Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: exDemMom

I’m no longer sure of what you’re getting at.

There’s lot of pseudoscience out there. Check.
Low information types can fall for pseudoscience. Check.
Some of those falling for pseudoscience are vets. Check.
You are not low information. Check.


59 posted on 10/28/2013 7:28:57 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: dmz
I’m no longer sure of what you’re getting at.

I am responding to your previous statement, "The properly motivated have access to a plethora of resources from which to choose. It is not a challenge to find good information at all, if one is willing to put in the effort."

What I am getting at is that the people who take the most effort to eat "healthy" or feed their pets more "healthy" are also the most likely to prepare food based on pseudoscience, which ultimately results in less nutritious food than the empirically tested foods that come from cans.

I have seen no correlation between the amount of time such a person spends researching "healthy" food, and the actual nutritional content of such food. I have yet to pick up any magazine or see a website where the articles on nutrition contain fully accurate information. (That is, unless the magazine or website is published by a medical organization.) Given the scarcity of reliable information, and the fact that most people do not know how to access actual medical information, I do not have much confidence that home prepared pet foods are nutritionally balanced.

60 posted on 10/29/2013 4:47:00 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson