Why is it so hard to believe that not all owners are too stupid to know their own dogs? Or, in my case, cats? Or ferrets?
If my dog/cat/ferret is a scarfer, for example, that inhales his food, I will be very careful with bones, their size, and watching him eat. If my pet has an allergy, I will learn about it and adjust accordingly. If my pet is not doing well on raw for a medical reason, I will not feed it and move to a kibble that can be handled that isn't low-grade. For the majority, this is simple.
I studied for over a year before even allowing my first raw feeder to touch raw meat. I read not only the anecdotal evidence, but the various studies not related to raw, and the studies done in general on dogs and how they process nutrients, and on cats and how they process water or will even refuse a water source out of instinct due to high moisture in their natural (raw) diet.
To say "well you don't let them hunt do you?" and use that as an excuse is just absurd. That would be a health hazard. Mostly because Rockefeller would starve before he bothered to exert the energy to kill anything larger than a cockroach or, maybe, a butterfly.
Some of the excuses you're using are the same ones I saw in the link I posted, and they were just as absurd there as here. There is good evidence out there, but people are far too quick to fall at the feet of their vets. Americans in particular, I've noticed. I've made it a point to ask around, who do you as an owner trust more with your nutrition for your pet: a nutritionist, or your vet? Most do not answer vet. There's a reason for that.
