Why not Just Cook?

Conversation with a Canine Nutritionist

I recently watched this YouTube conversation between a veterinary neurologist and a veterinary nutritionist. This was the second interview these two had done together, the first one about a year previously. I had watched and critiqued the first video too, since it was laughably supportive of Big Pet Food. It was also full of inaccuracies and fear mongering over raw feeding. So, I was hoping this one would be better.

Progress?

And I have to say it was, slightly.  In the first video, these two practitioners did nothing but attempt to create fear around the idea of raw feeding.  They were completely closed off, not only for themselves but for their clients as well.  I happily noted this time that there was definitely some effort to face up to the unavoidable fact that pet owners are embracing raw feeding.  Unfortunately, neither of them is yet open to the idea of feeding raw or recommending it to their clients.  They’re frightened of “germs,” among other things, and still want YOU to be afraid, as well.  The nutritionist even postulated the preposterous notion that feeding her animals raw would make it hazardous for her to interact with her clients.  Does anybody ever go vegan because they think preparing meat meals in their home makes it hazardous for them to interact with the public? Who buys this ridiculousness?

I will say, however, that this time there was no blatant ridicule of raw feeding like there had been in the previous one, and much less fear mongering.  I also noted in the viewer comments a LOT more support for raw feeding and a great deal more criticism of commercial pet food.  Baby steps! 

The fundamental question: “Why not cook?”

That’s pretty much where the good news ends. While they were discussing raw diets, the vet asked the nutritionist what the main arguments were that raw feeders have against simply cooking the meat. He seemed genuinely mystified.

From the nutritionist, I hoped I’d hear her responses to the objections raw feeders have to cooking meat. After all, she had said that she interacts with raw feeders in the clinic where she works. Don’t they offer their reasons for wanting to feed raw?

Apparently not. She didn’t have an answer, which means she doesn’t even understand the rationale behind raw feeding.

That’s not good enough. This question DESERVES an answer. I didn’t want that vet to go away thinking that there ARE no sensible arguments for raw feeding. So I left a lengthy comment on the video. I wanted to share those comments with you, in the hopes they will be helpful in your interactions with pet health professionals. So here they are in full:

“I’ve been feeding a raw, fully home-prepped, “unbalanced,” “incomplete,” un-vet-nutritionist-assisted diet for 25 years. I’ve had nothing but long-lived dogs and virtually zero vet bills (except for mishaps) in that time.

I understand where your question comes from regarding why we can’t we just cook the food. Why not just throw that raw meal in a pan and cook it? That way everybody’s happy, right?

In a word, no.

We raw feeders have very good reasons for opposing that idea. It’s really a shame that they seem to have completely eluded your guest. Does she really not know any of the arguments for feeding raw? And how can this not represent an educational deficiency on the part of someone labeling herself a “nutritionist?” The question clearly caught her off guard because she went off on a tangent about wolves eating “offal” first instead of the more difficult to remove “skeletal meat” and how they die young. None of this was even relevant to the question, never mind valid on its own. I’m quite sure she’s never seen the photos of what is left of a deer carcass after wolves have consumed it. My dog weighs 10 pounds and last winter she had no problems cleaning the entire muscle off of a deer tibia.

In any case, here’s the answer to your question (“why not just cook?”):

  1. Food is not supposed to be sterile! Wolves CACHE their food and go back days or weeks later to consume it. Are we to imagine that bacteria have not already begun to decompose the food by that point? The agricultural chicken industry did not invent bacteria! My own animals have eaten partially decomposed meat without harm on hundreds of occasions.
  2. Dogs need to eat fully consumable raw bones. That’s where the majority of their mineral matter comes from. And bones must be raw because high temperatures render bones INDIGESTIBLE, which means they pass through the stomach intact. When vets complain about bones causing “obstructions” and coming out in jagged pieces, the majority of the time these are COOKED bones that the dog has foraged. If you’ve ever seen the poop of a raw fed dog that eats plenty of bone matter, it’s crumbly, much like compacted powder. That’s because RAW bones are fully dissolved in the digestive fluids of dogs. Occasionally dogs will poop out small pieces of raw bone as well. However, this is commonly observed in wild dogs, so we can assume it’s normal.
  3. Nutrients that are damaged during cooking are indigestible but are fully bioavailable when they are eaten raw. When we don’t DAMAGE food by cooking and processing, we don’t have to attempt to replace lost nutrients with powders that come out of labs and factories.
  4. AND, those damaged nutrients don’t just become waste, they become carcinogenic. All of the major health organizations warn against the heterocyclic amines in cooked meat, and no meat is more cooked than the meat that is contained in commercial pet food. It is typically cooked, extruded, and then baked again. Even when people attempt to replicate this mess in their kitchens, they put meat in the crock pot and allow it to cook for hours. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769029/#:~:text=Heterocyclic%20amines%20(HCAs)%20are%20a,tumors%20in%20experimental%20animal%20models)
  5. The wild model truly is our only objective teacher, and ALL wild dogs eat their food RAW. Canine nutritionist rhetoric notwithstanding, wolves do not die from the “germs” in their food. Wolves live extremely hazardous lives. Their food fights back! Along with human-wolf encounters in various forms, THIS is what accounts for their relatively short lives, not “disease.” If you doubt this for a moment, PLEASE Google “cause of wolf morality” and look at the charts and stats that show the dismal realities. Below is a link to a metanalysis that showed of 1,441 wolves examined in 21 studies from 1968-2019, only 40 died from “disease.” Human causes racked up 873 deaths. The remainder died from non-disease related causes like injuries and starvation.

Given the above, the opposite question (“why cook?”) would be much harder to answer! I will say, Dr. Cellini, that I was pleased that you and Dr. Bullen at least seemed softer on the idea of raw feeding than last time, and that does you credit. I don’t think the veterinary industry in general can credibly continue to oppose the tidal wave of positive “anecdotal” experiences raw feeders are having. So, I hope you will give raw feeding a serious look at some point.”

End of comments.

The above is not an all-inclusive list. As we all know, the reasons for raw feeding have filled many books! I could have mentioned improved breath, easily scoopable stools, zero vet bills, dental health and many others. Not to mention reversal of disease! But hopefully this is enough to at least pique his interest.

Maybe you can think of some of the benefits you’ve seen since feeding your animals raw (or better yet, RMF). These two pet health professionals could use a lot more encouragement, so I hope you’ll consider leaving a comment on the video as well. And if you are not already feeding your dog a low fat, home prepped, properly combined diet, please do yourself and your dog a huge favor and begin doing so!

Do you want to receive a notification each time a new blog article is posted?

Sign up to receive a notification email when a new blog article is posted

We don’t spam! Read our Privacy Policy for more info.

3 thoughts on “Why not Just Cook?”

  1. Si sto purtroppo constatando la stessa cosa , cioe’ l’ostinazione di mia moglie nel ritenere la carne cruda come nociva e pericolosa per via dei germi batteri e parassiti , che posono essere trasmessi tramite il cibo crudo , una cultura , come del resto rispecchia l’indottrinamento ricevuto anche nel campo della pseudo scienza e della pseudo virologia , per quel che riguarda , virus inesistenti e agenti patogeni che ci attaccano , quindi noto anche quì lo stesso capovolgimento fisiologico e biologico per una salute e una dieta adatta alla specie umana e animale , cioe’ alimentazione adatta alle specie ” carne cruda”

    1. For English speakers reading this, here’s the translation:
      Unfortunately, I am noticing the same thing, that is, my wife’s obstinacy in considering raw meat as harmful and dangerous due to the germs, bacteria and parasites, which can be transmitted through raw food, a culture, as indeed reflects the ‘indoctrination also received in the field of pseudo science and pseudo virology, as regards non-existent viruses and pathogens that attack us, therefore I also note here the same physiological and biological reversal for health and a diet suitable for the human and animal species , that is, a diet suitable for the “raw meat” species.

      My reply:
      Yes the programming is very hard to get through. This is especially true for parents of babies or young children because they are singled out for special fear mongering by the medical industry.
      I can’t agree that raw meat is appropriate for humans, however, because our bodies are structured very differently from animals that are adapted to the consumption of meat.
      Thank you for leaving a comment!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *