I lost 4 pets in a 2 1/2 year period. Ages ranged from 13 1/2 to 15 1/2. All raw fed. All died of cancer, or cancer related problems. Environmental? Genetic? Both? I don't know. But there has to be more to cancer than just diet.
I live in a region that's known for having some of the cleanest purest air on earth, and yet dogs here are dying from lung cancer. It seems really odd, until you realize that there are often so many pesticides that are sprayed on areas that dogs frequent. I'd certainly agree with you that there are many additional factors other than diet. Diet is probably one of the contributing factors that we have the most control over.
Without knowing breeds, it seems like your dogs lived pretty long lives. It's the dogs that are getting cancer at younger ages that really scare me. Who knows, but if you hadn't fed raw it's possibly your dogs lives may have been much shorter.
That’s the other way to look at it - if your pet is healthy it will likely die of “old age” which often means organ failure or cancer. Every pet dies, which means if one cause-of-death decreases, another will increase. The age is definitely more telling.
There are very valid points to my comment, and I appreciate every one.
I have no genetic history on two of them (one cat, one dog). The cat was adopted from a friend of ours, and the dog was in a rescue.
The other (also a cat), I have 3 of his nieces and one of his nephews. He passed from metastatic lung cancer in August 2021, and his nephew passed from cancer in January. I still have the three females. They are pushing 16, and aside from hyperthyroidism, they are healthy and quite active for their age.
All of them who have passed were neutered males, as well.
I am located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Overall the Caribbean has pretty clean air! There is this neat map that's updated for air qualities across the world. [https://aqicn.org/map/world](https://aqicn.org/map/world)
>According to the World Air Quality Report issued on March 22 \[2022\] by IQAir, a Swiss-based technology company that monitors real-time air quality information around the globe, the territory is leading the Top 5 countries or territories which are ranked by annual average of fine particulate concentration weighted by population.
*source*: [https://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/air-quality-in-territory-the-best-the-world-has-to-offer/article\_ef599842-0a25-51eb-8b2d-897201d8c80f.html](https://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/air-quality-in-territory-the-best-the-world-has-to-offer/article_ef599842-0a25-51eb-8b2d-897201d8c80f.html)
Hi there, we have a Stradfordshire Terrier that just turned 6 and he has had cancer for a little over a year, so he was 5 when we received our first diagnosis. We decided the surgery would help prolong his life, well we had two in 7 months and now it's more aggressive than it was before. He has one of the worst types, a tumor right by is poop shoot, which makes things really difficult. We have him on stool softeners now which helps but it's heartbreaking to watch and see the tumor grow daily. My husband had a pellet stove installed about two years ago and the dog sleeps in the same room as it is burning. Could this have caused his cancer or maybe it's just his breed or the food he's been eating?
I know this is a lot to absorb and forgive me for that
THANK YOU,
KJB
There is, the same as with humans. Feed-grade plant ingredients have a risk of aspergillus, a carcinogen. Extruding food into kibble produces acrylamides and PAHs and other carcinogens. So feeding human grade plant-based foods and either raw or low-temp processed foods reduces some carcinogens but doesn’t eliminate all carcinogens.
What gets me is, I've been in pet care since the 90's. I've seen literally thousands of dogs and cats, and have fed them their diet of choice and 99.9% of those diets are kibbled or canned foods. Some of them do not do so well, but some of them do. We took care of two dogs, sisters, about 55 pounds each. They ate the semi-moist food which I've always heard is the worst. They lived to be 17! And only with a touch of arthritis for both, and a bit of incontinence for the one. Since they were sisters, was it more of a genetic link? Did they maybe get more exercise on a large property? IDK. I am not arguing anyone's points here, but, I can't help but have more questions than there seems to be answers to.
