[News]/[Link] Blue Buffalo admits by-product meal can be found in a "substantial and material" portion of its pet foods

Argue based on facts: what peer-reviewed evidence is there that the brands you advocate do what you claim they do? The answer is easy: None

Straw man. Same can be said about Science Diet. I don't claim super premium brands can "do" anything. I made a claim that there are super premium brands that provide higher quality food to pets than Science Diet, and provided various forms of evidence to support that claim.

I'm fully aware of the scientific process and journal peer review, as I've said several times. I'm also aware that peer reviewed articles don't mention brand names as you claim. A smaller company isn't going to have a team of veterinary nutritionists on staff, but at least they have one or a few, despite what you previously claimed. It's hardly "laughably inadequate."

I don't know what "Ol'Roy" is, but I do know that I provided brands that actually do controlled feeding trials, which you summarily dismissed because it doesn't fit your argument that super premium brands don't do controlled feeding trials. So I'm not sure why you are still going on about this. There are a number of super premium brands that do AAFCO controlled feeding trials and it says so on the label of their foods if you take the time to look, which you refuse to do even now.

Science does matter. That's why I linked peer reviewed studies showing whole foods are more nutritious than processed foods, that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional foods, and that big brand prescription diet foods have the same cross contamination problems as smaller brands last week, along with discussing FDA food grading systems. That's why I've mentioned that there are no peer reviewed studies that show Science Diet is superior to any other brand, just as there are no peer reviewed studies that show any super premium studies are superior to any other brand. What you are asking for simply does not exist, and that is why you have yet to provide any to support your argument.

You also have an odd view of science, as if AAFCO controlled feeding trials are the end all of quality in dog food, when it's one part of many, and a part that has come under scrutiny from very reliable sources over the years. And, again, you seem to know absolutely nothing about food grading and quality levels. Nutrition levels are part of quality, but they do not equal quality. Science most certainly matters when it comes to food safety, producing and testing food that sickens and kills dogs - but that's a science you've conveniently avoided acknowledging throughout the thread, isn't it?

I have committed no logical fallacies such as the naturalistic fallacy (I think you mean the appeal to nature fallacy, which is different), as I have gone to pains to describe exactly what I am talking about when I use certain terms and why science, regulatory agencies, and even chefs and farmers consider them superior. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly committed logical fallacies like ad nauseam - repeating the same thing over and over again in the attempt to make people think it's true - and straw man, in which you argue against an argument you made up and put in my mouth instead of my actual words. You particularly enjoy the moving the goalposts fallacy, in which you ask for evidence for specific claims, which I provide, then dismiss them and ask for greater evidence on something different, again and again. I have answered you repeatedly, providing links and examples of super premium foods that meet your standards, but you continually dismiss all of this and ask for evidence you know full well does not exist - either for you or for me. And then you fall on the good ol' ad hominem - throwing insults at me instead of providing an argument to the things I actually said - often insults that don't apply in any way, shape or form to what I said or how I said it. Again, just saying I'm making "appeals to emotion" or whatever doesn't make it true. Not all appropriate evidence comes from peer reviewed journals, and presenting such evidence does not equal an appeal to emotion just because you’re unfamiliar with it.

You haven't argued in good faith this entire time, and refuse any legitimate evidence anyone comes up with to pound away at your unsubstantiated argument, an argument that you feel you don't have to give evidence for yourself, despite demanding it from all others. Therefore, your argument is moot. I have a feeling you'll reply again the same way you've replied the last few times - by moving a few words around and calling me stupid. That's not proper logical argumentation - but then again, proper logical argumentation isn't what you're here for (I mean obviously - you can’t even get your fallacies right). Sticking to one point no matter what proof people provide you in the manner of a child yelling "na na na na na" with his hands over his ears is. For someone who claims to be a vet, that's pretty pathetic. Learning isn't something that should end when you get your degree; it's a lifelong process. Stop denying anything that butts up against your tightly held world view, and take a second to actually look at it to see if it's true or not before rejecting it out of hand. New studies come out every day. It doesn't serve you very well to ignore them.

There's nothing more I can really say, since you refuse to even look at any sources I provide. I think that says far more about you than you'd ever admit. Going on and on isn't educating anybody about anything other than your intransigence.

/r/dogs Thread Parent