Claim: Pets should eat what their wild relatives eat.
Consideration: Whilte it is true that their wild relatives eat raw, freshly killed foods, our dogs are not wild animals, but domestic ones. That doesn't mean we can't need them a similar diet, only that we need to keep in mind that these are torally different groups of animals with different lifestyles, exercise patterns, and health concerns.
Claim: Raw meat is safe for our pets; wild animals suffer no ill effects from raw meat.
Consideration: Whether or not raw meat is safe is debatable, although most pet owners report no obvious health problems in pets fed raw meat. Conversely, many owners report healthier looking coats and skin, less itching, less arthritis, and general overall health improvement once pets are fed raw homemade diets. There are healthy concerns, such as parasites and bacterial contamination, when feeding raw meat. They are discussed at length further along in this discussion.
To say that wild animals suffer to ill effects from eating raw meat is ignorant and presupposes we know everything that happens to every wild animal. While most wild animals thrive on their diets (as would be expected), we also know that wild prey carry parasites, which are transmitted to wild animal predator relatives of our pets, and that any infected meat could certainly cause illness in a wild animal. Unfortunately, no studies that I am aware of have pursued this topic.
Claim: Animals are more "acidic" compared to people. That is why they don't get sick eating raw meat.
Consideration: I'm not sure what this statement means, or how someone could even measure a pet's "acidity." I assume that those who make this statement believe that the"acid" in the pet's body can detoxify anything bad in the diet. While it is true that wild animals have adapted to their diets, this in no way means that they are immune to problems associated with the diet. For example, if a wild animal were only able to eat the muscle meat on the prey, that animal would develop calcium deficiency as meat is low in calcium. If the meat were rancid and infected with bacteria, the animal could certainly develop food poisoning (as often happens with pets that get into and eat garbage). If an animal eats meat infected with parasites, the animal gets infected with the parasite. So this statement concerning acidity just doesn't hold up.
Claim: Raw meat is safe for our pets. Their systems are designed to handle any problems with the meat.
Consideration: This all depends on what is meant by "safe." Certainly raw meat from animals raised free of chemicals and hormones, and that isn't infected with bacteria or parasites, is safe. Owners who choose to feed raw meat must do all they can to ensure that this meat is "safe" and free from pesticide, chemical, and hormonal residues as well as parasite ova (eggs.) Proper handling of the meat is needed to ensure that it stays "safe" at home (most food poisoning results from improper handling at home rather than a problem with the actual source of the meat itself.)
When pet owners say that animals can handle problems with raw meat, I assume they mean that the digestive tract and immune system of a pet (and of a wild animal) can eliminate any infections or parasites before they cause problems for the animal. While it is true that a healthy pet is less likely to succumb to an infection or develop disease when infected with parasites (although this depends upon the type of parasite and the number infected the animal), raw meat can still make an animal sick.
What I find interesting is the recommendation that it is acceptable to feed raw meat, except for raw pork or raw wild game (venison, rabbit, ect.), to pets. The reason for this warning, which I agree with, by the way, is that these meats are more likely to harbor parasites than beef or lamb. However, this warning seems contradictory. If our pets "can handle" raw meat because of their "acidity" and their immune systems, why can't they handle the parasites present in raw meat? In the wild, animals eat raw pork, venison, and a whole host of other meats that proponents of raw diets caution against us feeding to our pets.
Claim: Feeding dogs bones is safe.
Consideration: Once again, we need to define "safe." Most pets eating raw bones do not die, develop impaction of the digestive tract, or experience any health problems.
Still, some do, as most veterinatians can attest. Some proponents state that only cooked bones, which are softer than raw uncooked bones, are likely to splinter and cause problems. Once again the choice about feeding bones is up to your discretion.
Claim: Cats can become vegetarians.
Although debate exists over whether humans are meant to eat meat, researchers don't dispute that cats are obligate carnivores. Cats simply can't live without meat and the highly bioavailable protein and amino acids (Taurine, arginine, metherionine, and cysteine, to mention a few) they contain, as well as certain fatty acids and vitamins found only in animal tissue.
Cats can develop serious health problems if they eat only a plant and grain-based diet, even with supplementation. out of respect for cats, we must recognize the difference in physiology between cats and humans. There are products out there for vegan and vegetarian cats, but if you look at the ingredient listings carefully, you'll notice they contain nonmeat protein sources, nonanimal omega-3 sources, and a lot of vegetables and grains. This kind of food has very little nutritional vanue for cats. Sadly, diets like this cause cause major health problems, including dangerous deficiendies of key amino acids, fatty acids, and vitamins.
Claim: Dry Cat Food keeps down tartar.
Dry foods don't keep tartar problems at bay because even cats that do chew dry food, rather than swallow it whole, don't crunch long enough to provide any scraping actions, particularly around the gum line. Cry food has so many negatives points that even a possible small positive, such as tartar prevention, doesn't make it worth risking your cat's health.