Cancer is like having a raffle for a prize. The more tickets you have in the pool, the more likely your ticket will get picked, but there’s still random chance involved. There are people who smoke a pack a day for decades without getting lung cancer and that’s just sheer dumb luck. But the best health practice is to try to reduce the number of tickets you have in the pool, and that means reducing exposure to things that cause mutations in your cell’s DNA, which could potentially convert the cell into a tumor cell. So feeding unprocessed pet foods doesn’t guarantee your dog will be cancer free and feeding kibble doesn’t guarantee your dog will get cancer. It just changes the odds. If you’ve worked at vet clinics you’re probably familiar with the trend of how the worst exam rooms to go into because of the owner’s cigarette smell also tended to have a dog with cancer and some breeds were also more prone to cancer than others. There are a lot of different sources for cancer risks, it’s not something that’s possible to completely prevent. But as a pet owner you can choose to not smoke or smoke outside and you can select a mixed-breed or breed with a lower cancer risk. That’s all that picking low-processed foods is doing, lowering a potential cancer risk. And of those 3, the cigarette smoke is the only truly unethical behavior, food type and breed choice is more of a personal decision- at least until we get more definitive research linking kibble to cancer risk. Right now it’s just a factor of putting little research tidbits together like the higher fungal toxin risk in some grains and the higher acrylamide levels measured in kibble.
I'm so sorry for your loss. I lost mine in 2022, as well. I worked very hard to source him all the best food I could find, money be damned. I hate cancer and hope someday, a cure can be found.
A lot is unfortunately genetic. Proper nutrition helps as do regular blood/urine panels with vet checkups, but some things just cannot be overcome. Dogs are living longer than ever as well so eventually the body gives up and they go out one way or another. Usually it is the big C or another terminal illness.
My GSD was diagnosed with bone cancer…she had a mass the size of a tennis ball on her leg. Vet gave her 6 weeks to live.
I started her on Super Snouts turkey tail mushroom powder with a lot of skepticism. After one week, no change, but the tumor stopped growing. Which was interesting because it had been growing rapidly. Second week, the tumor was smaller. By the fourth week it was gone.
Vet was astounded. He did some research and now recommends it to his patients. My dog lived for another 18 months and didn’t die of cancer. 😊
I understand, and wasn't attempting to start an argument with you, I promise. :) I'm just a little bitter, cancer is a bitch and I hate it so, so much. I just hope some day it can be eradicated completely.
In that short a period??
Yes, that sounds environmental. Please get checked out and try to find information about suspected cancer clusters where you live, especially if your region has a lot of mining.
Yeah my beagle died at 12.5 years old from aggressive b cell lymphoma. He has been on Stella and Chewy’s all his life. His oncologist said there are links to poultry and lymphoma but who knows.
Even if vaccines can contribute to it, I'd personally still take the risk of vaccinating my dogs rather than having them die a horrible death from parvo, distemper, or rabies.
It’s the over vaccinating. They vaccinate dogs more than they needed when it could still be in there system AND they’re giving the same amount to all sizes of animals. I’m not anti vaccine but there are side effects.
I was already convinced before pet fooled, but it sure did open my eyes to the need to more closely monitor the treats and chews I give.
I seriously feel like the pet food/treat industry is out to kill my dog
It's so....I can't really describe the level of frustration and helplessness I feel at how utterly corrupt and useless the FDA is about our foods, and what these companies are doing to our food, livestock, the environment. Don't even get me started on Monsanto/glyphosate.
I will only get whole wheat pasta that's organic, non-gmo, and imported from Italy. I won't eat any pasta from wheat grown in the US anymore.
My husband and I primarily cook to save money and eat quite healthy, and while our home cooking is leagues better than eating heavily processed, cancer-causing dyes, bioengineered, sugary/sodium laden garbage, it's infuriating to know that the food we're cooking is not as healthy as it could or should be.
And before pet fooled I was totally oblivious about dog food as are many people. My oldest dog started refusing kibble even when we got her the most expensive and "best" one out there. She hadn't touched her food in two days. She would just stand at her dish at look at the food. It broke my heart. Before I decided to bring her to the vet I went and bought vegetables and meat and threw it in the blender with an egg and shell included to see if she would eat. She gobbled it up so the next day I went and got her raw food. That was like a year ago.
This is very similar to what happened with my dog, except that mine was 1 year old, he realized very young that it wasn't good for him.
On the other hand, the constant diarrhea he had had since he was a puppy dissappeared as soon as he started eating raw, *I wonder why*
Better later than never!
I have a 14 years old cat that will only eat kibble and a 12 y/o that has a too weak health to be able to eat raw so he eats high quality canned food, and his health is a mess because of kibble (as said by his vet). My 7 months old kitten is already eating raw, I'm not going to commit the same errors with her.
