The Animal Doctor

DEAR DR. FOX: I was completely exasperated to see how defensively the authors of the "carbs are fine for cats" article attempted to refute you. Carbs are not "fine" for cats. What they are is "cheap," "plentiful" and "very profitable."

The pet food industry, because of its extreme profitability, has a huge incentive to justify the use of such ingredients, as well as the financial means to do so, through a frightening number of channels.

The pet food industry has a ridiculous and highly unethical amount of influence on veterinarians. It exists largely to commoditize foodstuffs not qualified for human consumption, as well as the trash from human food production. These companies can afford some of the most effective (and most misleading) marketing in the world. They can also afford to "support nutritional research" -- meaning they can control the questions that are asked, then gatekeep the publication of any results.

A number of veterinary researchers who were developing data that would support the concept of a prey-model diet have, in the past few years, begun to receive funding from pet food companies. Some subsequently stopped work on prey-model diets, and even began to promote a nutritional approach exactly opposite to the one they had been developing.

Most, if not all, nutrition courses in vet schools are underwritten by the pet food industry, with the clear and sole goal of enforcing the perceived "necessity" for so-called "prescription diets." How is this acceptable?

The pet food industry currently owns a substantial portion of the veterinary industry worldwide. One need only follow the money to understand why. Veterinary hospitals are not profitable; prescription diets are. If a pet food company manufactures a specific brand of prescription diet AND owns a veterinary hospital corporation, they can control which prescription diets are sold or recommended.

I wish it would have been possible for you to write more about the important relationship of the gastrointestinal microbiome and the near-pandemic of inflammatory bowel disease in domestic cats. Microbiome research is turning human medical paradigms upside-down. It seems clear that there is an "evolutionarily normal" biome for every species, and that if a member of a species eats an "evolutionarily normal" diet for that species, he or she is more likely to have a normal biome. A diet unnatural to the species would induce dysbiosis. Simplistically, dysbiosis induces IBD, which leads to leaky gut syndrome, which in turn leads to systemic inflammation. The result is not just gut disease; it's a host of systemic disorders. There is no reason to think this would be any different in nonhuman species.

Most commercial cat foods are made mostly or entirely out of plants. Plants are not an evolutionarily normal diet for a cat. The domino effect seems obvious.

Since my hospital opened five years ago and began teaching people to feed their cats prey-model diets, our experience has been amazing. We do not have a single diabetic patient in the practice. Very few overweight cats. Minimal gut disease. I've learned what normal fur quality and normal healthy footpads look like, and that dandruff is not normal.

Vets seem to remain blind to the ethical failings of the pet food industry for the simple reason that nearly all hospitals sell food. This creates a significant income stream, which is a direct conflict of interest. A much larger and much more insidious conflict is created when the very foods sold by vets create disease states that bring the pets back into the hospital for more diagnoses and treatments. Since opening, our hospital has not sold any food -- not even the very few brands we believe to be good -- in order to avoid this conflict.

I can attest to the difficulty of even considering that our care recommendations may have caused harm. No one becomes a vet with the goal of hurting animals. We all do the best we can with the information we are given; it is not our fault that we are force-fed propaganda. It does, however, become our responsibility to recognize when such conflicts of interest create dynamics that result in harm to our patients. Even if we think that only "might" be the case, we are, as doctors, ethically obliged to investigate the possibility with an open mind, regardless of whatever we may feel. -- Fern B. Slack, DVM; Medical Director at Uniquely Cats Veterinary Center; Boulder, Colorado

DEAR DR. SLACK: What a pleasant surprise to hear from at least one veterinarian about the attempt to dismiss and discredit my documented concerns over high-carbohydrate and plant-protein diets for cats. I voiced these concerns in a letter published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (June 2022), in which I criticized a lead article that attempted to justify high-carbohydrate diets for cats. It is notable that the response from the writers included one author with a close relationship with Hill's Pet Nutrition.

As I detail in my book "Not Fit for a Dog: The Truth About Manufactured Cat and Dog Food," which I co-authored with two other veterinarians -- one a professor of veterinary nutrition and the other a former chief veterinarian with Hill's Pet Nutrition -- profits are made by selling costly prescription diets, and other veterinary diagnostic treatments, to correct health issues that result from feeding conventional cat and dog kibble.

Many cats are subjected to intestinal biopsies, at significant financial and emotional costs to the owners and physical stress to the cats, to determine if the animal has inflammatory bowel disease or invasive lymphatic cancer. The less traumatic and less costly approach would be to put such cats on a biologically appropriate carnivore diet, which would restore the gut microbiome and reduce the inflammatory conditions.

The website feline-nutrition.org provides an excellent educational service for cat owners, which I wish more veterinarians would read. For extensive details and documentation of the multiple health issues that could be prevented with proper nutrition, go to my website: drfoxonehealth.com/post/pet-food-and-feeding-issues.

(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 work for Choosing Therapy, an online mental health startup. I just came across your site, and loved your article on "Companion Animal Communications After Death." We have recently published an article entitled "Grieving the Loss of a Dog." Would you be able to mention this in your column?

Our articles are well researched, written by licensed therapists and reviewed by medical doctors. We are HONcode certified to ensure you are linking to high-quality content. -- Charwin Fernandez, Choosing Therapy, Brooklyn, New York. (Note: The HONcode is an ethical standard for trustworthy health information, certified by the HON Foundation, an international nonprofit.)

