Well,
minus their supporters: Hill's, Nestle/Purina, and Proctor & Gamble, you mean?
I stand corrected.
Mind you, Hill's and Purina are demonstrably interested in the science of nutrition, where some other food companies don't even have nutritionists or veterinarians on staff.
But those FAQs for vets read like Purina soundbites
Have you considered that maybe some of those FAQs sound like Purina soundbites because Purina is itself in the forefront of animal nutritional research, and has it mostly right? I know that's an odd thought in the age of cynicism against corporations, but I'll put it out there for folks to think on.
and if I had a dollar for every vet we've had whose recommendation for canine nutrition happened to be what they had on the shelf
You think it would somehow be *better* if they recommended something other than what they sold? You think a vet should go, "I know this is the best food, but I'll keep this other stuff in stock instead?" I would kind of expect a vet to have the commonly appropriate stuff on hand, wouldn't you?
I know some claim vets get kickbacks for selling certain kinds of food. That's conspiracy theory hogwash. Doesn't happen.
Anyway, our experience is not a statistically valid sample of the veterinary profession, and we've had some animals with some pretty tough nutrition challenges, so we're probably an extreme case.
Yes, special nutrition challenges are an exceptional case. They're devilishly difficult to diagnose sometimes, and rather frequently, though they'll swear otherwise, owners *don't* stick to the vet's recommendations, making diagnosis and management even more difficult, as what the vet is told is other than what's actually happening.
I'll take the raw regimen we're on over any commercial product.
You will note that through all this, I have not knocked raw diets one iota. I have merely given some defense for some of the commercial diets.
And there I'll leave it, unless folks want a separate thread on the topic.