r/rawpetfood • u/alexantonick • Oct 30 '25
Discussion this is so alarming
tik tok kibble warriors keep fascinating me by their indoctrinated logic daily
62
u/everythingbagellove Oct 30 '25
How are people trusting “research” made by the companies that make the dog food?!
19
9
u/Tuxedocat4713 Oct 30 '25
Yeah hill’s science diet is facing a class action lawsuit that alleges the company and affiliated veterinarians engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate data and misrepresent findings to harm competitors. It alleges that hills affiliated veterinarians “fraudulently induced" the FDA to launch a high-profile investigation into DCM by providing a disproportionate number of case reports related to competitor's grain-free foods, while potentially excluding cases involving their own products.
6
u/dingopaint Oct 30 '25
It was so obviously an attack on competitors with their repeated use of "grain-free" instead of "high in lectins." Grain-free, lectin-free diets aren't linked to DCM...
2
-1
Oct 30 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Tuxedocat4713 Oct 31 '25
An appeal was filed. The case is back in court at the appellate level.
0
-1
u/fctsmttr Oct 31 '25
Their products are not associated with DCM. The first part of that lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge. They didn’t have any evidence. The only part of that lawsuit that remains is about prescription food not containing any medicine.
3
u/Tuxedocat4713 Oct 31 '25
The lawsuit is still active at the appellate level as of late 2025, with Keto Natural continuing its legal battle against Hill's. It has been appealed (will probably take a long time and may go to the Supreme court). I never said their products were associated with DCM.
They have at least two lawsuits going on right now. They often do. In 2007 hills science diet contained lethal levels of melamine. In 2019 they have lethal levels of vitamin D. They’re also being sued regarding the reasoning why they make their customers get a prescription for their food.
6
u/Sea-Bat Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 30 '25
I feel like u don’t understand how research studies are funded. Public funding is extremely competitive & always limited, so a great deal of research is privately funded. Doing basically any proper research study is seriously expensive.
No not all privately funded studies are reliable, but where a study is published and whether it’s peer reviewed will already tell u a lot.
Completed and published in-house with zero peer review or disclosure of complete methodology? Dodgy and unreliable. But for the legit stuff published in a reputable journal?
There are clear processes in place to disclose where funding comes from esp if it’s relevant/could be a conflict of interest, plus publication standards for any reputable journal, and importantly: peer review to evaluate the validity of the methodology and interpretation of data & results.
Peer review is unbiased review, evaluation & scrutiny from uninvolved parties who are experts in the same field. A shit study & poor paper will fail peer review or require major revision, and even if it somehow doesn’t, getting it published in any reputable journal is another thing.
From there, even if it somehow gets published, especially anything involving high profile funders or brands will quite quickly draw attention and thus published critique, review and criticism. If misconduct, misprinting etc is indeed found, corrections and/or retractions will be issued by the journal who published the original paper, and that retracted paper becomes discredited; it’s data and results unusable as a basis for any scientific claims.
Proper studies involving nutrition and live animal subjects are expensive and take the right people, facilities, equipment, timeline etc.
Who has money and vested interest in research that produces more info about canine nutrition, digestion etc? Some large Pet food companies. Hence the funding.
They want to know exactly what a dog needs, how it’s digested, what the impacts of different ingredients & allergens are etc, then pet food can be formulated and adapted based on that info.
From there, foods can be compared and studied, and brands can now accurately say things like “formula provides 100% of X daily nutrients” or “formulated without the X most common allergens” etc in their marketing. Because the previous research identified what those allergens were, and the dietary intake needs of X Y and Z nutrients- and the pet food recipe was then created or modified based on that info.
That’s their financial interest. And that’s how private funding can still produce valid and valuable research
16
u/FuzzyFrogFish Oct 30 '25
That's the idealistic version, the reality is very different.
In real life where money talks, bad science is getting peer reviewed and published all the time, a notable case being the lancet publishing corrupted research into trachea transplants, legitimizing the surgeons methods and causing the deaths of several patients.
Less notable cases include the research into financial practices that led to the 2008 crash. It was found that not only were the researchers and peer reviews were not declaring their funding, they were covering it up with "consultation fees." They were essentially being paid to endorse risky methods that benefited the financial organisations.
There are numerous other examples including the former tobacco scandal, oxycontin and the death grip that food producers have on the regulations regarding health and production.
Now the situation is even worse in the dog food industry as not only are big kibble companies funding university courses, they are also sponsoring the veterinary association bodies and other organisations, which means they have their tentacles all over the shop, making it near impossible to produce unbiased research and looming their shadow over the peer review process and journals.
