Blue Buffalo 32 m settlement

Pawz4me wrote:

A confounding factor as I see it is that veterinary nutritionists seem to just look at nutrient profiles. As long as the nutrient profile is met, most of those that I've read don't seem to think it matters what foods are being used to meet those profiles. OTOH the "all natural" crowd tends to think the foods used matter a lot. Just as with human nutrition where the more natural crowd would prefer to get their Vitamin C from organically grown oranges (eating the entire fruit, not just drinking the juice) and those who are only interested in meeting their RDA for Vitamin C are fine with mixing up some Tang in a glass of tap water. Is one of them right or wrong, or are both approaches equally acceptable? After all, they both meet the RDA for Vitamin C. In the end is that all that matters? Or does the quality or amount of processing of the source matter?

I don't like to see big pet food companies vilified because much (if not all) of what we know about canine and feline nutrition we know because of the research those companies have done or funded over the years. That's not a small thing! Do I think they could do a better job of providing higher quality products? Yep.

In human nutrition, we are continually discovering new nutrients that are necessary for life. Vitamin K, essential fatty acids, choline... none of these things were in the syllabus when I was in school.

An advantage in eating whole, natural foods is that we,are more likely to be getting the nutrients that have not been discovered YET, but are crucial. I can only assume that scientific knowledge of dogs' needs is even less complete.