Informative in some ways, but pure propaganda in others. With the rise of boutique pet food brands and the raw feeding craze a lot of pet owners have been fooled into believing that kibble cannot be the best option for their pets. I've seen people full on harass pet owners who dare to feed Pro Plan, both online and _in person at stores_. Some of these untested pet food brands push themselves as a superior option because 'you can understand the label' but conflate nutritional literacy with the idea that it's healthier and better. Not understanding the nutritional name for something on a label or why it's called that doesn't make it a bad ingredient. Whole ingredients do not equate to higher quality or better nutritional value if it isn't a nutritionally complete diet.

In the same way food companies will sneakily use certain terms to manipulate people into believing an item is good (such as legal requirements for using 'natural' or 'organic,') companies can do the exact same thing to pet foods. Before judging a food as 'good' or 'bad,' make sure you understand the label and what tricks a company may be pulling to skew your opinion.

The informative part of this documentary comes in some of the information about the history of kibble and the pet food industry. But a lot of this information is skewed toward the negative - it's biased. Which I expected. They're making an argument for raw feeding and boutique (often grain-free) kibble so I expected them to pick information that would support their argument. I just didn't think it would be so obvious.

The WAVSA Global Nutrition Committee created guidelines for nutritionally complete foods and has strict requirements for a food to meet those guidelines. WAVSA foods are good foods. And that doesn't mean foods that don't meet WAVSA guidelines are bad, but it does mean you're taking a risk in not feeding your dog a nutritionally complete diet and you need to put in some extra work to make sure you're doing what is best for your pet.

I'm not anti-raw or anti-boutique food brands and I do think it's possible to feed those foods safely and in a way that is beneficial to the pet. Full disclosure, I feed one of these 'boutique' brands to my own dogs. But I don't agree with skewing facts or cherry-picking information to support a point of view without also discussing the negatives of that point of view.

Feeding raw or boutique foods _can_ be dangerous. You risk malnutrition, higher chances of bacterial infections, and a host of other conditions (including a potential increased risk of DCM*) by feeding untested brands of pet food. If you are unsure, consult a veterinary nutritionist. They will help you make sure that what you're feeding is nutritionally complete, whether you decide to feed grain containing kibble, grain free, or raw.

And lastly, to the people this applies to, feed the dog in front of you. Piling on people or shaming them for not adhering to your way of doing things is despicable. You are not a better pet owner just because you have a superiority complex.


*To further elaborate, many pet foods have been associated with a higher risk of DCM (enlarged heart and disease of heart muscle, which can cause death) and that is for both grain-free and grain containing pet foods. The FDA published a FAQ in 2021 stating that this risk is associated with foods that have pulses (peas, lentils, etc.) higher on the ingredient list. Although many foods have reformulated since then, it was previously more common to see pulses high on ingredient lists for grain-free foods because they used it as a filler instead of using grain. This came to the attention of the FDA because of an increased number of reports, likely due to the increased popularity of boutique pet foods.