‘so many firmly believe that what they call “human food” is actually bad for domestic animals.’
No, you misrepresent. It’s RAW that I object to. People want to spoil their animals with real regular food, fine, but raw is foolhardy. Why not cook it for the animals? Is that so terrible?
It isn’t terrible (nor did I say it was) - but it’s not the best for them (this according to holistic vets and those who have objectively studied nutrition from sources other than the big pet food companies) and no, I’m not misrepresenting. Many here and elsewhere DO think it’s a bad thing to feed what they term “human food” to their pets.
There IS a difference between the bioavailability of raw versus cooked, though. Many if not most of the nutrients get cooked out when food is heated - which is why they need to be “added back in” afterwards either directly to the food (in a sprayed on form which the pet food companies use) or in supplements (which need to be administered to them along with the food on a daily basis).
Before commercial food and processed food, what did they eat? Think about it. They caught their meals and ate them (and I don’t know of anyone who calls “poison control” when their dog or cat picks at a dead carcass or eats a mouse). They do not need their food cooked unless they are seriously immuno-suppressed and maybe not even then.