Patty Khuly wrote this as a special for the USA Today
For a great many veterinarians, “people food” is a loaded term — one full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Nothing, that is, beyond a Madison Avenue-originated, hard-blowing wind kicked up to keep most of us from feeding our pets anything that doesn’t come in a bag, can, box or pouch.
The very concept of “people food” turns my stomach even more than the idea of ingesting what passes for pet food on this continent. It irks even more so knowing that so many of my clients congratulate themselves on their adherence to a “no people food” regimen on behalf of their pets — as if what’s arguably the most highly processed fare on the planet were some kind of exalted ambrosia and feeding its alternatives a version of animal abuse.
Yet when pressed, most of us will allow that the vast majority of so-called “people foods” mirror the very same ingredients we’ve gelled and kibbled into those cans and bags. A meat source, a tuber, a grain, a fruit — these are neither designed for nor dedicated to human consumption alone.
Nonetheless, it’s true that machine-extruded and stewed pet foods revolutionized the ability of humans to more safely and conveniently live with their dogs and cats. To the extent that we understand pet nutrition, manufactured pet diets are designed to be nutritionally balanced to meet their ideal requirements. Moreover, commercial pet foods leave out the foodstuffs we’ve learned can do them harm (grapes, macadamia nuts, etc.).
Problem is, the divide between “pet food” and “people food” has become a wall across which veterinarians, pet food manufacturers and pet owners can no longer communicate freely.
Case(s) in point:
• My clients, who fear “people food” for pets such that they’d prefer to plump up their pets with Pupperonis than follow my recommendations for simple fruit and vegetable substitutions (because it’s “people food”).
• My fellow veterinarians, most of whom fear the legal and safety aspects of recommending non-commercial diets and prefer to stick to foods that are designed by a specialized crew of company nutritionists.
• The pet food industry, which seems to actively trade on fears of “people food,” but whose lax regulatory mechanisms were largely responsible for the 2007 pet food recall (after which thousands of pets were reportedly sickened).
What I’m arguing here, in case I’ve lost you, is that the concept of feeding pets “people food” is ultimately not as black and white as some would have you believe. People food is pet food … and vice versa.
Therefore, owners who choose to feed a wholly or partly non-commercial diet to their pets deserve no accusations of abuse — not as long as the diet is nutritionally balanced, wholesome and free of potential toxins.
As long as pet owners have their pets’ well-being in mind, research their choices, take precautions against gastrointestinal side effects and are mindful of the need to provide a nutritionally complete diet, where’s the harm? After all, we’re not talking about french fries and TV dinners, we’re talking healthy, unprocessed ingredients.
Commonsensical as it may be, however, many veterinarians and the pet food industry as a whole seem to think home cooking for pets a task that requires a PhD in nutrition. They frown on the whole process, preferring we pick processed over fresh at every turn. This, despite exhortations to the contrary when it comes to feeding ourselves and our (human) families.
In a nutshell, that explains why I would be elated to hear the term “people food” leave our vocabulary once and for all. Doing so would serve pet health best, if not because food is food and pets deserve fresh fare, but, ultimately, because pet owners deserve a choice in how they care for all their loved ones.
