but we do not see the same attack on AVMA’s beloved “science diet” and one has to wonder where the truth lies. If we are relying on the corporate media to bring us some shred of truth, we will need to go back to the good old days of reporting all sides. But now you might get thrown in jail for that.

Leave a Reply