I don't know why you're encouraging an owner who *does* question the ethics/information behind the massive, corporate, "popular", filler-packed brands to not look into improving her dogs diet.
I was actually responding to someone who questioned whether or not "human food" was good for dogs.

As stated I have fed and continue to feed my dogs Propet dog food. Since Propet dog food is a subsidiary of Carnation, and Carnation is a subsidiary of Nestle would you not agree the brand of dog food could qualify as coming from a massive corporation? It's quite unclear what filler means? But let's just assume that Propet has this nasty filler. Let's also assume that it's popular - although it probably isn't. So having met all of your criteria, once again here's the status of my two dogs...

Palatability of the food. Do the dogs like eating the Propet food? Well if I ask them around feeding time: Are you hungry? Clover immediately lets out a sound of "woo woo woo", and runs to the kitchen, while Barney starts jumping up and down turning in circles, and races down the stairs to the kitchen. Again food hits bowl and it's gone in 30-60 seconds. Could it be possible they like their food? Now what should be mixed in it to get them to jump through glass windows on the way to their feeding bowls?

No allergies, food skin or otherwise. No digestive problems- outside of when Barney decides to go "raw diet" on a deer bone. High energy levels. No metabolic problems. No arthritis. Exactly how can I improve the health of dogs which are in perfect health by altering diet?

Since you don't seem to believe in conventional Vets, do you believe in the points made in this link given in another thread?

Raw vs Kibble

Every major point or category is easily refuted. How does one inform themselves using non-scientific articles?