Health and Nutrition

When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even “Theory of Everything,” they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

mediaimage
Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself,Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition For Weight Loss and Muscle Gain Articles or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it “an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God.” That’s how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don’t have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the ‘old school’ of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and “a calorie is a calorie,” no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the ‘new school’ of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the “calorie is a calorie” mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.
“A calorie is a calorie”

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of “calories in, calories out.” Translated, if you “burn” more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However, the “calories in calories out” mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra “a calorie us a calorie” proven to be false, “all fats are created equal” or “protein is protein” is also incorrect. For example, we no know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

The “calories don’t matter” school of thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don’t matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don’t matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don’t matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it’s clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That’s not to say people can’t experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Health systems often require tweaking, fine-tuning, and even reconstruction.

mediaimage
GENERAL
Healthcare legislation in countries in transition,Healthcare Reform Checklist Articles emerging economies, and developing countries should permit – and use economic incentives to encourage – a structural reform of the sector, including its partial privatization.

KEY ISSUES

· Universal healthcare vs. selective provision, coverage, and delivery (for instance, means-tested, or demographically-adjusted)

· Health Insurance Fund: Internal, streamlined market vs. external market competition

· Centralized system – or devolved? The role of local government in healthcare.

· Ministry of Health: Stewardship or Micromanagement?

· Customer (Patient) as Stakeholder

· Imbalances: overstaffing (MDs), understaffing (nurses), geographical distribution (rural vs. urban), service type (overuse of secondary and tertiary healthcare vs. primary healthcare)

AIMS

· To amend existing laws and introduce new legislation to allow for changes to take place.

· To effect a transition from individualized medicine to population medicine, with an emphasis on the overall welfare and needs of the community

Hopefully, the new legal environment will:

· Foster entrepreneurship;

· Alter patterns of purchasing, provision, and contracting;

· Introduce constructive competition into the marketplace;

· Prevent market failures;

· Transform healthcare from an under-financed and under-invested public good into a thriving sector with (more) satisfied customers and (more) profitable providers.

· Transition to Patient-centred care: respect for patients’ values, preferences, and expressed needs in regard to coordination and integration of care, information, communication and education, physical comfort, emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety, involvement of family and friends, transition and continuity.

The Law and regulatory framework should explicitly allow for the following:

I. PURCHASING and PURCHASERS

(I1) Private health insurance plans (Germany, CzechRepublic, Netherlands), including franchises of overseas insurance plans, subject to rigorous procedures of inspection and to satisfying financial and governance requirements. Insured/beneficiaries will have the right to apply contributions to chosen purchaser and to switch insurers annually.

Private healthcare plans can be established by large firms; guilds (chambers of commerce and other professional or sectoral associations); and regions (see the subchapter on devolution under VI. Stewardship).

Private insurers: must provide universal coverage; offer similar care packages; apply the same rate of premium, unrelated to the risk of the subscriber; cannot turn applicants down; must adhere to national-level rules about packages and co-payments; compete on equality and efficiency standards.

(I11) Breakup of statutory Health Insurance Fund to 2-3 competing insurance plans (possibly on a regional basis, as is the case in France) on equal footing with private entrants.

Regional funds will be responsible for purchasing health services (including from hospitals) and making payments to providers. They will be not-for-profit organizations with their own boards and managerial autonomy.

(I12) Board of directors and supervisory boards of health insurance funds to include:

– Two non-executive, lay (not from the medical professions and not politicians) members of the public. These will represent the patients and will be elected by a Council of the Insured, (as is the practice in the Netherlands)

– Municipal representatives;

– Representatives of stakeholders (doctors, nurses, employees of the funds, etc.).

(I13) The funds will be granted autonomy regarding matters of human resources (personnel hiring and firing); budgeting; financial incentives (bonuses and penalties); and contracting.

The funds will be bound by rules of public disclosure about what services were purchased from which providers and at what cost.

Citizen juries and citizen panels will be used to assist with rationing and priority-setting decisions (United Kingdom).

(I2) Procurement of medicines to be done by an autonomous central purchasing agency, supervised by a public committee (drug regulatory authority) aided by outside auditors.

All procurement of drugs and medications will be done via international tenders.

