Mom is refusing to belive me about raw.

[Lady's Human]

My issue with many of the posts about RAW isn't with the raw diet itself, but rather with the perpetual myths that are posted in defense of it. There are possible microbial and other health issues involved, and takes a lot of research and effort to do properly.

Another irritation I have with many of the raw posts is the continuing myth that commercial dog food is bad. The evil additives that are constantly harped on are nothing more than a chemical replacements for vitamins and minerals that an animal needs for good health. Do you take vitamins? "Natural" supplements ? You're ingesting the same chemicals listed on a bag of dog food, in the saame form, with a different label. Preservatives? preservatives are present in food in such minute amounts that they have little to no biological effect. For example, (from the human side) a batch of syrup for soda contains 20 lbs of sodium benzoate. sounds like a lot, right? Not after you do the math, and figure out that that benzoate is distributed through 192000 pounds of product. It winds up in the parts per million range. How does it wind up on the ingredient list before flavoring? It doesn't take much orange oil to flavor the soda by weight. ANYTHING put into the product by the manufacturer has to be listed, which is why something that may be in the parts per million or parts per billion range is listed. Media reports showing that benzoate, for example, is a harmful additive don't give you the whole story. The amounts tested are frequently far in excess of what one would normally encounter in a diet. The most infamous example of this is saccharin. Yes, it can cause cancer. However, at the levels tested in the study that essentially pushed it off the market damned near ANYTHING would cause cancer. (It worked out to drinking 20 cases of soda containing saccharin per day for the rest of your life, IIRC. By that time you'd be in severe abdonminal distress from the acid you consumed, never mind the saccharin)

I can find studies proving that sugar is lethal (not over long term, lethal as a short term effect), water is lethal, the list could run forever. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's accurate or realistic.

False "scientific" claims drive me nuts in any form, whether involving dog food or nuclear power.

If your dog is doing well on a diet, that's fine, continue feeding it. Please don't try to push it on others or make others feel bad about what they are feeding their pet with dubious scientific claims.

[CagneyDog]

If your dog is doing well on a diet, that's fine, continue feeding it. Please don't try to push it on others or make others feel bad about what they are feeding their pet with dubious scientific claims.

I wouldn't really say that "pushing" is the right word. It's a recomendation, as are most things on a forum. You promote things that work, whether it be toys, food, kennels etc. I've learned a lot from people such as .sarah and bckrazy explaining the diet and I can't comprehend how you could see information as "pushing" it on others. After all, if you don't want anything to do with raw, don't even open the threads!

[Lady's Human]

I would say pushing is the right word. How many dog food threads asking about a good kibble have turned into a raw forum, inevitably with the comment that commercial dog food is bad?