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. Pets get the same food day in and day out. This strange phenomenon is widely practiced by loving pet owners who believe they are doing the right thing.
Why? It is convenient. But also, the labels indicate that these foods are "completely balanced," "100% complete" or have passed numerous analytical and feeding testing standards. Furthermore, manufacturers, and even veterinarians, counsel pet owners about not feeding other foods, 狗頭jg such as table scraps, because of the danger of unbalancing these 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.
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. In order for nutritionists and manufacturers to produce a "100% complete and balanced" pet food, they must first know 100% about nutrition. Nutrition is not an exact 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 why the claim of a "100% balanced and complete" diet is absurd. It is the reason a similar venture to feed babies a "100% complete" formula turned out to be a health disaster.
After enough disease and death had resulted in trying to reduce the human breast to an ornamental appendage, the government intervened and took control of 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. Good for the regulators. (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. 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. In the alternative, manufacturers can do feeding trials on caged laboratory animals for a few weeks, measure cursory blood parameters, and monitor growth and weight - as if survival after a few weeks on a food has anything to do with achieving optimal health and long life!