Do Pet Food Companies subsidise Vet Nutrition Education Programs?

Question

If this is true then it raises serious implications as to whether their opinion can be truly impartial when it comes to animal nutrition.

This point was raised by another user yesterday as a general comment.

Answer 1

That's true. For eons the veterinary schools have offered little in the way of nutritional information for animals, the courses usually would cover the feeding of livestock and were a very small part of the the veterinarians' education.

So the feeding and dietary needs of companion animals was totally neglected and consisted of "seminars" put on by the food companies who of course employ veterinarians with the same lack of education in small animal nutrition as the ones they were "teaching". That is an historical precedent which persists to this day from the time when stock animals were an important part of the economy (they still are) and cats and dogs were not considered important enough to consider. With the creation of commercial pet foods the need for better veterinary education about their nutritional needs has become very important. Commercial food is evaluated and formulated using the principles and requirements considered necessary to sustain animal life for the two years before the time of slaughter. All stock animals are vegetarian in their diets and that is why there is so much corn in most cat foods. So it is not so much a question of impartiality as that the vegetable matter is cheap and can meet the minimum "standards" established by AAFCO, standards developed for stock animals.

According to one of my vets who is a recent graduate of the UC Veterinary School there is now a small animal nutritionist on the staff of that school and currently trained vets are receiving some education in the proper feeding of cats and dogs. Cats are obligate carnivores whose diets should be at least 60% meat. Dogs are omnivores and still do better when fed a diet higher in meat protein than vegetable matter.

Answer 2

I worked for an animal hospital that promoted and sold Royal Canin brand. It's not a crappy brand either. A lot of the diets they make are prescription, which is beneficial to the dog or cat with a certain medical condition. The vet I worked with fed her animals this brand. As far as the vet getting paid by Royal Canin to sell their food, that did not happen. She sold the food because she believed it was a good brand. ADD: Where oh where do some people get the idea that veterinarians are not trained in nutrition? I suppose you think if you read an article written by anyone, then it must be true.

Answer 3

Unless it is a prescription diet given by a vet....I do not look to them to advise a specific brand of food. Really, many vets do not know THAT much about nutrition in that way. As far as for different diseases, they do......but as far as basic nutrition...not so much.

I have had vets say that any dry food is fine since they all have to meet the AFFCO standards, one guy loved Ol Roly, another Pedigree, some Science Diet........they like what companies tell them to like, or what clients have told them, or whatever.

Answer 4

You will also be dismayed to learn that some pet food companies also perform experiments on animals! Some dogs hve had their legs broken to see if feeding a particular brand of food can claim that it is good for bone growth! See the following site for further info

Answer 5

Read "Foods Pets Die For" by Ann N. Martin. It answers all these questions.
You will be shocked and amazed!

Answer 6

Yes, Hill's Science Diet does. They have a, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" relationship with veterinarians.

My vet in the last town I lived in came right out and said this to me.

spazrats
http://spazrats.tripod.com