Misskiwi67
Posted : 2/1/2007 10:59:39 PM
ORIGINAL: Luvntzus
Papillon- I posted the ingredients for Science Diet because Lilea mentioned that she read the ingredients on a bag at Petsmart and didn't see what was so wrong with it.
Misskiwi- I can't say that I understand your way of thinking with nutrition. To me it seems really obvious that a food that's meat based, with fruits, veggies, probiotics and natural preservatives is much healthier than a corn based food with with litte meat, artificial preservatives and then synthetic vitamins. [&:] It's the equivalent of a person eating ONLY chicken and rice with a centrum multivitamin every day. Common sense says that it's much more nutritious to eat a variety of foods, including fruits and vegetables. [8|]
I'm really sorry for triple posting... but I hate replying without quotes and I can never find my cursor to copy and paste on this forum.... [

]
Here's my thinking... meat is great, but the quality of meat isn't easily judged just from the way its listed. Meat meals and by-product meals vary widely in their nutrient levels, and there is NO way to know how good the meal is without calling the company and asking. Having Chicken meal vs. general meat meal just means you know what animal it came from... it doesnt actually mean its always better. Generally it is, but not always...
So we're in agreement about the fact that meat is better, thats a no-brainer. But why are veggies better than corn, other than for variety? Both are plant products, and corn is generally well digested and has a surprisingly decent number of nutrients in it. I think people miss the fact that I don't think veggies are bad, and I honestly don't think corn is better, I just don't think its bad, or a reason to immediately discount a food... therefore I commonly use it as an example of how close-minded the general public has become due to the marketing of many food companies. The only way for them to prove their food is better is to make another company's food look worse. What do people look at first, ingredients.... so if they make the #1 ingredient look bad, then they've successfully made their product look better. As far as I'm concerned, its all just marketing, its not a real reflection of ingredient quality. Ingredients alone do not make a food... they're one of many parts.
To me, a preservative is a preservative. It doesn't matter if its "natural" or not, because natural does not mean safer in my book. If you're going to have a preservative, I want something that will do a good job. Dog foods NEED preservatives because of the cooking process and shelf life... if we could get rid of them completely, then I would be in total agreement with you... preservatives are not a desirable thing... but if you must have them, lets at least use a good one. I have yet to see anything that says mixed tocopherols are better or safer than BHA/BHT. Natural does not mean safe.
Synthetic vitamins are just as good as natural ones, IF they're the exact chemical structure. Can you name me some synthetic vitamins that are not the same chemical structure??? If so, then you're probably right, natural may be better... but not always. It depends on the structure and metabolism of that individual vitamin.
Probiotics... absolutely, I see no problem with adding them to foods... provided they aren't unreasonably priced. If it marks up the food more than a jar of yogurt every week, then I don't want to see them in my food. There is a thin line between helping pets and marketing.
Does that help you understand where I'm coming from a bit better? I don't think you're wrong, you obviously take very good care of your pets and care deeply about what they do and don't eat... I just think differently, and this is my reasoning.