[QUOTE=Coanteen;7951010]
But it is weird that all of OP vet friends (ok, all might be like 2 in that case) have pushed Science Diet, and told her Blue is bad.
Comparing the ingredient list of the Blue and SD grain-free varieties, they’re very similar. I’d love to know what makes Blue so bad in these vets’ opinions, or SD so superior.[/QUOTE]
It depends on the situation.
If you want to eliminate grains…Sci Diet doesn’t do that, in general. Blue might provide that.
But…
MOST food allergies ARE NOT CAUSED BY GRAINS. People don’t get that. So, if you want a hypoallergenic diet…that has a novel protein source…finding something in a normal pet food store might be challenging. Science Diet does have several novel protein diets and z/d, which is a hypoallergenic (hydrolyzed) diet. Hill’s (Sci Diet) isn’t the only one who has those lines. Royal Canin and Purina do too.
For an animal with suspected food allergies, sometimes going to a hypoallergenic diet like Purina HA or Hill’s z/d is the only way you can confirm an allergy. Like, wipe the slate clean. And for many, compliance is the issue. The concept of a novel protein diet can escape them.
Why the distrust of Blue? Little funding into research/development, recent investigations that show their diet’s guaranteed analysis doesn’t always match.
Anecdotal evidence, maybe?
I’ve had many people complain it gave their dogs terrible diarrhea.
On the flipside, why do you endorse Blue over other commercially-available diets?
I don’t know. I work in emergency. Honestly, unless people are feeding a purely human food-based diet with no consideration for any sort of nutritional balance (and trust me there are people who think whatever they eat that night is fine for the dog), I don’t talk about food that much. It’s not my main concern, as an emergency doctor. I tell people to feed their animal a high-quality food and if they do well on it to stick with it. If they aren’t happy with their food or their animal isn’t doing well on it, then change. Not all animals are going to universally do well on a particular food, the same way that all people can eat the same foods.
Mostly though, to answer your question, I think is the brand distrust for a brand that hasn’t been around for a long time that has no studies or diet trials to back their claims. Using those diets to treat specific medical conditions is hard to get behind especially when there are diets out there that will.
Another part of it is the client base. You and most of the people on this board are well-educated enough about basic animal care that you can critically evaluate the situation and ask relevant questions. I have clients that just don’t have that level of comprehension or that don’t care to. They love their pets dearly, but they can’t understand why the diet choice is important. When elderly Mr. Jones’s dear Pomeranian needs to lose weight so his back and knees stop bothering him, it’s far easier to prescribe a “prescription” low-calorie food when you KNOW he will continue feeding him table scraps despite your nagging. At least this way you’re helping the dog, somewhat. Unless you take Mr. Jones to the pet store yourself and guide him to each food, he is not going to spend the time to read labels, let alone pick a diet that is appropriate. He buys Beneful because the cute dog on TV looks so happy and it’s conveniently found at the grocery store. This is one example of a simple situation where a “prescription” food can help.
Vets CAN think for themselves and aren’t necessarily fooled by gimmicks or marketing. A free lunch from a food company isn’t memorable enough to change or persuade that. (You think the same thing isn’t happening from pharmaceutical companies??? They’re FAR worse…)
Anyway, that’s a huge tangent. I can’t speak for the entire veterinary community/population, as some of us probably aren’t as up to date on current thinking as some of us newer grads, but I just wanted to offer some ideas from my side of the coin. Carry on.
