The Myth Of 100% Complete Processed Pet Food

Every day, people by the millions pour food from a package into their pet�s bowl. Day in and day out, meal after meal, pets get the same fare. This strange phenomenon is not only widely practiced, but done by loving owners who believe they are doing the right thing. Why? Certainly because it is convenient, but also because the labels state that the food is �complete and balanced,� �100% complete,� or that the food has passed various analytical and feeding test criteria. Furthermore, manufacturers and even veterinarians counsel pet owners about not feeding other foods such as table scraps because of the danger of unbalancing these modern processed nutritional marvels. The power of the message is so great that pet owners en masse do every day to their pets what they would never do to themselves or their children -offer the same processed packaged food at every meal.

Think about it: Our world is complex beyond comprehension. It is not only largely unknown; it is unknowable in the �complete� sense. In order for nutritionists and manufacturers to produce a �100% complete and balanced� pet food, they must first know 100% about nutrition. However, nutrition is not a completed science. It is, in fact, an aggregate science, which is based upon other basic sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and biology. But since no scientist would argue that everything is known in chemistry or physics or biology, how can nutritionists claim to know everything there is to know about nutrition, which is based upon these sciences? This is the logical absurdity of the �100% complete and balanced� diet claim. It is the reason a similar venture to feed babies a �100% complete� formula has turned out to be a health disaster.

Claiming that anything is 100% is like claiming perfection, total knowledge, and absolute truth. Has pet nutrition really advanced that far? Does a chemist make such a claim? A physicist? Doctor? Professor? Did Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, Aristotle, Plato, or any of the greatest minds in human history make such claims? No. Has the science of pet nutrition advanced to the point where everything is known about the physiology, digestion and biochemistry of animals, or that everything is known about their food?

Certainly not.

The fact of the matter is that the �100% complete� claim is actually �100% complete� guesswork. At best, one could say that such a claim is the firm possibility of a definite maybe. Each time regulatory agencies convene to decide how much of which nutrients comprise �100% completeness,� debate always ensues and standards usually change. This not only proves that what they claimed before was not �100% complete,� but this should also make us highly suspicious about what they now claim to be �100% complete.�

Additionally, consider that in order to determine the minimum requirement for a certain nutrient - say protein - all other nutrients used in the feeding trials must be adequate and standardized. Otherwise, if vitamin E, for example, is in excess or is deficient, how would you know if the results of the study were because of the effects of protein or due to something amiss with the level of vitamin E?

If the minimum requirements for all 26 essential nutrients were all set and absolutely etched in stone, then there would be no problem. But they aren�t. They are constantly changing. This means each time any nutrient requirement is changed, all test results for all other nutrients using the wrong minimum for this nutrient would then be invalid. Most nutritionists simply ignore this conundrum, feeling like cowboys trying to lasso an octopus - there are just too many loose ends. But they continue to perpetuate the �100% complete� myth, and excuse themselves by saying they make adjustments when necessary.

The point is, don�t believe the claim on any commercially prepared pet (or human) food that it is �100% complete and balanced.� It is a spurious unsupported boast, intended to build consumer trust and dependence on commercial products - not create optimal health.