Written by Jessica Mockett
10 Minute Read
When I was young, a woman in the congregation at my church had a very large family. She had about 10 children—impressive! She was a stay-at-home mom who excelled at her role. Though surely not perfect, her children were kind, well behaved, intelligent, hard workers, and very spiritual to boot. I remember discovering that after they watched movies, it was a family practice to discuss manipulations, fallacies, amoral messages they discovered—elements within the film that deserved critical thought. For productions like The Little Mermaid, they discussed the message that women can only get men if they have no voice, that disobeying one’s father was glorified by a getting positive end result, or that fundamentally changing self is the only way to be happy. Now, they enjoyed each film they watched but could also then pick out the underlying messages that really needed critical thinking to unpack. Super inspiring.
This practice—critical analysis of persuasive content—feels increasingly rare today.
We live in an age of information overload. An overwhelming amount of daily content demands our attention. Because of this, the average person’s attention span shrinks to mere seconds and instead of thinking for ourselves, we let influencers, dubious news outlets, and unqualified peers shape our views. We allow feelings to dominate our opinions. Ongoing research tackles the loss of critical thinking, observing it slip away from human culture, amid the deluge of media hype. Articles like this remind us to not let this skill escape us, claiming that if we do, “We lose the ability to thoroughly analyze issues, think critically, understand different perspectives, spot logical fallacies, and weigh evidence.”
The raw pet food debate exemplifies this need for critical analysis.
Fear-mongering controls this topic: the question of safety when feeding raw food to pets. I feel compelled to speak out on this subject because profit protection for major organizations steers the dominating negative rhetoric. The powerful voices behind the “danger” messaging mislead and without critical thinking many will bypass a very valid form of nutritional healing for their beloved cat. The motivation for scaring pet owners isn’t about the safety issues (though precautions exist with feeding uncooked meat). The impact of illnesses contracted from raw feeding remains statistically insignificant. I am not dismissing the heartache of those who’ve lost pets to food borne pathogens, but focusing instead on how truly minimal the risk is. It’s akin to winning a lottery jackpot, though obviously not a joyful win.
This USA Today piece written earlier this year, one of numerous anti-raw feeding reports easily found online, is noticeably skewed by anyone using a critical eye. A few of the items I picked up on were:
- Inferring only the rich can afford raw pet food—framing that alienates average income readers by suggesting this dietary path is a frivolous extravagance.
- The author uses words like ‘fad’ and ‘trend’ to make it seem like raw feeding is a transient thing, implying it isn’t worth investigating because it won’t be around for long.
- “The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.” This remark is deceptive. Just because one raw food company chose not to participate in anti-raw propaganda doesn’t mean they actually failed to respond or have something to hide. The writer intends to lead readers to believe this company was somehow untrustworthy.
- This report mentions the FDA recalls of raw pet foods, citing 10 raw-related recalls since 2018. However, it purposely does not mention cooked/processed food recalls of which there are about a 2.5x more frequent recalls. It doesn’t mention the Zero Tolerance policy of the FDA for all pet food in regard to listeria, E.coli, and salmonella and that these can contaminate cooked/processed products as well.
- The author employs fear-inciting words like ‘dire,’ ‘severe,’ ‘risk,’ ‘potentially fatal infection,’ ‘serious symptoms,’ and ‘deadly’ when discussing raw pet food. Yet the article provides minimal statistical data or specific information about infection rates. If infections (like listeria, E.coli, salmonella) caused by raw pet feeding were impacting a high rate of individuals or even pets, the data would be collected and available.
US data shows approximately 31,100 hospitalizations for salmonella, listeria, and E.coli combined annually (about 780 deaths). One worldwide survey indicates 0.2% of pet owners experienced confirmed pathogen exposure from raw pet food. Applying this 0.2% rate to US cat homes (37% of US households) where raw feeding occurs (about 10% of cat owners), here’s the statistical reality:
The terrible risks USA Today author Loria implies of raw pet food infection dangers is clearly not true. If I calculate the numbers on reported H5N1 specifically, 0.00000034% of cats in the US are impacted. Risks for infections either impacting you or your pet are incredibly low. For more of my thoughts on this, read my blog Raw Food for Cats: Dangerous to Our Pets OR to Big Pet Food Companies?.
- The author manipulated cost perception visually for readers by printing raw food costs at $50-$200+ a month whereas he mentioned kibble costing only $1 or $2 (“standard kibble” per pound). It’s a stark difference if just looking at the dollar amounts shown, but it is not the whole truth, rather a clever manipulation. For a 10-lb cat you would need about 3-4lbs of kibble a month. Low grade cat kibble is actually about $1.50-$2.50/per pound. So at $2/lb it’s $6-$8/month for a low-grade kibble. If you feed a higher-quality mid-grade kibble it would be about $4-$5/lb, closer to $20/month. If your cat requires a prescription kibble, like a kidney support diet, you will be spending $10/lb and $40/month. If feeding a 100% raw diet to this 10-lb cat you would need 9lbs of raw meat per month. You will spend between $50-$100/month (depending on where you source, prices average about $8/lb). It is a big jump if you are going from cheap kibble to 100% raw but not a big jump if you are using prescription diets.
