People every day subject their beloved pets to monotonous, repetitive routines that they wouldn't allow for themselves. Yet, they unthinkingly pass these actions off as being 因纽特犬 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. Manufacturers and veterinarians advise pet owners not to feed their pets other foods due to the risk of unbalancing modern processed nutritional marvels. The power of the message is so great that pet owners en masse do every day to their pets what they would never do to themselves or their children - force-feed the same processed food at every meal.
It's amazing, just think about it. Our world is complex beyond comprehension. It is not only largely unknown, it is unknowable in the "complete" sense. In order for nutritionists and manufacturers to produce a "100% complete and balanced" pet food, they must first know 100% about nutrition. However, nutrition is not a completed science. Nutrition is an aggregate science that is based on other sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics. However, no scientist would claim that all of biology, chemistry, and physics are known. How can nutritionists claim to be able to understand nutrition, which is based on 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. Doctors, nurses, and baby formula manufacturers cannot claim that these products are perfect or that they are superior to breast-feeding. Good for the regulators. (Although they should have been proactive and prevented the disaster before it ever took root, not have merely stepped in after enough deaths accrued.)
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. To win consumers' trust, they legitimize poor science. 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.