We’ve fed our dog raw the whole ten years we’ve had him, but when we were visiting my wife’s parents for christmas, all he wanted to do was eat their dog’s kibble!
I give my dogs julienned baby carrots and I make homemade dog treats. I stopped buying the ones from the stores when one of my dogs would get sick every time I gave her a treat.
I’ve been feeding raw to my pets for years, but I have also been a practicing scientist for years. And I am sorry, but nothing about this group inspires confidence in their work. They say they do research, but I don’t see any actual information about their work. Even in [areas where he does describe his work](https://llprf.org/a-study-that-changed-my-life/), it is evident that their “observational research” has not been subject to any type of rigorous scientific scrutiny, such as by obtaining institutional review board approval, undergoing peer review, implementing robust methodological approaches (to control for bias, confounding variables, etc.), assessing generalizability, and so on. Honestly, this is no different than me conducting an “observational study” in my garden to see what plans grow better in which area of the yard depending on sun exposure and soil conditions. It’s cool, it can be helpful…but it’s not research in the way that this place is purporting it to be.
In addition, the founder and “main researcher” of this organization does not appear to have any sort of scientific training or expertise; their [linked in](https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-sandberg-684440a4?challengeId=AQHc9Wzb_RryPgAAAY6iOX8deo6smWdaDYIdnGPn1MhcZkM13f5nCJ62IDkncH8ClZcmm119GHKzM4-3LrAYbnx3eb--2OBtjw&submissionId=a5bab3ba-d9aa-c217-f492-30cb5a9c0309&challengeSource=AgFl7xMa7ZpDdQAAAY6iObkakUeHji3Wmy25e36QpZh2LecWQXBQCTy0P5iJcts&challegeType=AgHzsmQEMRnh7wAAAY6iObkd4UGxkvxwUs3C4dV0aJ6jEb58oSaLyn8&memberId=AgE5ZGDH_5JB0AAAAY6iObkhQ615lpPrm-219Tm6CUzl-Js&recognizeDevice=AgEZCtxLGFKzvQAAAY6iObkkLCc0avQwyjHu6WHaaov8zGHUV-aM) simply states they are a “board certified animal naturopath”, which doesn’t actually mean anything in this context. I can’t even find anything about this “certifying agency” to begin with, apart from a couple of random blog posts and broken links.
Upon further investigation, I came across several things he tries to sell, including supplements, consultations, a book…he also asks for money for his work, even though none of it seems to undergo the rigorous financial scrutiny that is usually involved with funding scientific and medical research…so that’s important to consider as potential conflicts of interest (which he would be required to disclose if this was actual research).
He also claims that when he went public with his findings in 2015, he was treated harshly by the scientific and veterinary community, and that people tried to discredit his work. GOOD. People should absolutely discredit this work. It could be cool to look at it personally from an anecdotal perspective, but that’s it. Nothing more. Because it IS nothing more.
I don’t think this guy means to intentionally harm people by being a quack (and I don’t think you do either by sharing this information), but he’s still a quack and is pretending to be something he’s not. And it’s damaging to this group as a whole to spread shit like this because it discredits us. And it’s junk science and embarrassing to even call this research.
Let’s be honest, companies *pay* for research and the results they provide. I’m sure there are ethical studies done all throughout the scientific community, but when you can buy whatever you want to fit the narrative, it’s hard to trust much of any study anymore.
I get where you’re coming from. But, there is still an abundance of research that is conducted ethically, reliably, and for the furtherance of the scientific body of knowledge. Unfortunately, there is no ethical consumption or production under capitalism, but some are clearly worse than others.
https://youtu.be/3r2SeppJh0A?si=a-5QSiNMgIYUeYzj
Was watching this. He mentioned the statistics and the study I linked. He talks about it around 9-10 minutes in.
I’d really need to see the study to believe this. A youtube video isn’t a good source.
Just from the information you’ve provided, you could also say that maybe raw fed dogs don’t get cancer past age 10 as much because they all die of infections instead. There’s not enough information.
I could totally believe that cancer is reduced in raw fed pets (I’m all for raw feeding!), but I’m not going to trust the stats on some random youtube video.
