Salmonella Pet Food Debate
There is a Veterinarian in Calgary (Daniel Joffe) who did a study showing raw diets have a higher amount of Salmonella and is telling people that the dogs who ate this food shed Salmonella in their stool. The study actually showed some of the dogs shed Salmonella in their stool. None of the dogs got infected themselves. He then says that this puts your family at risk for infection from the dogs stool. He also states that there are no scientific studies to back the claims people make about a raw diet.
In my opinion the only thing that his study actually proves is that dogs are in deed able to eat meats with Salmonella and not get infected themselves. Some dogs did shed it in their stool and none of the dogs in the study were infected. This is important: none of the dogs were infected. If they were I guarantee that would be what Joffe would have focused on. Healthy dogs and cats can eat food with small amounts of Salmonella without being infected. The next claim he makes about there being live bacteria in their stool and this poses a risk to families. He at no time mentions how long this bacterium stays alive (minutes, hours, days or weeks). He just wants to make people afraid that they are at risk. Now even if the bacteria stayed alive for long periods of time we would still have to touch the stool to be at risk ourselves.
The next thing I find interesting in his claims is that there are no scientific studies to back the statements of some of the benefits of raw food. I wish he had the same criteria for dry foods. The reality is no and I repeat no dog food has long term scientific studies to show the effects on animals, and no offence, but do we want dogs or cats in labs for 15 years so we can actually have some studies? The truth is animal testing and how they are done is a real problem. Animals are not treated humanly at all. And the only real long term results the industry responds to is your pets failing health. If enough dogs have kidney failure then the industry will develop a formula that helps fight that because they now have a market (all pets with health issues). The truth is most people consider feeding raw food to their pet because health problems are so prevalent in today’s pets. It is not because they think it is easier or less expensive. It is for their health. And the reality is if they weren’t seeing results they would more than likely go back to feeding something easier and less expensive. I for one don’t need any scientific studies that may or may not be cruel to animals to know that statistically there are more health problems today than ever before, and that the success rates of dogs and cats on a good raw diet are amazing. If Daniel Joffe was a really unbiased Veterinarian then he would not use fear tactics to influence people and he would hold the same standards to all food. I would like him to study what percentage of healthy dogs he sees are on a raw diet and what percentage are on grocery store dry diet.