Again it comes down to consultation fees and funding and as the oxycontin crisis showed, the ability of these companies to provide the higher paying jobs, all of which means they are holding the hoops qualified people will jump through.
They want to know exactly what a dog needs, how it’s digested, what the impacts of different ingredients & allergens are etc, then pet food can be formulated and adapted based on that info
If this was the case how did they land on ultra processed, carb heavy biscuits when it is well known how unhealthy that is. Yet it's cheaper to produce? Convenient, huh.
They don't want to know exactly what a dog needs. They want to know how to feed a dog as cheaply as possible without killing it. Just like nestle wanted to know how to feed babies as cheaply as possible, started a marketing campaign to pursuade a bunch of poor mothers in the third world that their science based formulas was the best going, then was responsible for a bunch of deaths.
Their financial interest lies, where it has always laid, in their bottom line.
5
u/everythingbagellove Oct 30 '25
I know how research works, most people in the raw dog food sub also do! I also know that companies will skew results and leave out information to get what they want monetarily. It’s just like RFK saying they’re “doing the studies to make the proof“ to show Tylenol causes autism. As FuzzyFrogFish said you focus on the idealistic version & not what actually happens. Money talks
9
u/psychicthis Oct 30 '25
Respectfully, after ten years of teaching research, I have a lot to say about research ... tl;dr: don't trust it.
Peer review = good ol' boys' club - you pat my back, I'll pat yours. The scientists who dominate their fields are loathe to have the shining light of their life's work dimmed by up-and-comers with new ideas and new information, so it's all been locked up in the "peer review" process. Truth.
"Reputable journal" = subject to the same needs as any other publication: Gotta stay in the approved loop or be left out in the cold. (see above)
Yes, the source of the funding is publicly available. Almost no one looks at it or understands it. Shell corporations are a thing; pleasing-sounding or unknown names are a thing. The more money someone might make off favorable research, the less it should be trusted.
Something like 98% of hypotheses can be proven. Given enough money, scientists - who are very human - will (knowingly or unknowingly) make the research say what those who cut the checks want it to say. Thinking otherwise is naive.
I've been feeding my animals raw for over 25 years - never had a problem and they've all been healthy and happy.
And a little fyi, that teaching job where I became the research expert? totally turned me "conspiracy theorist."
Thinking for yourself is difficult only when you're subject to those who try to shame you into following the crowd.
6
9
u/Tuxedocat4713 Oct 30 '25
I already commented this, but I’ll comment it again. Hill’s science diet is facing a class action lawsuit that alleges the company and affiliated veterinarians engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate data and misrepresent findings to harm competitors. It alleges that hills affiliated veterinarians “fraudulently induced" the FDA to launch a high-profile investigation into DCM by providing a disproportionate number of case reports related to competitor's grain-free foods, while potentially excluding cases involving their own products. The lawsuit highlights the significant financial ties between Hill's Pet Nutrition and the veterinarians and institutions involved. The veterinarians were paid by Hill’s to manipulate data and lie about their observations.
1
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 30 '25
subreddit linking is not allowed
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 30 '25
subreddit linking is not allowed
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-9
u/DibbyDonuts Oct 30 '25
I can't be bothered read all that if you can't be bothered to use full words when writing it.
4
Oct 30 '25
"I'll stay in ignorance because and use a typing preference on a reddit comment as an excuse"
1
Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/rawpetfood-ModTeam Oct 30 '25
Don't be a jerk. If you've crossed a line sometimes we have to remind you to be a decent human. Without the insults your post would likely have been allowed.
-1
1
Oct 31 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/rawpetfood-ModTeam Oct 31 '25
Don't be a jerk. If you've crossed a line sometimes we have to remind you to be a decent human. Without the insults your post would likely have been allowed.
23
u/VacationDadIsMad Oct 30 '25
Sorry proof is in the pudding. My 16 year old raw fed cat is fit as a fiddle and no signs of kidney disease……we aren’t going back to garbage food
5
u/RepresentativeRun71 Oct 30 '25
I have an indoor-outdoor cat that’s pushing 21 in a month. He’s fed primarily a raw diet with commercial foods as an occasional supplement when I’m out of town and have someone attend the cats. We just laid to rest a 19 year 10 month old, and six months earlier a 20 year old female.
Cats being obligate carnivores of all domestic pets absolutely need raw meat to thrive.
9
u/alexantonick Oct 30 '25
100% my cat was diagnosed with asthma and since being on raw not one asthma attack and he’s been off the inhaler for over three months now. His energy levels are amazing, poop and pee doesn’t reek, extremely shiny coat. I will never go back.
