A student paper written as a final assignment for SACS 455 Year 3 Nutrition Elective Western College of Veterinary Medicine; Supervisor Meg Smart DVM, PhD, Professor in Clinical Nutrition
|
Veterinary Prescription Diet Debate
Arguments Against the Sale of Veterinary
Prescription and Wellness Diets by Veterinarians
Introduction
In 400 B.C. Hippocrates stated “Let food be
medicine,” and this central dogma constitutes the foundation of the practice of
veterinary nutrition. According to the Veterinarian’s Oath, it is the
professional and moral obligation of every practicing veterinarian to uphold
the highest standards of care in order to integrate their medical knowledge with
current industry standards to provide a well-rounded approach to the health and
well-being of their veterinary patients, and this includes providing
professional advice to clients regarding the nutrition requirements of their
pets in a manner that is consistent with the principles of veterinary medical
ethics. According to the Veterinarian’s Oath, it is the professional and moral
obligation of every practicing veterinarian to uphold the highest standards of
care. Veterinarian's must strive to integrate their medical knowledge with
current industry standards in order to provide a well-rounded approach to the
health and well-being of their veterinary patients. This includes providing
professional advice to clients regarding the nutrition requirements of their
pets in a manner that is consistent with the principles of veterinary medical
ethics.
With the advent of retailing in the
veterinary profession and inherent economic basis of the retail pet food market,
there is some speculation that the immediate goal of providing high-quality
veterinary care to our patients has taken a back seat to potential conflicts of
interest associated with the use of retailing and the commercialization of the
veterinary industry. The sale of “premium” pet food products for therapeutic
benefit and maintenance in healthy animals is believed to constitute 10-30% of
the income in many private veterinary practices and constitutes approximately
10-11% of hospital-wide profit (Jerving-Bäck and Bäck 2007), associated
with an average 40% markup in price. At present, the most popular veterinary
therapeutic products are Hills (Prescription Diet), Medi-cal, Purina and Iams,
all of which provide not only “high quality pet nutrition” but also opportunities
for financial benefit to veterinary profession in the form of feeding programs,
research and educational funding and pet food merchandise, to name a few. Although
the distribution of veterinary therapeutic and wellness diets through
veterinary clinics has the potential to promote a more complete and balanced
health care approach within the private practice setting, the constitutions
underlying the use of “prescription” or “therapeutic diets” in veterinary
practices are only ethical if the products provide potential benefit to the
patient, if the veterinarian is not biased in their recommendation of a
particular brand, and if the sale and use of these diets are not misleading to
the client (Jerving-Bäck and Bäck 2007).
This article appraises relevant information
regarding the potential pitfalls which may be associated with the sale and
distribution of these diets due to the poor regulatory standards of pet food,
the lack of superiority of veterinary therapeutic diets, the current deficit of
nutritional education held by veterinarians. Veterinarians need to keep in mind
that public perceptions of their nutritional recommendations are that they are
“credible” and central to dietary selection.
