The Animal Doctor

DEAR DR. FOX: I was surprised that you suggested feeding high-quality baby food to someone's elderly Yorkie recently. I stopped adding baby food to my dogs' meals due to reports of high levels of heavy metals being found in many baby foods. Has that improved, and is it now safe to feed baby food to our dogs? -- E.M., Juno Beach, Florida

DEAR E.M.: You raise a very important issue, and I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify. I never advise feeding baby foods on a regular basis to dogs and cats -- only when they are off their food and their appetites need to be stimulated, which meaty baby foods generally do. The short duration in this scenario should not expose them to any significant risk from the heavy metal contaminants in many baby foods.

A 2021 report from the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform says that some commercial baby foods are tainted with dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury. The report was based on information from just four baby food manufacturers: Nurture, Beech-Nut, Hain and Gerber. Arsenic, lead, and cadmium were found in baby foods from all of the companies; mercury was found in food from the only company that tested for it (Nurture). The full report is available at oversight.house.gov.

Data was not available for several brands, because they did not respond to the committee's requests. The report states: “Walmart (which sells baby food products through its private brand, Parent’s Choice), Campbell, (which sells baby food products under the brand name Plum Organics) and Sprout Organic Foods refused to cooperate with the Subcommittee’s investigation. The Subcommittee is greatly concerned that their lack of cooperation might be obscuring the presence of even higher levels of toxic heavy metals in their baby food products than their competitors’ products.”

Arsenic has also been reported in baby cereals. I find this situation astounding and very concerning, especially since even low levels of exposure can cause serious and often irreversible damage to brain development. Only recently was arsenic taken out of chicken feed, poultry meat having previously been a significant source of this toxin.

Considering the serious problem of heavy metal contamination in manufactured baby foods, it is likely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what goes into many pet foods -- along with aflatoxin and other molds, and Salmonella and other bacterial contaminants, which result in frequent recalls when pets become ill and die. According to one of many studies on pet food contamination, commercial dog foods appear to be safe for chronic consumption. Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury were dependent on the food's primary protein sources. Overall, poultry-based diets had relatively lower heavy metal and arsenic content than red meat- and fish-based diets. Despite the safety of most pet foods, occasional outliers for lead render some concern for chronic exposure.

Various body parts -- bones, livers and fats, in particular -- from older animals such as dairy cows, laying hens and livestock, as well as horses, tuna and even whales, should probably not be considered safe ingredients for pet foods. Recycling these parts into pet foods, livestock and poultry feeds, and human supplements and food-additives should be prohibited in the absence of thorough safety testing.

In our modern factory farm system, the longer an animal lives, the more heavy metals, arsenic, fluorides and other industrial pollutants it accumulates, along with pesticides and various pharmaceuticals. The lower our foods are on the food chain, the lower our accumulation and risk -- another benefit of plant-based diets.

DOG TREAT RECALL

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture found Salmonella bacteria in a sample of chicken treats for dogs distributed by Stormberg Foods. The company is investigating the source of contamination and issued a recall for Beg & Barker, Billo's Best Friend and Green Coast Pets chicken strips and crisps with expiration dates of June 6, 2023, through June 23, 2023. For details, visit truthaboutpetfood.com.

DEAR DR. FOX: I just finished reading your recent column entitled "Our spiritual crisis in the Anthropocene epoch." You said it all. I feel such sadness about where we are as a people -- our relationships with each other, with all other living beings and with our universe.

I feel inadequate to make this world a better and healthier place to live for those who come behind us. I am a member of the Justice and Peace ministry of my local Catholic church; there are six of us in this group, and we feel we are just talking to each other on these issues.

Currently, we are trying to create space to be open and accepting of Pope Francis’ teachings in his letter, "Laudato Si." Your column touched on everything that the pope is offering us in his wisdom. -- C.S., Wall, New Jersey

DEAR C.S.: I am glad that my article touched you, and that you now know that you are not alone in your concerns about the state of the world and the harmful consequences of our inhumanity.

There is much that we can all do to help make a difference, rather than lapse into despair and let environmental anxiety take over. Doing a moral inventory of our consumer habits and the “carbon footprint” of our choices -- from avoiding products tested on animals and shifting to vegetarian/vegan diets -- are initial steps. Helping with animal rescue and conservation organizations, both local and international, can be very rewarding, as can fostering dogs and cats in need of forever homes.

You may enjoy some of the articles posted on my website, such as drfoxonehealth.com/post/animal-suffering-and-the-god-question and drfoxonehealth.com/post/one-earth-one-health-a-manifesto-for-action. And do make contact with the U.K.-based Catholic Concern for Animals at catholic-animals.com/contact-us.

You and your group may especially enjoy my book "The Boundless Circle: Caring for Creatures and Creation." And my recent book "Animals and Nature First" will spark the activist in you!

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR DR. FOX: I saw the warning from the Better Business Bureau about online puppy scams in your column. I think many people are aware that there are a lot of purebred puppy scams out there, but I didn't realize how many dubious mixed-breed adoption sites there were until recently.

I was trying to adopt a small dog after my 16-year-old Chihuahua mix died. All my previous dogs have been adoptions (whether from a shelter or from a friend or a vet giving me a puppy), going back 50 years. This was the first time I've had to go through the new adoption process of multiple-page forms and high fees, some as high as $950.

I was looking for an adult or senior dog: mixed breed, on the smaller side, and female. It took me over three months, lots of searching, filling out forms and honestly just luck till I was finally able to adopt a suitable dog. She's an 8-year-old Chihuahua mix and a real sweetheart. My other dog just loves her; they got along right away. Her fee was $350, which I thought was very reasonable, since she was spayed, up to date on shots and tested for heartworm and distemper.