But all this cost talk is only part of the picture. It is also about nutritional value and bioavailability. Fresh and raw pet foods are dramatically different nutritionally from dry kibble foods. It’s like us living off of rice and ramen verses fresh veggies, fruits, and lean meats. Clearly rice and ramen are very cheap, but not ideal for fulfilling nourishment requirements that lead to wellness and longevity.
- An expert is quoted as saying, “But you know domestic cats are not really wild cats any more, they’re very different genetically, they’ve evolved and probably their diets have evolved as well.” However, scientific research tells us that the domestic cat has not genetically altered much from their ancestor the wild desert cat (which is still alive today). Specifically, with metabolism, the only notable change is that the domestic cat is less capable of handling high fat content meals than the ancestor. Note the expert’s use of the word “probably” when implying the feline diet has evolved to no longer need or benefit from raw nutrition.
- Arguing a lack of scientific proof that fresh, species appropriate diets offer any health benefits and insinuating raw food providers are duping pet owners with promises of improved health. While no causational pet research on raw diets is available we know there is a plethora of human research on healthy diets impacting disease prevention, citing processed foods as higher risk foods. It is not a stretch to assume the same would be true of any animal. That eating a clean, species appropriate, fresh diet would lead to improved wellness. Scientific research is expensive. Small raw food companies can’t afford studies, and even if they could, publishing positive results against massively wealthy processed food giants would be nearly impossible.
- Implies that the reason for growing usage of pet raw diets is because people are lured by false marketing messages of health benefits. The report ignores the power of word-of-mouth. Personal testimonials multiply as guardians witness softer coats, increased energy, resolved allergies, improved gut health, and more. These personal testimonies of recovered pet-health are very powerful, which is why the raw food industry is growing.
I encourage you to review this specific article yourself, others like it, or any coverage on controversial subjects and test yourself on spotting the manipulation, whether it is pro or against the topic. Even if you agree with the writer, challenge yourself to spot weaknesses or fallacies. Do it with this article! Just get back to being someone who thinks more fully for yourself if this is something you have unintentionally left behind.
Cats are not built to eat carbs. Optimally, only 8-10% of their diet should be carbs. In the wild that would constitute the stomach contents of the prey they eat and grasses they nibble on. Yet kibble, the dominant source of nutrition for pet cats in the US, is on average 40-50% carbohydrates. Cats can digest and excrete carbs, but at what nutritional benefit and physiological cost? Dry food is not optimal nutrition for many reasons, but the carb content is a big one.
The FDA, with good intentions, has a zero-tolerance policy for E.coli, salmonella, and listeria in pet foods. However, these microorganisms are commonly found in the guts of carnivores. Their bodies are built to handle these bacteria and keep them in check within the microbiome ecosystem. The zero-tolerance policy is more likely an FDA requirement for the humans handling pet food. As stated above, there is almost nil risk of human illness evolving from raw pet foods. Yes, if bacterial loads become overwhelming for kitty, infections can occur however, most healthy cats handle this asymptomatically and shed bacteria with minimal risk from properly sourced raw foods.
Immunocompromised humans or cats (with FIV, FeLV, on steroids, cancer treatments, etc.) are more at risk because they are not as capable at fighting off normal infections. You can still give raw meals to immune compromised cats, but using High Pressure Pasteurized (HPP) raw foods reduces risks for our immune suppressed felines. Alternatively, steam purchased raw food until it reaches 160°F. Lightly steamed fresh meat retains valuable nutrition for vulnerable felines.
Be aware of significant caloric differences that exist between kibble and raw diets. A typical serving for a cat at a meal would be about ¼-cup food. Kibble, as high calorie food, on average will be about 125 calories per level ¼-cup scoop. A ¼-cup of raw food would be about 1.5-2 ounces of meat which would translate into an average of 55-100 calories, depending on the protein. This caloric density explains kibble’s convenience—less volume (and expense) needed. You only need, calorically, ½-cup of dry food/day to feed the average 10-lb cat. However, you would need 4-6 ounces of fresh raw to get the same number of calories. Now, when feeding a highly nutritious and biologically available meal like raw meat to kitty you will need less overall calories. Kibble is more akin to the phrase “empty calories” because while a high calorie count, it is far less nourishing.
My cats’ health concerns have improved through adding even a percentage of raw meats to their diets. While 100% raw would likely yield greater improvements, practical constraints (ingrained food preferences and budget limitations for seven cats) necessitate a mixed diet of raw, canned, and dry. I use about 40% raw meat in their diets. They now have much softer, shinier coats. A few with dandruff showed marked decreases in skin flakes in the fur. One overweight cat achieved a healthier weight. Another cat’s frequent watery vomiting resolved completely. Clients who transitioned to partial or complete raw diets report: softer, silkier, thicker fur; dramatic reductions in skin inflammation and allergies; improved bowel function; reduced waste; increased energy; lessened joint pain; and improved behavior.