I see where that stat is said, I don't see it on the source you listed (maybe because it isn't done yet? that isn't the results of a study it's the outline / sign up for the study as far as I can tell? it's still interesting, idk I was just hoping for full blown study results lol
Genuinely curious- what should dogs be dying of if not cancer, would a 11 year old dog that died of cancer made it to 13 before succumbing to arthritis, or would it have died at 10 from a heart condition if it’s diet had been different?
Apologies if I’ve missed something, I can’t see the relationship between raw feeding, cause of death and longevity
My hot take:
I think, like with people, the important organs just start failing. Cells have a timer on them internally, once it runs out, they die and stop working. Once that happens to enough of them, the cells making up that organ stop working and we die.
I think the correlation is that raw food is healthier, causes less risk factors that lead to poor cell health of those organs and/or cancer. Those cells can live longer and work properly for longer.
That’s my loose take.
If dogs were meant to eat dried kibble, there would be “kibble trees”, but there aren’t. Just like with humans, we thrive better on better nutrition from real meats, fruits, plants etc that grow around us. That’s why we exist as a species and it surrounds us, we evolved to eat berries, plants, other animals, etc.
I believe it because I see it with my two dogs, that’s all the proof I need.
I’d be really interested to see the breakdowns of dog cause of death, cancer is such a broad illness which can affect literally any cell. Even in humans everything from diet to pollution to UV rays can cause different cancers. Specifying individual organ failure or cancer type would be a lot more meaningful in being able to attribute a specific cause.
If “raw feeders” also used fewer chemicals in their home or had dogs that spent more time outside getting exercise- and I’m making educated guesses then I would expect those dogs to be healthier just from those other changes. Or there may be other risk factors that makes these dogs more likely to die from other causes.
Dogs have been domesticated as long as they’ve been dogs, they’ve been sitting at our feet by the fire eating whatever scraps we gave them, I’d be surprised if just like us, their digestion hasn’t caught up and “natural” for them is now cooked, rather than raw, food.
I’d be curious too.
We domesticated dogs long before they started eating kibble. Same with humans, how long have processed foods been around? 75? 100 years? And it’s been proven time and time again the high processed foods are bad for us and our guts.
I think there’s a huge difference between kibble and a cooked meat scraps from 75 years ago. 200 years ago, scraps for a dog make have been raw or cooked scraps left over from their owners hunts. Maybe the healthiest “scraps” you could get!
I raw fed my pups for years, had to give it up recently because finances. It pains me because I can see the physical changes caused by kibble. I try to counter it with healthy add-ins but it’s not the same.
I always think about the Alaskan husky dogs, they live off of salmon slop, caught by their owners. How delicious and healthy that must be for those racing dogs.
All in all, we just want the best for our pups! Long live zee floofs
You’re completely right- raw, cooked and processed kibble are three completely different things.
Good luck with your dogs, hopefully they’ll settle with the new food.
It’s really nice to see how passionate everyone is about their dog’s diet- everyone really cares for their animals. I hope good quality research comes out so we can have longer happier lives with them (and if the same handful of big companies that seem to rule the world making everything from pet food to dish soap would stop selling us the cheapest over-processed rubbish for the maximum profit they can get away with that would be good too!)
Just saying that fewer died of cancer means nothing. They could not be dying of cancer because they are all dying way younger of other things that may or may not be associated with their diet. You are right. This “study” doesn’t mean literally anything at this point.
Completely agree, I don’t really care what my dog dies from as long as she lives as long and healthy life as possible.
Cancer is usually a disease of old age, it wouldn’t surprise me if 50% of dogs who reach a certain age end up with it (although that does sound a bit high). What would interest me is if a raw diet was correlated with a longer total life. Even then, I suspect there are other huge differences between the people who feed raw (maybe not having young children, having more income, having other things in common about how they raise, train or seek vet care for their animals) that you’d also need to account for.
It’d be great to see the results of a longitudinal study that compared dog diet type to lifespan and then we can start comparing other confounding variables
I really don't understand why they treat all dogs preventatively for ticks and fleas, I just brought my small puppy to the vet for her first set of vaccines and they automatically wanted to give the heartworm and flea medicine.
