AVMA and Raw Feeding

[JustaLilBitaLuck]

Just thought I would share this.

http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/art...w-feeders.html

If this passes and becomes an official "AVMA Policy", a lot less veterinarians are going to feel comfortable with recommending or encouraging owners to feed a raw diet, which is the last thing that we need.

ETA: You can see a list of the current AVMA Policies here (http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/default.asp). Some of them are quite ridiculous.

[JoLeigh]

This INFURIATES me! I can even comment....

[sassafras]

Honestly, I don't think this is going to change a thing. The AVMA has no authority over anyone or anything, it's just a statement of opinion. I really don't think most veterinarians are turning to AVMA policy statements to make decisions.

So far AVMA policy statements haven't changed the world, I don't see why this will be any different. Vets who are against raw feeding may use it to back themselves up, but it's not going to change their opinion. Vets who are open to raw feeding aren't going to back off because the Great and Powerful AVMA (actually probably one of the least effectual professional associations on the planet) made a policy statement. A lot of veterinarians probably don't even know the AVMA HAS policy statements.

It actually really, really bothers me that this is being promoted as a "YOU MIGHT LOSE YOUR CHOICE TO FEED RAW ZOMG". Just, no.

[Aleron]

Originally Posted by sassafras

Honestly, I don't think this is going to change a thing.

I have been trying to think of how this will make any difference to raw feeders since seeing it on FB. AVMA is just making a statement saying they "discourage" it, which I sort of thought they already did. Although acceptance has certainly grown since I started, raw feeding is not something that most vets seem to suggest anyway. I don't see anyone losing their right to feed raw over a statement "discouraging" it.

[SaraB]

Agree with Sass on this one.. I don't like the tone of the article, nothing is going to change with this statement.. However, I did like the last part of the article explaining the risks of feeding raw and how it's really no more dangerous than preparing your family's dinner.

[Southpaw]

Yeah the vets that hate raw feeding (which is most of them) are still going to hate raw feeding. And the people who are interested in raw and have looked into it... probably don't care what their vet thinks about it anyway lol.

The article gives it a really doomsday feel but really, the AVMA doesn't own my pets so I can still feed them raw regardless of what they say.

[JoLeigh]

I was lucky in NC my vet was all for limited vacc. and prey model raw.

[Miakoda]

Can I just say that this has a LOT of people in the veterinary world quite upset. Many vets have already started speaking out against this stance.

[JustaLilBitaLuck]

I didn't mean to say that it will change the opinions of vets. Vets that are pro-raw are still going to be pro-raw, and vets that are anti-raw are still going to be anti-raw - they're just going to have one more thing to use as "evidence" to try and convince clients why raw is bad, saying "Well, the AVMA states that raw isn't safe for your pets, etc". And while most people in the veterinary profession know that the AVMA can't really DO anything, to your average pet owner, it's very official-sounding, and that can be convincing. Although most people that are already feeding raw aren't your average pet owner, it could still be discouraging to someone that's just curious about it and asking their vet for advice.

[ihartgonzo]

Stupid. Kibble isn't safe either... nor are treats! Look at all of the dogs who have died & gotten sick from recalled food.