DEAR C.F.: I am glad to know you are making this contribution to help ease the suffering of people who are grieving the loss of an animal companion. Such people have been too-long ridiculed for experiencing profound grief -- often by those who have never had a close bond with an animal. When I was a little boy, grieving the loss of our beloved dog, Rover, I will never forget an aunt saying, "Don't be so sad. It was only a dog." Now I hear some companies are allowing employees time off work when they lose an animal companion; that is progress indeed!

We must also consider how many animals grieve the loss of their own human or nonhuman companions, and give them extra tender loving care, as J.G. from Florida shares in the letter below.

DEAR DR. FOX: Some of your readers keep trying to disparage the fact that animal lovers know is true: Cats and dogs are emotional beings.

When we lost one of our cats, Buttons, almost two years ago, our dog and our remaining cat, Shadow, searched for him in all his favorite places -- for weeks. Shadow is just now getting over his depression, although he still misses his best friend. He spends a lot of time in Buttons' favorite place, the screened patio.

Our dogs and cats have always been emotionally connected to us. Our pets feel pain just as much as we do. And they feel love. -- J.G., Boynton Beach, Florida

DEAR J.G.: Thank you for sharing your story. Read on for another from a fellow reader.

DEAR DR. FOX: After a dear friend died, I took in her 14-year-old dog, Emma, who bonded well with our two dogs. One day shortly after taking her in, I was driving Emma to visit some friends in a nearby city. She was lying next to one of our dogs in the back of my car for comfort.

When I arrived at our friends' house, Emma was hardly moving, but her eyes were open and she was aware. We all rushed her to an emergency vet, but she died before we got there. We were all in shock, and the vet said she probably died from a stroke. Do you think she could have died from grief? -- P.S., San Francisco

DEAR P.S.: This is so very sad, and what a shock it must have been for all of you. Animals can die from a broken heart. This has been documented in many species, including horses and captive elephants, when they lose a closely bonded partner/companion. And we are all familiar with the sudden death in humans when one spouse loses another.

Grief can kill. Veterinarian David Alderton addressed this topic in his excellent 2011 book, "Animal Grief: How Animals Mourn." Turning this existential phenomenon over, we can see how loving relationships can keep us and other animals alive and sustain us in body, mind and spirit.

(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: As a veterinarian and advocate of One Health, I cite scientific references in many of my writings because I am often told I am "going overboard" and "exaggerating" the seriousness of the issues that I address. Indeed, there are many people, including politicians and others with vested corporate interests, who would rather not know the facts and maintain business as usual. But in any democracy, this is not acceptable -- especially when the health of our children and of other species is put in jeopardy.

Relying on vaccines and pharmaceuticals to treat emerging zoonoses (diseases transmitted from animals to humans), and the mass extermination of the animal carriers of such diseases, is no solution. These treatments may be profitable for a few, but preventive measures must be put first. And the effects of climate change cannot be ignored.

Reducing our carbon footprints and energy use, especially for transportation and travel, are part and parcel of a One Health initiative. The telecommunication industry's expansion of corporate and personal internet services, which depend on proliferating, energy-consuming data storage and transmission centers, only exacerbates climate change.

An article by Laura H. Kahn and Richard Seifman, "It's Time to Get Serious About Preventing Pandemics," underscores the need for a more holistic approach by responsible international aid and health agencies. Kahn and Seifman state: "The good news is that the World Bank, with the World Health Organization, is about to launch a brand-new international multilateral financing mechanism called the 'Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response' Financial Intermediate Fund (FIF) to provide long-term funding to address pandemics. FIF is targeted to reach $12.5 billion within five years. ... Unfortunately, the preparedness and response parts of the mechanism are receiving the lion's share of the attention and funding compared to the prevention part. ... We must include veterinarians and other animal health professionals who receive extensive education and training in zoonotic diseases, and environmental health experts, to be part of the pandemic prevention solution. So far, their involvement has been minimal, which jeopardizes the effort's success."

I would add a note of concern with regard to the pandemic-potentiating consequences of the documented cellular, immunological and other adverse health effects of nonionizing radiation from 3G, 4G and 5G telecommunications towers and satellites. For more on this topic, see the following journal articles: "Appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation," Lennart Hardell and Rainer Nyber, Molecular and Clinical Oncology, March 2020; "Effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1: Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment" and "Part 2: How species interact with natural and man-made EMF," Reviews on Environmental Health, May 2021.

See also this article from the Environmental Health Trust: ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation.

SCIENCE, ETHICS, LEADERSHIP ALL NECESSARY

A recent New York Times piece by science writer Ari Schulman about Anthony Fauci underscores an essential flaw in the U.S. public health system. As Schulman writes, "A science that people will follow must lead."

Science without ethics is hazardous; ethics without science is vacuous. Science informs politics, and ethics guide when politicians are committed to serve the common good.

The science and bioethics of a One Health approach to pandemic prevention must be adopted by the U.S. Public Health Service. A One Health approach calls for informed public involvement linked with animal health (animals being the primary source of new and old pandemics) and environmental protection without political interference. Such an integrative approach to pandemic prevention, rather than the marketing of ever-more vaccines and pharmaceuticals, is long overdue.

DEAR DR. FOX: Thanks for your cogent columns. You are a much-needed voice urging humanity to adopt responsible and spiritual living.

Also, I wish to thank you for your pet care advice. My dog's vet is impressed with how well he is doing as he approaches 14 years of age. He is convinced it is the food I prepare for him, using your recipe. -- B.C., Nassau, Bahamas

DEAR B.C.: I do appreciate your kind words of support. These are indeed challenging times for person and planet.

Readers, please note: My dog food recipe, which many of you are using and reporting significant health benefits, is posted at drfoxonehealth.com/post/dog-food-recipe.

(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.)