Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Arguments Against the Sale of Veterinary Prescription and Wellness Diets by Veterinarians

          









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.