People every day subject their beloved pets to monotonous, repetitive routines that they wouldn't allow for themselves. Yet, they unthinkingly pass these actions off as being beneficial for their pets.
People pour food out of a box into the bowls of their pets every day. Pets get the same food day in and day out. Pet owners who love their pets and believe they are doing the right things often practice this strange behavior.
Why? Certainly because it is convenient, but also because the labels state that such foods are "complete and balanced," "100% complete," or that they have passed various analytical and feeding test standards. Furthermore, manufacturers, and even veterinarians, counsel pet owners about not feeding other foods, such as table scraps, because of the danger of unbalancing these modern processed nutritional marvels. This message has such power that pet owners force their pets to eat the same processed foods at every meal.
It's amazing, just think about it. It is difficult to comprehend the complexity of our world. It is difficult to comprehend, and it is also difficult to know in the "complete" sense. In order for nutritionists and manufacturers to produce a "100% complete and balanced" pet food, they must first know 100% about nutrition. However, nutrition is not a completed science. It is, in fact, an aggregate science, which is based upon other sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and biology. But since no scientist would argue that everything is known in chemistry, or physics, or biology, how can nutritionists claim to know everything there is to know about nutrition, which is based upon these sciences? This is why the claim of a "100% balanced and complete" diet is absurd. This is why a similar attempt to feed babies a 100 percent complete formula proved to be disastrous for their health.
In that instance, after sufficient disease and death resulted from attempting to retire the human breast to a mere appendage of adornment, government stepped in and controlled the commercial hype. Doctors, nurses, and baby formula manufacturers cannot claim that these products are perfect or that they are superior to breast-feeding. They are doing a great job. (Although they should have been proactive petdoghk and prevented the disaster before it ever took root, not have merely stepped in after enough deaths accrued.)
Even with that lesson as a dire warning, pet food regulators turn a blind eye. Instead of stopping pet food producers from making claims that their processed food products are 100% complete, they promote death and disease-dealing specious claims by setting fake standards that supposedly validate and justify the claims. To win consumers' trust, they legitimize poor science. All a manufacturer has to do is guarantee that their percentage of protein, fat and the like meets National Research Council standards. In the alternative, manufacturers can do feeding trials on caged laboratory animals for a few weeks, measure cursory blood parameters, and monitor growth and weight - as if survival after a few weeks on a food has anything to do with achieving optimal health and long life!