Citizen science: science for the people, by the people.

I love digging through the research, finding out who says what and why, looking into their supportive studies, teasing them apart. Just one statement of fact by an authority can lead you down endless rabbit holes. This is because science is rarely black and white, particularly when considering health outcomes. So many variables, so many confounding factors and in this subject, sadly, so many vested interests.

The editors of our top journals, from the Horton at the Lancet to Marcia-Angell and the New England Journal of Medicine, agree that up to 50% of the research THEY produce is likely to be false. We can only wonder how bad this figure may be in other journals, many of whom are owned, directly or otherwise, by the very corporations who are producing the studies in the first place, and we all know how beneficial a supportive study can be.

While initially the above paragraph tends to send our minds to worrying trends in human health and pharma, I assure you, however bad the research can be there, and it is bad, it is many times worse in canine nutrition and health. The even greater lack of regulation means it is bad science on steroids.

Fifteen years ago, having met Brisbane Guide Dogs and seeing the results of shifting more than 200 kibble-fed dogs in training to real, biologically appropriate food (a reported 82% savings in vet bills) and having then seen the benefits of real food to a small population of sick dogs in my care, I set about investigating the science behind dry dog food.

A doctorate teaches you to look at the hypothesis from all sides and you always begin with the current accepted science for a position. In this case, is dry dog food GOOD for dogs? I started looking. Fifteen years later, I'm still looking for that supportive study. Perhaps you have one? Please send it on as I offer a $1,000 reward for any evidence that a complete high-carb kibble is BETTER for any health condition whatsoever when compared to a complete fresh / raw / cooked whole food diet for dogs or cats.

Because to my knowledge, that study doesn't exist. All we have is evidence of the very opposite. Thanks largely to the tireless work of Dog Risk from the University of Helsinki, we now have published in our top journals (including Nature, twice) that dogs fed biologically-appropriate food suffer less inflammation, less atopy, less ear infections and now significantly less gut disease. When you lump in the fact higher protein diets are better for joints (tests of sled dogs) as well as obesity, kidney disease and cancer, and the fact raw meaty bones clean teeth (safely), we begin to understand why Brisbane Guide Dogs may have gotten the results they did.

It seems obvious, at least to me and most independent researchers like me, that real, biologically appropriate may be beneficial for health. In fact, a quick test, shifting ten of their most chronically ill skin or gut-sick dry-fed dogs would tell them all they need to know, so why aren't our vets on board yet? I'm a (non-veterinary honorary) member of the Raw Feeding Veterinary Society and I really thought, naively, that by now the balance of evidence would be sufficient to make the most ardent of dry food fanatics pause for thought (as pet owners clearly have, supported by the massive growth in sales of natural and raw dog food).

But they haven't. At all.

Part of the problem is the multi-billion multinationals that produce the kibble are also heavily invested in the outcomes of such diets. They not only financially invest in our veterinary departments that in turn produce so many strangely pro-dry (and rarely, if ever pro-fresh) studies but now they also are buying up all the major veterinary practices and hospitals as well as all the diagnostic laboratories, etc. As tough as this may be to hear, candy companies like Mars and Nestlé, are moving to own the food going into our pets and now, many researchers worry, the problems coming out. It's a wonderful business model and it's clearly working...for them.

Supporting the whole kit and caboodle is a raft of bad science. Our vets are not abandoning the burning house as the industry above them is turning off the smoke alarms but have faith that they will be forced to pay attention when enough studies have been conducted proving they are wrong.

However, it's clearly a fool's errand to wait around for such an industry to churn out the supportive works. We must do it ourselves, to the great benefit of not just our own but the health of millions of cats and dogs worldwide. It is up to us and we can do it as, while we lack the billions of the mega-corporations, there are billions of us. Or, as Morrison said, "they got the guns but we got the numbers".

From using just a small handful of supportive studies, the market is already shifting. To date, we have been focused on specific health outcomes. We believe the market will respond even more to a simpler measure - who is at the vet more, dry or raw-fed dogs? Which cost more to own?!

The best, most cost-effective way to answer this question is to look retrospectively at a population of dogs that have already been seen by vets.

We will get this retrospective analysis done quickly and get it published to the great benefit of all of us - our pets eating it and now the families looking after them - but we need your help.

I truly believe public-funded and independently conducted studies such as these will be the saving of not only pets but science as a whole. This is the first step in taking back some control of the process.

Please donate to this worthy cause.