Holistic Nutrition - The BARF Raw Food Diet
A critique by John Burns BVMS MRCVS
The BARF (“Bones and Raw Food” or “Biologically
Appropriate Raw Food”) diet is a system of holistic nutrition which
is championed by Dr Ian Billinghurst who is an Australian vet. Dr. Billinghurst
has published several books on health and nutrition. The best known of
these is called “Give Your Dog a Bone”. The BARF Evolutionary
philosophy is at first glance an attractive one; it seems to be truly
natural because it tries to emulate the lifestyle of the dog in the wild.
But, after due consideration I am of the opinion that the BARF theory,
like the emperor’s new clothes, does not stand up to critical inspection.
The BARF or “Evolutionary” Diet is based on the principle
that domestic dogs should be fed on a diet which replicates as closely
as possible the diet of the wild dog. According to Dr Billinghurst domestic
dogs have been fed on processed (cooked) foods for only approximately
70 years and this is not a long enough time to adapt to cooked foods.
To replicate the diet of the wild dog he recommends that all carbohydrate
should be avoided and pet dogs and cats should be fed on a diet based
on raw meaty bones and raw vegetables . Dr Billinghurst insists that because
of this evolutionary history the BARF DIET is the ONLY correct way to
feed the modern domestic pet dog.
The problem with the evolutionary argument is that domestic dogs bear
little relationship to the original wild dog. Very early in their association
it is likely that man selected and bred those animals which suited his
purpose e.g. guarding, hunting, more docile, less independent –
even better suited to the food provided by man.
There are practical reasons why the diet of the wild dog is not automatically
suitable for the domestic dog. The modern dog and its lifestyle bear no
similarity whatever to the wild dog. We provide shelter in heated houses,
they do not have to forage or compete for food, they eat every day, and
they have little exercise compared to a wild dog.
Many dogs have dietary sensitivity which means that they need a highly
digestible diet, low in protein and low in fat. I can’t see how
that could be achieved with a BARF diet.
Modern farm livestock is reared in such a way that the fat content, even
in “lean” meat is very high. So a diet high in meat will inevitably
be high in fat too.
The Carbohydrate Question
According to Dr Billinghurst dogs cannot digest carbohydrate. In reality,
the dog has very sophisticated, sensitive and efficient mechanisms for
breaking down carbohydrate and ensuring its absorption. This could not
have evolved if carbohydrate was detrimental.
But, according to BARF, carbohydrate causes so many health problems e.g.
inflammatory disease such as pancreatitis. While it is true that low-quality
or refined carbohydrate may be undesirable, my experience is that I have
had excellent results in treating and preventing inflammatory disease
using both home cooked and commercial diets which are based on whole grains
i.e. high in carbohydrate.
On a simple level what vet has not recommended chicken and rice to treat
gastro-intestinal disease?
There are other major flaws with the BARF philosophy. One which flies
in the face of the facts is the assertion that raw food is more digestible
and that cooking destroys that digestibility. Simple common sense and
experience tell us that cooking actually increases digestibility. Increasing
the digestibility of the food is an important way of treating bowel disease
and problems of malabsorption. Cooking does this.
I suspect that any success claimed for the Raw Food system is due to a
much more mundane explanation than its grandiose but erroneous philosophy.
This is that any benefits are due to the avoidance of ingredients which
cause dietary intolerance.
My main criticism of the BARF philosophy is its self-righteousness.
BARFism puts forward a flawed theory with a certainty which bears comparison
to religious fundamentalism; it brooks no dissent. It advocates a system
which is impractical and does not fit well into the lifestyle of present
society, denying the possibility of alternatives, thereby condemning those
pet owners, the majority, to feelings of inadequacy for failure to follow
its teachings.
|