Baby and Pet Feeding-100% Complete Snafus

Isn't it interesting that we would subject helpless animals and infants to that which we ourselves would never do: We would never eat only one food at every meal.
​

Thankfully, moms today are starting to recognize that their breasts are there for more than just adornment. 

Baby milk formulas are just another of the post-World War II consumer age gadgets. Back then, blossoming science seemed to be able to solve virtually any problem and perform herculean feats, like putting men on the moon. Surely it would not be a big deal to create a convenient meal in a bottle for infants and free mothers of the nursing "burden." 

Well, not only were "100% complete" nursing formulas created, they were practically mandated by the medical community. This modern breast-in-a-bottle marvel was also taken abroad to the third world and promoted by bribed physicians and nurses. 

Age-old cultural norms of exclusive and extended breast feeding were disrupted by extensive advertising and persuasion in infant formula funded hospitals to convert to the new, modern, sterile western way. Primitive mothers in awe of modernity were sent home with a limited free supply of formula. But when that ran out, the mother's milk had dried up and the families were unable to afford more formula. The result: millions of third world babies died every year from this and the lack of adequate refrigeration, sterilization, and clean water supplies to mix and store formulas. 

This is not to mention the fact that "100% complete" infant formulas aren't. There are many nutritional problems, such as vitamin, mineral, amino acid, and, most importantly, essential fatty acid imbalances. Such inadequacy is to be expected since our knowledge of nutrition is incomplete, not "100% Complete." 

Nestle was particularly aggressive with their marketing of infant formulas through gigantic giveaways (getting them "hooked"), medical promotions, "education," and bribes. They were boycotted worldwide in 1977 due to these unethical practices. 

The World Health Organization (WHO), as a reaction to the carnage, drafted The International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. 

Good for them. They are a giant step ahead of the pet food regulatory agencies that not only nod to exclusively fed "100% complete" pet foods, but, in effect, mandate them through label regulations. 

Singularly fed processed pet foods are just as synthetic and just as potentially disastrous as baby formulas. Here is the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. Following that is an analogous one for pet foods that should be enforced, but is not: 

WHO Code:

• 1. No advertising of breast milk substitutes.
• 2. No free samples to mothers.
• 3. No promotion of products through health care facilities.
• 4. No company mother craft nurses to advise mothers.
• 5. No gifts or personal samples to health workers.
• 6. No words or pictures idealizing artificial feeding, including pictures of infants, on the labels of the products.
• 7. Information to health workers should be scientific and factual.
• 8. All information on artificial feeding, including the labels, should explain the benefits of breast-feeding and the costs and hazards associated with artificial feeding.
• 9. Unsuitable products, such as sweetened condensed milk, should not be promoted for babies.

Here would be the analogous processed pet food code by corresponding number:

• 1. No advertising of exclusively fed processed pet foods (EFPPF).
• 2. No free samples of EFPPF to pet owners.
• 3. No promotion of EFPPF through veterinary clinics.
• 4. No EFPPF company sales people to advise pet owners.
• 5. No gifts or personal samples of EFPPF to veterinarians, staff or veterinary colleges.
• 6. No words or pictures idealizing EFPPF, or pictures of animals on the products.
• 7. Information to veterinarians should be factual and scientific.
• 8. All information on EFPPFs, including labels, should explain the benefits of fresh, raw, natural feeding and the costs and hazards of artificial EFPPF feeding.
• 9. Unsuitable products containing predominantly food fractions and additives should not be promoted for animals.

In spite of WHO's Code, one to two million children around the world lose their lives each year due to artificial feeding. Violators of the code include Nestle, Gerber, Mead Johnson, Wyeth and others. Some even try to drum up sales by suggesting that breast feeding may transmit HIV. 

Disease and death from exclusively feeding processed foods to pets occurs as well. However, there are no WHO restrictions in the pet food industry for companies to skirt around. On the contrary, regulators mandate that pet foods claim "complete and balanced." 

We pay a heavy price for permitting our world to be one where reason does not rule. 

If you're interested in learning more about healthy pet feeding, consider signing up for our free, educational, and fun program The 100 Pet Health Truths. The 100 Pet Health Truths will equip you to become a discerning and educated pet owner. We have condensed Dr. Wysong's 30 years of health wisdom into 100 short and easy messages enhanced with fun graphics and videos.