Petfinder.com is an easy way to search for adoptable pets, but do your homework -- check out the rescue's reviews on Yelp and other review sites. Many of these dogs come from crowded high-kill shelters, and are not treated for distemper and parasites as advertised.

Adoption is the way to go, and while most rescues are run by legitimate, caring people, there are still those people out there who are only looking to make a buck. They really don't care about the dogs' welfare. -- L.D.R., Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania

DEAR L.D.R.: I hope that all readers who are looking to bring a dog or cat into their homes will follow your advice and exercise due diligence when going online to find a suitable animal. There are scams around every corner these days, where money over morality is the driver. Those who exploit our love and concern for animals are especially despicable.

Yes, adoption is the best way to go. In many communities, there are networks of foster care providers, who can give adoptable animals a better environment than most shelters can. Conditions at overcrowded, understaffed long-term rescue facilities can lead to PTSD, separation anxiety and other behavioral problems in cats and dogs.

DEAR DR. FOX: Your recent article about dogs having summer "hot spots" described what our schnauzer Max experiences. But he does not have any fleas, so I am thinking that his hot spots must originate with an allergy or some other source. What is your recommendation for canine hot spots that don't come from fleas?

We enjoy your column immensely, especially when you relate personal anecdotes, and have learned much about how to be better caretakers for our four-legged friends! -- H.M., Clemmons, North Carolina

DEAR H.M.: Canine hot spots are red, itchy and weeping sores most often caused by an allergic reaction to flea bites. Seasonal occurrences can also be due to other allergens, such as grass and various pollens. Bathing affected dogs weekly can help, along with having them wear a coat when outdoors, running free in brush and grass.

Many dog owners have found that putting some local bee pollen or honey in the dog's food -- about 1 teaspoon daily for a 40-pound dog -- can help. In some instances, veterinary-prescribed antihistamines can help reduce the allergy. This is a safer alternative to anti-inflammatory corticosteroids and immune-suppressing Apoquel.

DEAR DR. FOX: The owner of my local pet supply store is convinced that prescription diet foods from the vet's office are garbage, and are to be avoided. I conveyed her opinion on a local Facebook page and a vet replied, contradicting her -- saying that the food is good stuff and that vets make almost nothing selling it.

What do you say about this matter? I want to believe the pet store owner, who is very knowledgeable about nutrition and sells only healthy, organic pet food and supplements. But the vet disparaged her for daring to have an opinion on pet nutrition when she had not gone to vet school! -- K.L., Ashland, Oregon

DEAR K.L.: Some special prescription diets do help cats and dogs with various health issues, but by and large, they are unpalatable and overpriced. Vets do profit from selling them. For a good review of these diets, see the contribution by veterinary college emeritus professor Marion E. Smart, DVM, Ph.D., in the book that I co-authored, "Not Fit for a Dog: The Truth About Manufactured Cat and Dog Foods."

For special prescription diet formulations, I advise veterinarians to look into the vet-formulated recipes from Balance IT (visit secure.balanceit.com or call 1-888-346-6362).

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)

DEAR READERS: Many of you will be sharing my dismay and disgust at the recent rulings from the Trump-centric majority in the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to expanding gun rights, undermining reproductive rights and eroding the wall separating church and state. Now, to cap it all, the Supreme Court has prohibited the Environmental Protection Agency from crafting broad regulations to drive the country's energy industry away from coal and towards cleaner sources such as wind and solar.

The court's ruling, as detailed by the science journal Nature, could make it much harder for the Biden administration and its successors to curb greenhouse gases as promised under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. And that spells bad news for the planet, because the United States is both one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world and a crucial player among the countries tackling climate change.

This makes the Disunited States of America a pariah among the nations striving to prevent the looming catastrophic consequences of our collective contributions to climate change and the associated loss of biodiversity. Experts predict more frequent, more intense and longer-lasting floods, droughts, hurricanes, forest fires, crop failures, famines, plagues, political crises and losses of wildlife and habitat. The United Nations estimates there will be 200 million environmental refugees by 2050, and the true number will likely be much higher.

Without putting a cap on carbon emissions, the extinction of much of the life on planet Earth will be inevitable, with a percentage loss of biodiversity that will make existence even more of a challenge for our children's children. We can still avert, or at least minimize, this legacy and impact, but only if we choose to fight for justice for all.

The Supreme Court rulings violate the core principles of social, economic and environmental justice and the rule of law, failing to protect and serve the common good. While some may choose to live simply so that others may simply live, the fact remains that our fossil fuel-based economy -- and our expanding populace -- are limiting the options for future generations.

Some environmental changes, such as localized warming and destructive weather events, may be happening "naturally" due to alterations in Earth's solar orbit and the extent of the planet's axis tilt. But anthropogenic factors compound the severity and duration of such climatic events.

Climate change deniers need a reality check. The existential call for global collaboration to address the climate and species-extinction crises is louder than ever. I recommend that all concerned read David Wallace-Wells' book "The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming."

As Wallace-Wells asserts, "We have all the tools we need, today, to stop it all: a carbon tax and the political apparatus to phase out dirty energy; a new approach to agriculture and a shift away from beef and dairy in the global diet; and public investment in green energy and carbon capture."

Dystopian conditions will only intensify until we adopt the Seventh Generation Principle based on Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) philosophy -- namely, that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future. This is the basic principle of empathic consequentialism on which I elaborate in my book "Brining Life to Ethics: Global Bioethics for a Humane Society." This is also a great resource: davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-can-stop-climate-change.

(Send all mail to animaldocfox@gmail.com or to Dr. Michael Fox in care of Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. The volume of mail received prohibits personal replies, but questions and comments of general interest will be discussed in future columns.

Visit Dr. Fox’s website at DrFoxOneHealth.com.)