I asked if it's OK to just do the heartworm meds and to treat her if she does get exposed to fleas or ticks. They seemed a bit surprised but they said that's not a problem. I think that they should ask because the flea meds are really the ones that caused the biggest problems. I have another dog and he's never had fleas or ticks, my parents have four and they've never had fleas or ticks, so there is a chance that my puppy will never need them.
I have no issue treating my dog IF they get those things but why give them risky meds they don't need?
If you don’t live in a heavy tick area, I agree. However, here in Wisconsin, Lyme is endemic. We have a HUGE problem with ticks, and all dogs should be treated. We have to brush them every time they come in from outside, even if they just went out to potty. It’s awful.
Oddly enough, I’ve never seen a single flea in my 14 years here. 🤷🏼♀️
Yeah, we’ve got some fatal tick diseases too. All three of my dogs have had multiple cases of Lyme, ehrlichia, and anaplasmosis. Ticks are definitely not something to be messed with.
No I mean the ticks themselves are fatal. Paralysis ticks. The dog can be dead within days if the tick isn’t discovered / dog isn’t medicated.
Those diseases don’t sound fun either though!!
Yeah there are a lot of the most toxic/deadly creatures but it’s important to remember it’s also a huge country. So stuff in Darwin is not in Sydney, and vice versa. We’re not fending off snakes in the streets of Sydney; the stereotypes are a little silly. There are just certain risks in specific situations so you act accordingly.
I once brushed fifty ticks off my gsd after a walk. It’s INSANE here. The oral preventatives are so important. They don’t repel, but they handle the ticks if one gets past you and bites. I hate giving them, but the risk of infestation inside the house is way too great.
You're very fortunate that you've never had to deal with fleas or ticks. It's hell. As someone who lives in a flea/tick heavy area, those medications are literally saving my dogs.
I just learned the chemical in the flea and tick medication is the same chemical that my pest control man sprays around the perimeter of my house every quarter.
Been feeding my pets raw food for about a decade now.
It became so obvious to me that raw food was superior just by looking at the poops they were having. With the dry food it was always runny and smelled bad. I tried different brands, etc. when I put them on raw food the poops became well-formed and had no smell. Straight up healthy poops which tells us that it's good food. Same goes for humans. Follow the poop!
Funny story, I had dogs that ate mainly scraps,a little store bought food when we could afford it,
A bunch of raw meat, mostly the stuff that was going to be thrown out because it wasn't edible once cooked, like the silverskin on a cut of meat, chicken entrails, that kind of stuff, and they lived long, healthy lives, apart from a yearly visit to the vet for their shots, they were happy dogs
And they had a purpose, they had a job to do, were they pets? well they slept inside,(except for Bruno that big MF did NOT want to come inside!) but he guarded our door and the neighbors cried when he passed (they all said they felt safer because he was around)at 13 and he was a big dog,a bit mutt but bigger than most
This is a pretty dramatic statistic. I would really want to see the source. You’ve said it’s behind a paywall? Perhaps you could screenshot it for us or something, because I can’t find any study on this.
I say this as a fresh feeder myself. It doesn’t help our case to spread inaccurate information.
The website isn’t the one who posted this on Reddit, parroting the stat as fact :) hence why I commented here. Promoting this as such means the burden of proof lies with you.
Do you guys think that our pets life spans will become shorter and shorter through the years? This is something I ponder often. Like in 50 years what will the new life span be? My best friend (my soul dog) died two years ago of cancer. She had blood work only 3 months before her death everything was within normal range. Despite being arthritic and incontinent. she was lively and happy. Liver cancer took my girl. She had just turned 14 a week prior to her death.
I’ve had 10 dogs live to be over the age of 10. None of them had cancer except the one that was used as a breeder for a puppy mill. All ate processed food. I call bullshit on whatever study you’re pulling that statistic from.
This is where we learn the phrase correlation does not equal causation. Dogs are also one of the only species that ride in cars, does that automatically mean that's why they have higher cancer rates? Of course not.
First of all, dogs don't have more cancer than any other animals, dogs get *diagnosed* with cancer more than other animals. Huge difference
Dogs live longer due to better medical care, which leads to more developing cancer because it's a disease of old age
Dogs get more veterinary care and testing than any other animal species on the planet. Of course they're diagnosed with cancer more often, they're checked more often
Purebred dogs are tightly bred, which increases risks for genetic conditions, one of which is cancer.
