Looking for the raw facts

THE great debate about feeding raw to dogs rages on. Or does it?

For a long time we have been hearing anecdotal evidence about how this dog’s skin got better or that one’s bowel improved when fed raw.

Arguments that dogs in the wild eat raw have been rammed down our throats.

We have been told that salmonella and campylobacter don’t affect dogs, as the bugs are destroyed in the acid stomach.

It has been implied that uncooked bones will do no harm whereas cooked bones are potentially fatal.

And we are assured that “they” (whoever “they” might be) are doing trials to prove all this. I am reminded that homeopathic practitioners have been telling us the same thing for centuries.

So where are the results? Where is the evidence to show that feeding raw makes you healthier, have less dental disease and live longer? Or are the proponents of feeding raw simply ignoring it?

(There are now more than 70 raw food companies registered with DEFRA and at least nine with the Pet Food Manufacturers Association. One company have deep freezes in more than 400 veterinary practices, some of whom sell upwards of six tonnes per month.)

So here is “the evidence” as I see it. Dogs in the wild don’t live as long as pet dogs.

A study of the skulls of African wild dogs who eat a “natural” raw diet of antelope showed that 41 per cent had periodontal disease, 83 per cent had teeth wearing and 48 per cent had broken teeth.

A 2001 report on the BARF diet showed deficiencies in calcium, phosphorus, zinc and potassium and excessively high Vitamin D levels.

About 700 people die from foodborne infections each year in the UK and dogs that are fed raw are known to regularly excrete salmonella despite being clinically normal themselves.

There are about 280,000 campylobacter infections annually and the Food Standards Agency report that 54 per cent of chickens tested positive for the bacteria last year, with 6.5 per cent having the highest possible level of contamination.

A study of 200 homemade foods showed 95 per cent had at least one nutrient deficiency and 83.5 per cent had multiple deficiencies.

People used to say vets were against raw for commercial reasons. This is now clearly not the case, since some seem to make a small fortune from selling it.

The problem is, our advice needs to be evidence based and must be safe for all.

I leave you with the words of Mike Davies, an RCVS recognised specialist in nutrition, who said: “Feeding raw meats to pets is reckless, irresponsible and ethically questionable.”