Anti-Raw Article Rebuttals
The practice of feeding a raw food diet is gaining exposure every day, and an increasing number of pet owners are choosing to feed a diet of raw meats, bones, and organs over processed commercially prepared diets. Those of us who have been feeding raw for a time now know the diet to be healthy, relatively easy to formulate, convenient to feed, as well as better for our environment. We are comfortable with the science behind how carnivores handle the natural bacterial loads on the foods that they eat, and have learned through research and personal experience that if we as humans practice proper handling practices and let common sense prevail that a raw fed dog does not pose a health threat to our families nor the public.
Not everyone shares these opinions and experiences, including many in the veterinary and commercial pet food communities. When these people express their reservations and cautions about the perceived dangers of a raw food diet one prevailing commonality is that the authors often do not appear to understand how a proper raw diet is formulated and fed. Other misconceptions and misinformation are often the basis for arguments against feeding raw in these articles and studies.
When such articles come to the attention of myself and other raw feeders who have taken an interest in educating the public about the overwhelmingly positive side of raw feeding we are usually moved to write a rebuttal to the original work to serve as a learning tool.
I thought it would be nice to have a compendium of these rebuttals for easy reference. Following are links to rebuttals. Content is property of the author. In most (if not all) cases the rebuttals are set up in a format where a section of original text is quoted, then the new material presented. The original text is usually in bold face or italics, responses in normal type. Links to the original text are provided where possible. If you have written a rebuttal of this nature and would like to see it linked here, please contact me!
|
|