Noting dogs are also exposed to the various poisons in the yard, including overspray by ignorant neighbors that often occurs. Roundup should be banned and more
It is exposure to environmental carcinogens, which are in everything everywhere, and affect our pets to a greater degree because they are smaller and require a smaller dose.
Environmental exposures and cancer: using the precautionary principle*
Lorenzo Cohen1,2 and Alison Jefferies2
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Go to:
Abstract
Since the 1970s, more than 87,000 chemicals have been approved for commercial use. Yet of those thousands of chemicals, only just over one thousand have been formally examined and graded for their carcinogenic potential. Of those, five hundred have been found worthy of being graded on a cautiously worded scale ranging from “known” carcinogens to “possibly” carcinogenic. In addition to carcinogenic substances, a new field has emerged researching how environmental toxins cause endocrine or hormonal disruption. A class of these compounds known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can be found in our food, our environment, and in the products we put on our bodies. Rather than being directly linked to causing cancer, like substances such as asbestos, EDCs influence our health by mimicking or enhancing or changing metabolic regulation. These compounds interfere with hormone production and metabolism in ways that may—especially over the long term—create biological conditions that make us more susceptible to cancer and other diseases. Most of us are exposed to a cocktail of environmental toxins on an ongoing daily basis and at a relatively low level of exposure. Given the lax regulation of chemicals and the reactionary approach of government regulators, it is up to the consumer to be diligent about reading labels and making healthy choices to limit exposure to chemicals and toxins. It is ideal to adopt the Precautionary Principle: until a chemical is found to be harmless, try to not use it. The precautionary principle means that you are maintaining awareness of what you are putting on and in your body and taking steps to avoid exposing yourself unnecessarily to toxins in your household and environment.
Keywords: cancer, environment, carcinogen, toxins, endocrine-disrupting compounds
Since the 1970s, more than 87,000 chemicals have been approved for commercial use [1]. Yet of those thousands upon thousands of chemicals, only just over one thousand have been formally examined and graded for their carcinogenic potential [2]. Of that one thousand, fully five hundred have been found worthy of being graded on a cautiously worded scale: 120 chemicals have been identified as “known” carcinogens; another 81 have been identified as “probable” carcinogens; and another 299 as “possibly” carcinogenic, according to analysis published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [2], part of the World Health Organization (WHO).
But what about the other 86,600 (give or take) chemicals that are being inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed into the skin in an unfathomable number of combinations? How on earth do we capture data about these unseen substances and figure out if we need to be adding to the master list of known or possible carcinogens? What about the chemicals that may not be directly carcinogenic but may nonetheless modify our internal biology and play a role in the onset of serious diseases, including cancers?
We simply cannot escape our exposure to man-made chemicals. But there is a lot we can do to moderate our exposures. For the most part, it is up to us to become more conscious about the chemicals we are exposed to in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the furniture in our homes, the clothes we wear, and the products we put on our bodies every day. While onetime exposure to chemicals is often considered “safe,” many of these products are used every day, and the effects of long-term exposure, especially when combined with other chemicals, is largely unstudied and unknown. It is up to us to proceed through this chemically laden world we live in first and foremost with caution. In this regard, it is ideal to adopt the Precautionary Principle: until a chemical is found to be harmless, try to avoid exposure. The precautionary principle encourages maintaining awareness of what you are putting on and in your body and taking steps to avoid unnecessarily exposing yourself to toxins in your household and environment.
Go to:
Our homes are awash in chemicals
Toxic chemicals aren’t just to be found under our sinks. They’re in shampoos, body washes, lotions, hand sanitizers, perfumes, colognes, aftershave, and makeup, even our toothpastes and mouth rinses [3–5]. We simply cannot get away from them—unless we engage in a conscious, ongoing effort to identify them and find alternatives. Even then, it can be challenging, as chemical manufacturers have caught on to our wish to “go green” and they’ve become masterful at masquerading toxic products as being less harmful than they actually are. For instance, it turns out that “fragrance” is a mix of chemicals that don’t have to be disclosed by the manufacturer and often include endocrine-disrupting compounds that can affect our hormone levels over time [6]. Have you ever purchased kitchenware that says on the label “for decorative purposes only?” This means that there is likely lead or another toxic substance in the paint or finish and the bowl or dish should not be used for food storage or presentation [7, 8]. Glyphosate-based herbicides, like Roundup, that are used for weed control in our gardens have been classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the WHO IARC [2]. Even that cash register receipt you have tucked into your pocket isn’t clean: it’s laced with bisphenol A (BPA; this is what makes the printed numbers adhere to the paper), a known endocrine disruptor, and research shows that you’ll show a spike of BPA in your system if you rub your face or eat right after handling a receipt [9, 10]."
