THE "DIGESTIBILITY TESTS PROVE 100% COMPLETENESS" MYTH
Within the pet food industry, these tests are used to determine how much food is absorbed. Is food "B," because it is 95% digestible, better than food "A," which is 90% digestible? That would imply that if food "C" were 100% digestible, with zero fecal output, it would be the best food of all. Not so. Digestive tract health and the movement of food through the intestines depends upon a portion of food being indigestible.
Additionally, there is no generally accepted method for determining digestibility. Such disagreement usually results when understanding is poor. Now then, if digestibility expert "A" disagrees with digestibility expert "B" and vice versa, we can disagree with them both and have the backing of an expert. Digestibility tests attach simplicity to that which is incredibly complex. Measuring how much is absorbed compared to how much is lost or excreted says nothing about the merit of what is absorbed. Nutrition is a tissue-level biochemical phenomenon, not a simple subtraction between what is eaten and what is excreted.
If producers wish to claim their food is X% digestible, that is fine. But don't you believe it when they take an incredible leap (actually a fall) in logic and then claim their food is "100% complete and balanced." It's like me claiming that because I can jump over the couch I can also jump over the moon.
Digestibility studies are a futile life-support system for the hopelessly terminal "100% complete" claim. Don't be deceived. The "100% complete" claim is not good science. It is a shameless attempt at credibility by mere fraternization with the distinguished coattails of science. If science is the sun, the "100% complete" claim is Pluto.
Reliance on such dubious information distracts from important issues of natural nutrition and simply builds reliance on commercial interests.
I have not mentioned the waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by manufacturers on testing and licensing to be able to make the "complete and balanced" claim. A huge regulatory and laboratory industry now exists to assure the perpetuation of the "100% complete" myth. Who pays for this? You do. This deceptive myth occupies an increasing economic space in your can or bag of pet food.
© 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.