Every day people subject their loved animals to repetitious monotony that they would never allow for themselves, and yet, unthinkingly pass their actions off as beneficial for their pets.
People pour food out of a box into the bowls of their pets every day. Day in and day out, meal after meal, pets get the same fare. Pet owners who love their pets and believe they are doing the right things often practice this strange behavior.
Why? Certainly because it is convenient, but also because the labels state that such foods are "complete and balanced," "100% complete," or that they have passed various analytical and feeding test standards. Furthermore, manufacturers, and even veterinarians, counsel pet owners about not feeding other foods, such as 貓店名 table scraps, because of the danger of unbalancing these modern processed nutritional marvels. This message has such power that pet owners force their pets to eat the same processed foods at every meal.
Think about it. It is difficult to comprehend the complexity of our world. It is difficult to comprehend, and it is also difficult to know in the "complete" sense. To produce "100% complete, balanced and balanced" pet food, nutritionists and manufacturers must be 100% knowledgeable about nutrition. Nutrition is not an exact science. It is, in fact, an aggregate science, which is based upon other sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and biology. But since no scientist would argue that everything is known in chemistry, or physics, or biology, how can nutritionists claim to know everything there is to know about nutrition, which is based upon these sciences? This is the logical absurdity of the "100% complete and balanced" diet claim. This is why a similar attempt to feed babies a 100 percent complete formula proved to be disastrous for their health.
In that instance, after sufficient disease and death resulted from attempting to retire the human breast to a mere appendage of adornment, government stepped in and controlled the commercial hype. Now doctors, nurses and purveyors of baby formulas cannot say these products are complete or that they are equal to or superior to breast-feeding. They are doing a great job. (They should have been proactive in preventing the disaster from ever taking root and not just intervened after there were enough deaths.
Even with that lesson as a dire warning, pet food regulators turn a blind eye. Instead of stopping pet food producers from making claims that their processed food products are 100% complete, they promote death and disease-dealing specious claims by setting fake standards that supposedly validate and justify the claims. They legitimize sloppy science in order to win consumer confidence. A manufacturer only needs to guarantee that the food's percentage of protein, fat, and other nutrients meets National Research Council standards. Alternative options include feeding tests on laboratory animals in a cage for a few days, measuring blood parameters and monitoring growth and weight.