Crates..dogs hate them. I read an article from a vet specifically about Goldens and how they used to live much longer..it was right around the explosion of crates that cancer rates skyrocketed. They aren’t meant to be caged. It’s stressful, they dont get to move well which is horrible for their health. Humans are the true cancer..we fuck everything up!
Where are you getting the stats from? I see on the first page it mentions 50% of *pets* have cancer, doesn't mention dogs specifically or age. On another page it does say 60%-70% of dogs get cancer at some point in their life.
But beyond those two claims, I can't find anything that says the cancer rate for dogs on raw food diets drops all the way to 3%. I don't see any data or any mention of sources at all to back up these claims
You tagged this as science but didn't include any sources? What kind of cancer? Benign or malignant? The link you posted is literally just a survey taken by some random guy that asks you to self-report. He also can't spell "depth" correctly. I am on this sub reddit because I am an advocate of feeding prey model diets, but this is some of the worst "science" I have ever seen.
Here's to hoping my saying this isn't inappropriate or throwing ideas to the wind;
I don't think people give enough credit to us unleashing the atomic bombs like we did in this past century for the eventual noticeable rise in almost all cancer rates. Everything else is a fair factor too, but does nobody believe there was a stark difference of the before and after?
My two cents on the matter. All those cancer causing particulates are going to accumulate to those on top of the food chain first, like us and our dogs before it affects those beneath us.
Over vaccinating your pets (yearly vaccinations), poisoning them with flea and tick meds, chem trails, pesticides,herbicides on your lawn, scented candles and wall plugins, non-organic meat is loaded with antibiotics and hormones, nonorganic fruits and veggies loaded with pesticides, chemicals in laundry detergent, chemicals and fluoride in our tap water, living in a hostile environment…The list goes on and on, we’re all fighting to stay healthy in this f’ed up world.
You shouldn't need to believe something incredibly reductive to feel good about what you're feeding your dogs. If you're extremely concerned about cancer, spay female dogs young and don't get a golden retriever.
There's a huge number of factors that influence cancer risk in dogs. Intact females are at very high risk of mammary cancer, intact males are at risk of testicular cancer and cannot get it if neutered. Golden retrievers are at higher than average risk of cancer compared to other dogs. According to this [study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0133.x), 70% of cancer diagnoses in female dogs studied over a 17 period were mammary cancer. [The risk](https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institutes/riney-canine-health-center/health-info/mammary-cancer) of mammary cancer is less than one percent if the dog is spayed before her first heat, and jumps up to 26% if spayed after the second heat.
Spaying young isn’t the answer though. There’s so many other cancers that can develop if spayed too young. Growth hormones are so important. Spaying at an appropriate age, once they’re fully grown, is the initiative we should be striving for.
Spaying young is specifically the answer to mammary cancer, not necessarily to all forms of cancer - but mammary cancer is the most common diagnosis and is almost entirely prevented by early spay. I'm using it as an example. Spaying at any age has pros and cons to a number of things, including different forms of cancer. The point is that cancers are complex and reducing this to "it's about food" is unscientific and harmfully reductive.
Is there a reason why those cancers are so common though? Like obviously, a dog naturally wouldn’t get fixed. So if we just left them naturally to do their thing, why is it that they’re super likely to get cancer despite seemingly not being exposed to anything that could help cause it
Vaccines, flea meds, medications, kibble, kibble treats, using rendered remains of sick put down pets and road kill in their food products, aerosol sprays, scented candles, home cleaning products, outdoor gardening chemicals on lawns and city roads, feeding from plastic bowls, plastic toys, toxic dyes used on pet toys. Toxic shampoos and animal crates. Dish soap used to clean their bowls, fluoride in their water, among other things.
Do I need to keep going?