The agency will submit its reimbursement rates for drugs on the PLD to external audit in order to accurately reflect pharmacists’ overhead costs. At the same time, the profit margins on all drugs, whether on the PLD or not, will be regulated.

This agency should be separate from the Health Insurance Fund and the Ministry of Health. This agency will also maintain national drug registries. It will secure volume discounts for bulk purchasing and transparent, arm’s-length pricing.

(I21) Use of reference prices for medicines. If the actual price exceeds the reference price, the price difference has to be met by the patient.

(I3) The Approved (Positive) List of Medicines will be recomposed to include generic drugs whenever possible and to exclude expensive brands where generics exist. This should be a requirement in the law. Separately, an Essential Drug List will be drawn up.

(I31) Encourage rational drug prescribing by instituting a mixture of GP and PHC incentives and penalties, or a fundholding system: budgets will be allocated to each GP for the purchase of drugs and medications. If the GP exceeds his/her budget, s/he is penalized. The GP gets to keep a percentage of budget savings. Prescription decisions will be medically reviewed to avoid under-provision.

(I4) Payments and Contracting

Payment to providers should combine, in a mixed formula:

BLOCK CONTRACTS

Capitation – A fixed fee for a list of services to be provided to a single patient in a given period, payable even if the services were not consumed, adjusted for the patients’ demographic data and reimbursement for fee-for-service items.

Inflation-adjusted Global budgeting (hospitals) and block (lump sum) grants (municipalities)

COST and VOLUME CONTRACTS

Provide incentives and reward marketing efforts which result in an increase in
demand/referral beyond the limit set in a block contract.

COST PER CASE CONTRACTS

Apply Diagnosis Related Group (DRG)/ Resource-based Relative Value (RBRV) / Patient Management Categories (PMCs) / Disease Staging/Clinical Pathways

Levels of reimbursement, case-mix adjusted to be decided by external auditors.

Contracts with providers should include:

· Waiting Times Guarantee

· Single Contact Person(“Case Officer”) for the duration of a stay at the hospital

· Hospital benchmarking (individual-level data on costs, diagnoses, and procedures during entire case episodes: inpatient admissions and outpatient visits; cost-effectiveness of services.

· Performance targets in performance agreements with all healthcare facilities, both public and private.

· All payments – wages included – will be tied to these targets and their attainment as well as to healthcare quality as determined by objective measures (internal, external, and functional benchmarking), clinical audits (sampling), as well as customer satisfaction surveys and interviews and discussions with patients.

· Provider and Staff Bonuses and penalties tied to exceeding/under-performing targets and contract variance

· Patients’ rights, including their rights to litigate

Selective contracting will be allowed on all levels (including specialist ambulatory care and hospitals), although all providers, private and public, will be permitted to apply for contracts with health funds and insurers. The funds will choose from among private providers either following a process of deliberation, or via an auction, or public tender (United Kingdom).

(I5) Commissioning preference will be given to the purchase of Primary Healthcare over secondary, or tertiary Healthcare.

II. PROVIDERS

The Law and regulatory framework should explicitly allow for the following:

(II1) Hospital Management

(See separate document)

The law should allow:

I. Co-location of a private wing within or beside a public hospital

II. Outsourcing of non-clinical support services

III. Outsourcing of clinical support services

IV. Outsourcing of specialized clinical services

V. Private management of public hospitals

VI. Private financing, construction, and leaseback of new public hospitals

VII. Private financing, construction, and operation of new public hospitals

VIII. Sale of public hospitals as going concerns

IX. Sale of public hospitals for alternative use

X. Consolidation of redundant public healthcare facilities by merging them or closing down some of them

XI. Privatization of Primary Healthcare (PHC) clinics within medical centers

XII. Healthcare institutions will be granted autonomy regarding matters of human resources (personnel hiring and firing); administering financial incentives or penalties, budgeting; and contracting.

XIII. Privatization pharmacies inside medical centers and hospitals.

(II2) Primary, Ambulatory, and Secondary Care and General Practitioners (GP)

(II21) Limit the number of patients per GP

(II22) Stimulate and financially incentivize the following activities, which should be declared national priorities within a National Needs Assessment:

· Group practices and networks (for continued, around-the-clock services)

· Day and minimally invasive surgery

· Dispensaries

· Home and day care services

· Long-term care (nursing homes, visiting nurses, home I.V. and other services provided to chronically ill or disabled persons)

· Patient hotels

· Rehabilitation facilities and programs

· Provision of merit goods (also through mass campaigns)

· Conversion of hospital units to outpatient services,and day-care centers

Example of such financial incentives:

· Physicians will be entitled to see patients who receive services free-of-cost
in the public sector in the morning, and private patients who pay the full
cost of the medical consultation in the afterno

Pet food slogans such as organic, human grade, holistic and natural may increase sales, but miss the point. If pet health is the objective, a totally new approach is needed.

mediaimage
About 25 years ago I began formulating pet foods at a time when the entire pet food industry seemed quagmire and focused on such things as protein and fat percentages without any real regard for ingredients. Since boot leather and soap could make a pet food with the “ideal” percentages,The Pet Food Ingredient Game Articles it was clear that analytical percentages do not end the story about pet food value. I was convinced then, as I am now, that a food can be no better than the ingredients of which it is composed. Since this ingredient idea has caught on in the pet food industry, it has taken on a commercial life that distorts and perverts the meaning of the underlying philosophy of food quality and proper feeding practices. Is health reducible to which ingredients a commercial product does or does not have? As contradictory as it may seem to what I have just said, no it is not. Here’s why.

AAFCO Approval

The official Publication of the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) gives wide latitude for ingredients that can be used in animal foods. As I have pointed out in my book, The Truth About Pet Foods, approved ingredients can include*:

dehydrated garbage

undried processed animal waste products

polyethylene roughage replacement (plastic)

hydrolyzed poultry feathers

hydrolyzed hair

hydrolyzed leather meal

poultry hatchery by-product

meat meal tankage

peanut hulls

ground almond shells

(*Association of American Feed Control Officials, 1998 Official Publication)

Simultaneously, this same regulatory agency prohibits the use of many proven beneficial natural ingredients that one can find readily available for human consumption such as bee pollen, glucosamine, L-carnitine, spirulina and many other nutraceuticals. It would be easy to conclude that reason does not rule when it comes to what officially can or cannot be used in pet foods.

From the regulators’ standpoint, they operate from the simplistic nutritional idea that the value of food has to do with percentages and that there is no special merit to any particular ingredient. They deny the tens of thousands of scientific research articles proving that the kind of ingredient and its quality can make all the difference in terms of health. They also are silent about the damaging effect of food processing and the impact of time, light, heat, oxygen and packaging on nutritional and health value.

So regulators are certainly not the place to go to determine how to feed pets for health. For their way of thinking, as long as a packaged food achieves certain percentages, regardless of ingredients, the manufacturer can claim the food is 100% complete. Pet owners then proceed to confidently feed such guaranteed foods at every meal thinking all the while they are doing the right thing for their pet. This old school nutritional view is standard practice in human hospitals as well where official dieticians feed diseased and metabolically starved patients a fare of jello, instant potatoes, powdered eggs, white flour rolls and oleomargarine because their charts say such diets contain the correct percentages of certain nutrients. Hospitals are a good place to go if you want to get sick!

The 100% Complete Myth

Consumers are increasingly becoming alert to the value of more natural foods. Everyone intuitively knows that the closer the diet is to real, fresh, wholesome foods, the better the chance that good health will result. Unfortunately, people do not apply this same common sense to pet foods. Instead they purchase “100% complete” processed foods, perhaps even going the extra mile and selecting “super premium” or “natural” brands, thinking they are doing the best that can be done. They surrender their mind to a commercial ploy (100% completeness) and do to their pets what they would never do to themselves or their family – eat the same packaged product at every meal, day in and day out. No processed food can be “100% complete” because there is not a person on the planet who has 100% knowledge of nutrition. The claim on its face is absurd. Understanding this simple principle is more important than any pet food formulation regardless of the merits of its ingredients. Everything that follows will begin with that premise, i.e., no food should be fed exclusively on a continuous basis no matter what the claims of completeness or ingredient quality.

Genetics Is The Key

Pets need the food they are biologically adapted to. It’s a matter of context. Just as a fish needs to be in water to stay healthy, a pet needs its natural food milieu to be healthy. All creatures must stay true to their design. What could be more obvious or simple? For a carnivore the correct genetic match is prey, carrion and incidental fresh plant material, and even some fur and feathers, as well as the occasional surprise of unmentionables found in decaying matter. It’s not a pretty picture to think that “FiFi” with her pink bow and polished toenails would stoop to such fare, but that is precisely the food she is designed to eat. Since that is her design, matching food to that design (minus the more disgusting and unnecessary elements) is also the key to her health.

The Disease Price

We may prefer to feed a packaged, sterile, steam- cleaned, dried, farinaceous chunk cleverly shaped like a pork chop, but let’s not kid ourselves, that is not the food a pet is designed for….regardless of the claims about ingredients on the label making one think it is five-star restaurant fare. Pets may tolerate such food for a time, but in the end nature calls to account. The price to be paid is lost health in the form of susceptibility to infections, dental disease, premature aging, obesity, heart and organ disease, diabetes, cancer, arthritis and other cruel and painful chronic degenerative diseases. Because our pets are not out in the rigors of nature where they would quickly succumb to such conditions and end their misery, they languish in our protected homes and under veterinary care that does not usually cure but merely treats symptoms and extends the time of suffering. That suffering begins with the way in which we are feeding our pets, not the ingredients in a supposed 100% complete pet food.

The Perfect Food

What is the solution? It is simple and something I have been preaching for the past 25 years. Return pets to their environmental roots. They need – daily – interesting activity, fresh air, clean water, romps in nature, lots of love, and food as close to the form they would find in the wild as possible. Fresh, whole natural foods fit for a carnivore and fed in variety are as good as it can get. Anything less than that is a compromise. Compromise the least if health is the goal. (Same principle applies to you and your family.) To get a packaged food as close as possible to that goal requires the right starting philosophy of feeding (described above) and the expertise to design and manufacture such foods.

Enter The Profiteers

Elements of these principles (often distorted or misunderstood) have been taken up by an endless line of pet food entrepreneurs. The low fat craze led to low fat pet foods. The high fiber craze led to high fiber pet foods. The “no corn, wheat or soy” craze led to no corn, wheat or soy pet foods. The “omega- 3” craze led to pet foods with fish oil. The “variety” craze led to pet foods supposedly offering variety. The “four food groups” craze led to all four bundled into a package. The “raw” craze has led to raw frozen pet foods. The list is endless and the race for pet owner dollars is at a fever pitch.

One can only feel sympathy for a concerned pet owner as they stroll along the huge array of pet food options in pet food aisles. Unfortunately, armed with only sound bites and lore they may have heard from a friend, breeder, veterinarian or on a commercial, they make choices that not only do not serve the health of their pet but may directly contribute to weakened immunity and disease.The first thing consumers should keep in mind is the ideal diet for pets as described above. No packaged product regardless of its wild claims is ever going to equal that. The next best thing is to home prepare fresh meals. (Contact Wysong for recipes and instruction.) If that is not always possible, then products should be selected that are as close to the ideal as possible. (More suggestions below.)

Raw Frozen Pet Food Dangers

At first glance, considering the perfect feeding model I have described – raw, natural, whole – the best food may seem to be one of the raw frozen pet foods now clamoring to capture the “raw” craze. I’m sorry to say that some of these purveyors even use my books and literature to convince pet owners that their frozen products are on track. They take bits and pieces of good information and distort it into something that pretty much misses the point and misleads consumers. Also, these exotic frozen mixtures of ingredients of unknown origin, manufacturing and freezing conditions are most certainly not economical nor the best choice. They may, because of the water content and raw state, be outright dangerous.

[The Case Against Raw Frozen Pet Foods]

http://www.wysong.net/PDFs/caserawfrozen.pdf

Natural And Organic

At second glance then, it may appear that the next best thing would be one of the many “natural,” “organic” and “human-grade” dried or canned brands that are now flooding the market. Between these and the frozen food products, ingredient labels start to look outright ridiculous. For example, these are from some typical labels:

Every manner of “pureed” vegetable

Organic beef, rabbit, chicken, turkey, goat, lamb, duck, pork

Organic eggs

Organic honey

Organic papaya, persimmons, blueberries, oranges, apples, pears

Organic yogurt

Organic alfalfa, millet, quinoa and barley sprouts

Wheat grass

NettlesBok Choy

Cultured kefir

Cod liver oil

CapsicumWatermelon….

