Andrew Lewis Dog Food Secrets – The Experts Speak

If you are a pet owner, or even if you just like dogs, you will find Andrew Lewis Dog Food Secrets shocking. I am not going to show you any of the images from his book here. My intention is not to shock you. I am going to tell you the facts that I have learned about commercial dog food as I know them.

You are a Fair, Just, and Ethical person. Your dog is a good friend to you. You probably interact with your dog more times a day by subtle gestures, hand movements, and even facial expressions than you do with your spouse. Why, because your dog is totally in tune with you and trusts you and counts on you to always do what is best for him.

40.2 Million Family Dogs Eat Commercial Dog Food

6 out of 10 dog owners feed their dogs commercial dog food. It is a huge industry. $12 billion a year in sales for the 67 million or so family dogs in America. All these dog owners want to feed their dog properly. They think they are because they have purchased one of the recommended “premium” foods advertised or promoted by a pet store clerk or even by their own veterinarian.

My purpose is not to bash the commercial dog food companies. As with any other product that serves tens of millions of consumers everyday, the dog food companies and the regulatory agencies that monitor the commercial dog food companies (although not as closely as you have been led to believe) assess risk by the fallacy of big numbers.

Ingredients legally go into commercial dog food that are not safe for human consumption and would probably make you vomit on the spot right now if you knew what they were. These rotten, disease infested, poisonous ingredients are permitted because only an “acceptable” percentage of family dogs will suffer immediate, observable consequences from eating them.

This stuff only makes the news when 6,000 American pets die almost all at once like happened in 2007 when melamine laced pet food made in China was fed to dogs all across America. Melamine, a chemical used to make plastics, was added to pet food by the manufacturer to boost the protein content on the labeling. So much for relying on commercial pet food labels to keep your dog healthy and safe.

Before I’d tell you more about Lewis Dog Food Secrets ebook let us hear what other industry experts have to say about what is really going on at commercial dog food plants.

What Other Industry Experts Other Than Andrew Lewis Say About Commercial Dog Food

Ann N. Martin wrote the first edition in 1997 of a hardcover book titled Food Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Food. the Third Edition of Ms. Martin’s book was published in July, 2008. [1]

The publisher describes her book this way:

“The commercial pet food industry has a secret to hide – and Ann Martin wants to make sure you know it. Her research reveals some startling facts: that the pet food industry conducts animal testing in order to improve their product, and includes euthanized cats and dogs in the mix to heighten protein content. In this revised and updated edition, Martin continues to explore the shocking processes by which commercial pet foods are produced. … This groundbreaking book gives us a glimpse into exactly what we are doing when we buy pet food.”

A Harvard Law School paper published in 2006 [2] quoted from Ms. Martin’s book, along with several other scholarly publications, “Deconstructing the Regulatory Facade: Why Confused Consumers Feed Their Pets Ring Dings and Krispy Kremes.”

The Harvard Law School paper is technical and heavily footnoted, as you might expect, but if I can summarize the main point here, it is:

“…the true contents of most commercial pet foods and the current system of regulation is slowly killing our nation’s pets via confusing labels, misleading ingredient names, and inadequate regulation of the manufacturing process..”

I will have to refer you to the paper itself to read the full story of how the 95% rule the 3% rule and the 25% rule are so confusing that a diligent consumer has almost no chance of deciphering from the label ingredients the nutritional adequacy of the dog food he is buying for his beloved pet. Even worse the consumer can’t even know what the main ingredient the dog food plant used making the dog food. “Chicken Formula Food” could just as easily have liver or beef as the main ingredient. All perfectly legal my friend. Is natural dog food any better? Don’t know. You can’t trust any commercial dog food label.

Why You Cannot Believe Or Even Decipher Commercial Dog Food Labels

“Animal byproducts” and “other parts” and “chicken meal” are common ingredients in commercial dog food. Only about 50% of every food producing animal can be used for human consumption. The other 50% goes to pet food – and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that so long as it is wholesome.

But here is a new term for you: 4D Tissues or “meat that came from animals that were dead, dying, diseased or disabled before they reached the packing plant.” None of these ingredients would ever be considered for human consumption, but despite flimsy FDA regulations to the contrary, 4D tissues are included as ingredients every day in commercial dog food processing. You will never see the words 4D Tissue on a dog food label – but it’s in there. Remember that not dead deer you saw on the road?

I have mentioned these other experts who introduced you to “4D Tissue” and “animal byproducts” because I do not want you to think that Andrew Lewis is a raving maniac who hates dog food companies because his dog died years earlier then he thinks it should have.

If you continue to feed your dog commercial dog food the chances are that he is not going to collapse on the floor after his next bowl of Premium XYZ. Remember how we talked about the fallacy of big numbers?

The fact that a commercial dog food diet is almost certainly taking years off your dog’s life is not a matter of regulatory concern. I will provide you with another compelling reason why that is the case.

Why Regulators Have No Clue About The Long Term Hazards of Commercial Dog Food

Vol. 22 No.3 – August 2002 issue of the Environmental Toxicology Newsletter [3] mentions a 1990’s study by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine that concluded that sodium pentobarbital that dogs received through eating commercial dog food was “unlikely” to cause any health problems. Remember the fallacy of big numbers again – a percentage of dogs will have health problems but the estimated number is below the “acceptable” risk level.

In case you don’t know – sodium pentobarbital is used to euthanize (kill) horses and cattle and dogs and cats and other animals. The FDA did detect pentobarbital in dog food and concluded that it was not unhealthy anyway. Here is the kicker – the FDA concluded that no further research into this issue was necessary. Say what’? What happens FDA if my dog eats pentobarbital laced food for 10 years? They have no clue because they do not do long term studies like that – no further research was necessary, remember?

Based on the fact that the average lifespan of dogs in the US is 11 years we can all reach our own conclusion of what happens after 10 years. There is another aspect of the sodium pentobarbital story that is so revolting that I will not even bring it up here. Andrew Lewis does tell you because he feels obligated to take on the task of laying all the gruesome facts out on the table so you get the complete story -everything.

My goal was to alert you to the fact that what you do not know about commercial dog food is taking years off your dog’s life. I urge you to investigate Andrew Lewis’ Dog Food Secrets e-book which provides much more detail than I was willing to provide you with here about why commercial dog food is the equivalent of poison – and exactly what you can do for your dog’s nutrition to give him the longest possible life that a caring pet owner can.

——-

[1]  Food Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Food. Third Edition, 2008

[2]   Deconstructing the Regulatory Facade: Why Confused Consumers Feed their Pets Ring Dings and Krispy Kremes Harvard Law School, Justine S. Patrick, April 2006

[3]   Vol. 22 No.3 – Environmental Toxicology Newsletter, August 2002