Did you know that there have been no long-term, peer-reviewed, double-blind studies which conclude any benefit to a RAW diet for dogs?
And can ANYONE find a single long-term, peer-reviewed, double-blind study which shows that ANY dog food is better than another?
Can anyone find a single long-term, peer-reviewed, double-blind study which shows that corn in dog food is bad?
I keep asking, and so far no one has anything.
Here we have a billion-dollar-a-year industry in a country with hundreds of thousands of scientists, thousands of wonderful laboratories, hundreds of peer-reviewed journals, and there appears to be NOT ONE study, anywhere, that says one dog food is better than another based on evidence gathered in a real live-dog double-blind feed trial.
Nor is there ONE study which says corn in dog food is bad.
And, let's face it, it's not because the for-profit high-dollar pet food industry is not heavily incentivized to find such a study.
If you build a better dog food and can prove it, people will pay.
But, of course, no one can.
Silence can also tell a story.
But to hear silence, you must clear your mind and really listen.
- Note: If you actually have SCIENCE, i.e. a long-term, peer-reviewed, double-blind study please post in comments, otherwise do not. I am looking for evidence, not more recycled mumbo-jumbo, anecdote and opinion. Read the title.
This country (this world!) is crawling with large commercial kennels and crowded dog shelters. Most real dog food companies run live feed trials. And yet not one will make a claim that their dog food is better than another.
Think otherwise? Prove it. Post a link or citation to a long-term, peer-reviewed, double-blind dog food study conducted with real dogs.