THE "BUT IT'S ALL FIXED NOW" MYTH
The industry doesn't. After all, the problem has been "fixed." Further, why should anyone expect perfection? Mistakes are made. Shouldn't we measure them by their willingness to discover the problem, admit error and make the necessary corrections? Does an eventual explanation of causes justify results like disease, suffering and death? Correcting nutritional errors after disease results merits accolades only if the food is not being foisted on the public as 100% complete.
Things would be more forgivable if they weren't claiming perfection in the first place – and if they were not causing disease by so doing. "100% complete" means total, absolute perfection. Look it up. It's not like horseshoes and grenades where close is plenty good enough. 100% does not mean 99.99%. Complete does not mean incomplete.
Neither is it valid to argue that "100% complete" has a special loose definition qualified by matching a food to NRC minimal standards or feeding trial tests. The average person should be able to read a package and understand "100% complete" to mean just that, not a special case definition based on esoteric pet food industry argot and caveat emptor.
Real food consists of nutrients by the myriad, perhaps over a hundred. Some known, some not. Even if all the essential nutrients are in the starting materials, processing destroys or alters practically all of them.
There is also every reason to believe that only the more obvious tip of the nutrient/disease iceberg has been noticed and corrected. The hidden jagged edges of exclusively fed "100% complete" foods will continue to tear at the health bow of companion animals, robbing them of vitality in numerous subtle ways until they ultimately sink from decoys such as "infection," "old age," "degenerative disease," "genetics," "fate" or "unknown causes."
All is not well if "100% complete and balanced" (fixed) foods are fed exclusively. Although the pet food industry cleverly embroiders the truth and is charitable with themselves for past errors (and the thousands of animals diseased from reliance on the 100% complete claim), the caring pet owner should not be. The lesson is, become cynical and skeptical, or the past will be prologue.
© Copyright 2002, Wysong Corporation.The Wysong e-Health Letter is an educational newsletter. Opinions expressed are meant to be taken for their argumentative/intellectual interest value, and not interpreted as specific medical or legal direction for individual conditions or situations. The e-Health Letter does not represent all-inclusive knowledge, nor can it affirm or deny facts or data gathered from cited references. Before initiating any health action or changing existing therapies, individuals should read the references cited in the e-Health Letter or request them from Wysong Corporation (firstname.lastname@example.org), and seek and evaluate several alternative, competent viewpoints. The reader (not the Wysong e-Health Letter) must assume all responsibilities from the application of educational and often controversial information presented in the e-Health Letter.