Everything but the kitchen sink is put in so as not to risk losing any customer … and that would be in there too if a new myth appeared about the special health attributes of porcelain. I say the list is ridiculous not because such ingredients may not be wonderfully nutritious but because the consumer does not really know what part of the ingredient is being put in, in what form, how it is being protected from degradation and toxin formation and, as you will see below, the economic math does not add up. Additionally, feeding complex mixtures of foods (grains, meats, vegetables, fruit, dairy, etc.) at every meal is a digestive stress. Pets need a break once in a while and should have just a meat meal, a slice of watermelon or whatever fits their fancy, all alone so their digestive tract can focus and they can relish the flavor of an actual food.

Although the idea of organic agriculture is excellent, the use of the “organic” name just for marketing isn’t. Something may be labeled organic to entice customers but only contain a small percentage of organic (see below). Or, it may be that the particular organic ingredient may be of low nutritional merit – chicken heads, feet and feathers can be “organic.” Regardless, even if the food is 100% organic prime rib, that is not an argument for the exclusive feeding of the food to pets.

Human Grade

Then there are claims about “USDA approved” ingredients, “human grade” ingredients and ingredients purchased right out of the meat counter at the grocery store. Again, at first glance – and superficiality is what marketers like to deal with – it may seem that such foods would have merit over others. But such labels only create a perception of quality. People would not consider the food pets are designed for in the wild – whole, raw prey and carrion – “human grade” or “USDA approved.” Because something is not “human grade” does not mean it is not healthy or nutritious. For example, chicken viscera is not “human grade” but carries more nutritional value than a clean white chicken breast. Americans think that chicken feet would not be fit for human consumption but many far eastern countries relish them. On the other hand, “human grade” beef steaks fed to pets could cause serious nutritional imbalances and disease if fed exclusively. Pet foods that create the superficial perception of quality (USDA, human grade, etc.) with the intent of getting pet owners to feed a particular food exclusively is not what health is about.There are also the larger concerns of the Earth’s dwindling food resources and swelling population. Should “human grade” food products be taken out of the mouths of people and fed to pets with all of the excellent nutritional non-“human grade” ingredients put in the garbage?Think about the humane aspect of converting all pet food to “human grade.” Millions of tons of pet foods are produced each year. Should cows, pigs, sheep, fish, chickens and other sentient creatures be raised and slaughtered for these foods? Or should the perfectly good and nutritious by-products from human meat processing be used rather than wasted? Why would caring and sensitive pet owners and pet food producers want other creatures – that are themselves capable of being pets – needlessly raised in factory farm confinement and slaughtered when alternative sources of meat are available?

Pet Nutrition Is Serious Health Science

Pet nutrition is not about marketing and who can make the most money quickly. Unfortunately an aspiring pet food mogul off the street can go to any number of private label manufacturers and have a new brand made. These manufacturers have many stock formulas that can be slightly modified to match the current market trend. Voilà! A new pet food wonder brand is created.Pet foods are about pet nutrition, and nutrition is a serious health matter. There is an implied ethic in going to market with products that can so seriously impact health. But the ethic is by and large absent in the pet food industry. Starting with the 100% claim and on to all the fad driven brands that glut the shelves, health is not being served. Nobody other than our organization is teaching people the principles I am discussing here. Instead, companies headed by people with no real technical, nutritional, food processing or health skills put themselves out to the public as serious about health … because that is what the public wants to hear and what sells. Never mind whether producers really understand or can implement healthy principles. The façade sells and selling is the game. Ingredients are important, true, but not less important than the expertise and principles of the producer who is choosing them, preparing, storing, processing and packaging them. Consumers place a lot of trust that nondescript processed nuggets are what consumers are being led to believe they are. Many a slip can occur between the cup and the lip. There are many slips that can occur between the cup of commercial claims and what ends up in the lips of the pet food bowl.

Consumer Blame

The consumer is not without guilt in this unfortunate – steady diet of processed pet food – approach to pet feeding. They want everything easy and inexpensive. They don’t want to learn or have to expend too much effort, and they want something simple to base decisions on like: “corn, wheat and soy are evil,” or “USDA approved,” or “human grade” or “organic is good.” They also want something for nothing and think they can get it in a pet food. People want prime choice meats, organic and fresh foods all wrapped up tidy in an easy open, easy pour package, hopefully for 50 cents a pound. They may even pay $1 or a little more if the producer can convince them about how spectacular their product is or how much cancer their pet will get if they choose another brand.

Doing The Math

Now when I go to the grocer or health food store and find these types of ingredients in raw, unprocessed, fresh packaged form, I don’t see hardly anything for $1 a pound, let alone 50 cents. Some of the organic meats are more than $15 a pound! Something’s afoul. But people are just not putting two and two together. How could a producer buy such expensive ingredients (as they are leading the public to believe they do) transport them to their “human grade” factory, grind, mix, extrude, retort, freeze, package, ship, advertise and pay salespeople and hefty margins to distributors, brokers and retailers and then sell them at retail for less than the cost of the bare starting materials? They can’t. So obviously manufactured pet foods making such claims are misleading (to put it gently). They may have organic filet mignon and caviar in the food but it would have to be an inconsequential sprinkle at best. Consumers must do the math and get realistic in their expectations.

Are By-Products Evil?

In the processing of human foods there are thousands of tons of by-products that cannot be readily sold to humans. Does that make them useless or even inferior? No. Such by-products could include trimmings, viscera, organs, bones, gristle and anything else that humans do not desire. Should these perfectly nutritious items be buried in a landfill? As I mentioned above, while Earth’s resources continue to decline and people starve around the globe, should we feed our pets only “human grade” foods and let perfectly edible – and sometimes even more nutritious – by-products go to waste? How is that conscionable or justifiable for either the consumer or the producer?

Road Kill and Euthanized Pets

This shift to “human grade” for pet foods is partly due to a variety of myths that have gotten much stronger legs than they deserve. Lore has spread in the marketplace that road kill and euthanized pets are used in pet foods. I have never seen the proof for this outrageous claim and after twenty years surveying ingredient suppliers I have never found a supplier of such. However, fantastic myths easily get life and the more fantastic they are the more life they have. It’s the intellectually lazy way and what lies at the root of so much misery. Sloppy superficial thinking is what leads to racism, sexism, religious persecution and wars. People would like to think the world is sharply divided into right-wrong, good-evil, black-white. Marketers capitalize on this by trying to create such sharp distinctions for consumers to easily grab on to: human grade = good/all others = evil; organic = right/all others = wrong; rice = white/corn and wheat = black. Such simplistic and naïve distinctions are quick and simple for advertisers and salespeople to use to sway public opinion. But nobody stepping back and using common sense would ever think that something as complex as health could ever come from what is or is not in a processed bag of food. Reality is not black or white; it is in shades of gray. Grayness requires some knowledge, judgment and discernment before making choices. It’s a little more work but is what we all must do if the world is ever to be a better place and people and pet health are to improve.

Digests, Meals And Other Boogeymen

Many producers attempt to sell their products by claiming they contain no “digests” or “meals.” The idea is that these are wicked ingredients and consumers should stay away from all products that contain them. A digest is a product created when enzymes break down foods. After you eat a meal and it is subjected to the acids and enzymes in the digestive tract it becomes a “digest.” Fermented (digested) foods made from soy, dairy and vegetables are among the most nutritious of all foods. Some “primitive” peoples bury food in the ground to rot and ferment and then uncover it later to consume it with great savor and nutritional benefit. Scavengers survive, and survive quite well, on fermenting, rotting and digesting foods. Meats, organs and trimmings can be likewise digested in vats creating both liquid and dried forms of commercial pet food digests. Being predigested they are highly concentrated and nutritionally efficient. If we are to listen to the taste buds of pets they would vote yes on digests since they find them highly palatable.A “meal” is a food product that has been ground, mixed and dried. Meals are often used in pet foods because they are stable, easily transported, stored and handled. Dried pet foods themselves are ground, mixed and dried meals. So that makes an interesting dilemma for those who promote their products as having no meals. As far as processed pet food ingredients go, meals and digests can have their merits. There are degrees of quality as there are with any ingredient. There may be better options such as using fresh whole ingredients, but focusing on finding a product without digests or meals and feeding it exclusively is not the key to health. Given in sufficient dose, anything can be toxic and dangerous, even water and oxygen. Healthy food is a mixed bag of variety, form, preparation, quality, balance … and reason, not fear mongering or sensationalism.