Is doubt the product of the pet food industry and their lobbying organization PFI? And if so, how do you think "doubt" and the spreading of "doubt" actually benefits the organizations over the consumer? PFI is the group the major companies "point" to as their "spokesperson".
Here are a few interesting questions to think about.
Does the longer a company or organization say they're "looking into things" or with hold specific evidence the more money they make while the years pass by?
Is it helpful to certain interests of consumers don't know the truth?
Is it helpful to certain interests if truth is avoided and doubt is cast instead?
Does it help them evade regulation?
Is doubt an actual beneficial product being "sold" by these major companies, even if it's not a tangible product?
The pet food industry lobbying group, and the various major organizations involved, have never produced a single comparative feeding study to show consumers the health evidence of one feeding style like raw compared to that of another feeding style like kibble. But they do cast doubt on feeding styles which they do not manufacture. They haven't produced the evidence with studies for what they cast doubt on, even when they're making billions and claiming they're evidence based. They also say they care about the health of your animals.
As "Pet Fooled" exposes, they've never produced a comparative feeding style study. And they claim to care about pet health?
It doesn't take a graduate from Harvard to argue that producing kibble diets are far less expensive financially than producing and distributing fresh food diets with clear and transparent sourcing (exact sourcing) and diets void of controversial, processed and rendered ingredients.
It's interesting to think about these questions.