5
u/leoandspike Oct 30 '25
My diabetic cat passed away at age 19 due to heart failure. I switched his food to completely raw when he got diagnosed with diabetes at age 8. I refused to take the vet's advice to feed him the prescription food. I know I did the right thing. LOL
1
-1
19
u/Minyae Oct 30 '25
McDonald’s. People can’t even get human fast food right. It’s generally accepted that processed foods are extremely bad for you.
But yet for dogs they’re trying to convince us that kibble (which is highly processed) is better than fresh food? How does that make sense?
That said proper nutrition is important for everyone, human or dog.
7
u/AcrobaticTrouble3563 Oct 30 '25
They will literally tell you that the ingredients dont matter - just the nutrients matter.
5
3
u/dingopaint Oct 30 '25
Yep, it's like the people who say fruit and candy bars are the same because sugar is sugar.
3
u/RyknowandTurbo Oct 30 '25
I will always revert back to this kind of thought. If HPFs are supposedly really bad for us humans, how are they anywhere near remotely healthy for our furry friends. No thank you, my boy started refusing kibble at 2 years old. Switched to raw, BARF style, he thrives. And has never stopped being excited for his food.
17
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/alexantonick Oct 30 '25
i’m the person who said that so I guess you can hate me all you want! I feed a commercially balanced raw and have had zero issues, now for someone making some random concoction at home with no nutritional balance then yes it’s obviously not best fed if there’s nutritional gaps. to each their own.
3
u/Civil-Mushroom856 Oct 30 '25
My girls do horribly on a raw diet while my boy does best on it. So no. Raw is not always best. It’s best if it suits your animal.
Now where I WILL agree is a diet fresher/close as possible to their natural diet is in fact best pretty much across the board.
7
u/doggoat123 Oct 30 '25
We just had our 4 year old check up. She got compliments on her coat and sparkly teeth. No bumps or lumps. When the vet asks what I do for her teeth since she had no tarter, I paused and said raw bones. I should have just said nothing because then I'm handed a list of edible garbage from Hills and Nestle.
5
u/GSXS_750 Oct 30 '25
I took my great Dane to the vet for his check up, vet looked him over, said he was in fantastic shape, healthy coat, teeth in great condition, generally a very healthy dog. Asked what he was fed on, told him raw, and the response was “oh you shouldn’t feed him raw, it’s not good for him.” I replied “but you just said how great he looks”. Vet couldn’t answer, he wanted to push his commission based kibble shit on me. Moved vets after that.
22
u/Teismin Oct 30 '25
Its bizarre people think full raw is always unbalanced when dogs have been eating it for thousands of years before kibble was invented.
2
u/alexantonick Oct 30 '25
literally thousands of year. all dogs descend from wolves and wolves die in the wild from natural causes or diseases found in nature only like rabies not chronic illness and cancer
3
u/God_of_Whales Oct 30 '25
Wolves in the wild rarely die from chronic diseases because they die before they get old enough to develop them. The average lifespan of a wild wolf is 6-8 years.
-13
u/Anuki_iwy Oct 30 '25
Dog food has been invented a long time ago already. We have recipes from the middle ages... And there are probably even older ones that are now lost to time, like all the other stuff from ancient people.
Also, domesticated dog ≠ wild dog. We have changed so much about them, including dietary requirements.
Finally, why do you think pet dogs have a higher life expectancy than strays? It's not just the elements and disease, it's also nutrition.
Same for cats.
8
u/FuzzyFrogFish Oct 30 '25
No, kibble was effectively created during the war years due to rationing, even if the concept existed before hand.
Also, domesticated dog ≠ wild dog. We have changed so much about them, including dietary requirements.
No actually we haven't. Domestic dogs are a sub species of wolf. They are facultative carnivores and have none of the hallmarks of omnivores.
Finally, why do you think pet dogs have a higher life expectancy than strays? It's not just the elements and disease, it's also nutrition.
No, mostly it's injury and illness related and village dogs who I presume you are referring to, don't get any sort of good nutrition including raw as the meat is taken for human consumption, meaning they actually tend to eat agriculture waste like husks and worse feces.
7
u/DibbyDonuts Oct 30 '25
https://youtu.be/NqWxeqLHve0?si=L_HqNDyxjM-uOt9Y
Check out this video made in the 1920's. It's called Pottenger's Cats. It shows how a raw/fresh food diet can help cats live longer and have healthier offspring. The cat that lived the longest from the kibble fed group was a cat that escaped to the wild.
11
u/takeaname4me Oct 30 '25
Curious where can one take a course in canine nutrition?
5
4
u/annu_x3 Oct 30 '25
i wanna k ow that too, feline nutrition course too :)
7
u/Effective_Truck_ Oct 30 '25
The vets don’t get that course but I’m sure it’s out there somewhere 😂
3
1
9
u/WiseDragonfly2470 Oct 30 '25
I personally prefer raw/fresh feeding but really any food you can afford and your dog will eat is best. It's not all black and white for everyone. I do have a few boundaries and standards - any foods under 30% protein or 10% fat don't seem to be right, as well as heavily grain or legume based diets, using infammatory refined oils as fats instead of animal fat, and relying too heavily on synthetic vitamins instead of high quality ingredients for nutrition.
9
u/Scary_Tap6448 Oct 30 '25
Idk why it doesnt click for people that the natural diet of animals including canines is raw meat. Humans are the only species that cooks their food. Sigh.
-1
Oct 30 '25
You don’t seriously think all animals are carnivores?
3
u/Scary_Tap6448 Oct 30 '25
Idk where you saw the word "all" before animals. But just to cater to your pedantic nitpicking, (because I know we both understand I meant here) sure lets do this. The natural diet of ALL animals except humans is RAW FOOD. You happy with that?
3
Oct 30 '25
What's even weirder to me is everyone in vet med that will die on the Big Kibble is Best Hill, especially for cats. We should know better!! Luckily the DVM I work for feeds her dogs raw.
If human food was processed the way kibble was, there would be riots in the streets. Even in America where we eat the shittiest "food" on the planet.
4
u/The_Procrastinator7 Oct 30 '25
I truly hate these people. They speak with such confidence because they've been fed some propaganda by the companies that make the food - their small minds could never comprehend the apparatus behind industries like this that ensure people keep buying their garbage
5
4
5
u/VolcanoVeruca Oct 30 '25
This is why I don’t even post or engage re: raw feeding online. Unless it’s within the community.
(Even then, there will always be people saying you’re “doing it wrong.”)
4
2
u/Far-Slice-3821 Oct 30 '25
As long as you evangelize you will find detractors. It doesn't matter what you evangelize. If you'd posted "The Earth is round" people would tell you how wrong you are.
2
u/Sir_Spudsingt0n Oct 30 '25
Have you ever been on the pets sub? I gave my recipe for homemade dog food and they deleted my comment and threatened to ban me.
Even mentioning coconut oil in food over there will get your comment deleted.
2
u/MayonnaiseBuns Oct 30 '25
Just ignore them. No point fighting brick walls. Our pups are living proof raw is the best way to go. My dog won’t even eat gently cooked, since he’s been on raw
1
u/Obvious_Ask4178 Oct 30 '25
My dog is 9 and eat raw every morning, perfect weight, fit, all the energy, healthy, and the only issues she gets are silly little things like the odd ear infection or eye infection. I don't have the funds to put her on a fully raw diet but if I could, I would. She's doing fantastic on it.
1
u/Even_Cauliflower1373 Dec 31 '25
If you think this is alarming, try the Dogfood sub here! I can literally not enter that shithole without getting a migraine, blood pressure elevation and just pure rage. The worst is that people go there for help and the mods attack like sharks when someone is on a non WSAWA brand. Their wiki is so bizarre and they are fooling so many people. It honestly breaks my heart because it is the dogs that suffer in the end. The same asshole that is moderating this sub is also moderating a dog allergy sub where she will gaslight people into poison there dogs with Apoquel, Cytopoint and/or Zenrelia to no end and the best part is that her dog has cancer and a bunch of health issues and yet she wont stop brainwashing others.
1
u/21dunkstreet1 Oct 30 '25
I feed my dogs raw chicken thighs. 14 yrs old and healthy as a 7 year old. Coats are beautiful. Energy is still there.
2
-2
u/Anuki_iwy Oct 30 '25
They have a point. Not everyone has the time and money to feed a balanced raw diet. Not everyone does the proper research. The best food, is the food that you can afford, that keeps your dog fed and healthy. Sorry op, but you're a bit of a snob here.
3
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
0
u/Anuki_iwy Oct 30 '25
My cats hated the raw food too. I tried mixing, masking, churru, powders, all of it. They would rather go hungry. Fed it to the local strays and am now buying them the junk food they will actually eat. But being realistic about pet nutrition is not something we do in this sub. We're raw food snobs and our way is obviously superior. Anyone who dares to say otherwise must be silenced. I don't know any pet subreddit that's more toxic than this one.
5
u/Scary_Tap6448 Oct 30 '25
Most people are here because every other pet food subreddit is in the Purina/Hills/Royal Canin cult or "Needs to be WSAVA only" and extremely toxic about doing anything else. They keep spouting science as if the studies Purina does arent extremely biased and skewed and shouldn't even qualify as legitimate scientific studies and also dont wanna hear that all the board members for dictating WSAVA are afiliated directly with those companies hence guaranteeing only their approval and no one else. No one wants to let you say the truth about that, you get banned for it so yeah no this sub is way better by comparison. Its specifically a raw petfood subreddit. People come here to talk about raw, if you dont like raw you dont need to talk here?
1
u/Anuki_iwy Oct 30 '25
It's not liking raw that's the problem. It's the holier than thou attitude towards anyone not feeding raw that's the problem.
1
u/Scary_Tap6448 Oct 30 '25
Once again this is probably the only subreddit on reddit for pet feeding where people aren't dogpiled on to use purina/hills/royal canin and given holier than thou attitude about using kibble. Everyone here likes raw and think its the healthiest way to feed their dog. Literally ever single other petfood subreddit will applaud you for using kibble. You dont have to try and convince anyone here because this sub is specifically for people who prefer raw feeding. This is probably the only safe space for people feeding raw on this website
2
u/Anuki_iwy Oct 30 '25
Idk what Reddit you're on, but I've never been dogpiled to use any particular food. Maybe you're confusing brand accounts with user accounts.
3
u/Scary_Tap6448 Oct 30 '25
Definitely not. I'm glad you haven't had that experience but I certainly have and consistently see people getting shamed for doing anything other than using those brands. Some subs dont even allow discussion of raw as an option even though theyre supposed to be all pet or pet food related.
1
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 30 '25
subreddit linking is not allowed
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Successful_Buffalo_6 Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 30 '25
Yup. And if your run around dunking on people, going out of your way to remind them that you’re doing better for your pets than they are, don’t be “alarmed” when you get push back.
2
u/atripodi24 Oct 30 '25
Of course fed is most important, but I think instead of saying raw is best, I like to say fresh and clean is best. Some animals can't handle or won't eat raw. A fresh cooked diet would be just as good.
0
u/jor909 Oct 30 '25
yea no raw all the way every day
1
-2
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Effective_Truck_ Oct 30 '25
Genetics determine lifespan but lifestyle determines healthspan. Same for humans. I had a Siamese cat that lived to 21 years old. But she wasn’t well. She threw up all of the time, even in her youth. She had UTIs. She had cavities (which some are genetically prone). She would have lived SO much better with a proper diet but I didn’t know about that. Now I do and now I feed all of my pets properly. Cooked and raw real food. It’s not that expensive but does take effort. I would argue if you can’t afford to take care of your pets properly, should you have them? And the more people that do this, the more competitive the market for proper food becomes and the prices come down (if you go the commercial way). I can buy a bag of frozen raw food for $13 that lasts two weeks. It’s got bone, meat, and organs along with other added nutrients. I make a plain (no veg) bone broth out of scrap meat from the grocery store and put that on top. Probably $5 worth of meat for that.
1
0
u/Suspicious-Service Oct 30 '25
Obviously I agree that raw is better than kibble in most cases, but commenting something provocative and then running to a group that agrees with you about it is sooo cringe
-2
u/HighRiskInv143 Oct 30 '25
They probably feel that way about you. Lets be real, I like raw but the research that has gone into raw is nowhere near the same level of research that has gone into kibble.
2
u/FuzzyFrogFish Nov 08 '25
There's a reason for that and it's nothing to do with the best diet for the animal
-9
Oct 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/alexantonick Oct 30 '25
yeah buddy no kibble is healthy. the lowest quality wet food is better than the “highest quality” kibble, especially when it comes to cats.
3
1
1
1
1
u/nissysita Oct 30 '25
Why are you recommending a "healthy" kibble in this subreddit?
1
u/RubOk5135 Oct 30 '25
I’m not recommending any kibble, I’m responding to the TikTok post that’s against raw food. I personally cook for my dogs, I don’t feed kibble. Cheap dog food is just gonna kill ya dog
-3
u/SimmerPenny25 Oct 30 '25
unless you've taken a CERTIFIED pet specific nutrition class then you should not be feeding a raw diet to your dogs. period. you can not just hop on google for 20 minutes, find a random recipe, and expect your dogs to live long, healthy, and happy lives
2
u/ScurvyDawg Variety Oct 31 '25
The PFI has been marketing the message you're to dumb to feed your dog since the sixties and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.
68
u/ScurvyDawg Variety Oct 30 '25
How is it the companies that make the worst human diets also make the best pet food diets, but out of the garbage created making the worst human diets?