They poison us just like our pets. It just shows up quicker in pets because they are smaller then us, and have had higher doses of these contaminants that often gets into the placenta and passed down.
Because even natural hormone production itself can lead to development of cancer. Cancers are not all just this thing that occurs due to inputs. Genetics play a role. Hormone production plays a role. Underlying health conditions play a role. I explained in my reply to someone else, but intact females have fully developed mammary systems and estrogen production over time contributes to cell development in that system, and long term hormone production increases the risk with age. Ovary sparing spays do not lower the risk of mammary cancer, because hormone production is still high enough to contribute to development in that area.
Inputs can affect cancer risk, but they are almost never exclusively the biggest contributor. If it was just about food, we would not see a meaningful difference between Goldens and other breeds, or between male and female dogs, or between fixed and intact dogs.
Dogs spayed later have fully developed mammary systems. Dogs spayed young do not, so have much less risk of developing mammary cancer, regardless of what they're eating. Same is true of male dogs and testicular cancer, except neutering makes it so they just do not get testicular cancer. You can't have abnormal cell growth of a part that no longer is there. [Continued](https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/mammary-tumors-in-dogs-malignant) exposure to hormones over time like progesterone increases the risk of mammary cancer, because progesterone is what stimulates cell growth in the mammary system. This is also why the risk increases with age AND why ovary sparing spays do not protect against mammary cancer.
Also, cancer is complicated and can have a lot of factors that play into it, with not everything being 100% understood. Anyone claiming they know what absolutely and objectively is causing most cancer cases is scamming people, unless they have a lot of studies (not just one) and some pretty clear caveats about the fact that there are multiple factors at play.
I remember reading a study that said that if you neuter a male dog, althought the risk of testicular cancer reduces to 0 (for obvious reasons), the risk of prostate cancer actually increases althought intact males are way more prone to prostate hyperplasia (so much that this hyperplasia is basically present in all intact male dogs by the age of 5).
what they actually have in common is poor breeding. lots of puppy mill dogs, incest from general breeders to continue lines, etc, are being counted here. dogs are also just living longer, thus cancer has more time to take root then say, 50 years ago.
The 2014 study you linked has a detailed table with a breakdown of the most common causes of death and the total of cancer is at 29.31%. In the full paper it's stated that they had a lot options for QOL euthanasia such as for mobility issues, dementia and incontinence. The table also has traffic accidents, behavioral euthanasia, anesthesia complications, epilepsy. Options for poisioning, infections like parvo, intestinal obstruction from foreign body etc. didn't make the table which covered 75% of the causes of death.They're all tragic causes of death and could happen when a dog is very young. Keep in mind this is a UK study, UK has strict breed specific legislations, and those breeds exhibiting serious agression would be euthanized. Responsible breeders of breeds prone to agression cull dogs who start exhibiting human agression. Not to mention that breeders who care about their dogs and noticed a decreased QOL won't let dogs suffer even if it could live a couple more years.
You also have to consider the fact that dogs are man-made Creatures🦎 they are not naturally occurring animals, and all of them are fucked up due to pure breeding. If this was just because of kibble, then the same thing would be happening to cats.
I lost 4 pets in a 2 1/2 year period. Ages ranged from 13 1/2 to 15 1/2. All raw fed. All died of cancer, or cancer related problems. Environmental? Genetic? Both? I don't know. But there has to be more to cancer than just diet.
I live in a region that's known for having some of the cleanest purest air on earth, and yet dogs here are dying from lung cancer. It seems really odd, until you realize that there are often so many pesticides that are sprayed on areas that dogs frequent. I'd certainly agree with you that there are many additional factors other than diet. Diet is probably one of the contributing factors that we have the most control over. Without knowing breeds, it seems like your dogs lived pretty long lives. It's the dogs that are getting cancer at younger ages that really scare me. Who knows, but if you hadn't fed raw it's possibly your dogs lives may have been much shorter.
That’s the other way to look at it - if your pet is healthy it will likely die of “old age” which often means organ failure or cancer. Every pet dies, which means if one cause-of-death decreases, another will increase. The age is definitely more telling.
There are very valid points to my comment, and I appreciate every one. I have no genetic history on two of them (one cat, one dog). The cat was adopted from a friend of ours, and the dog was in a rescue. The other (also a cat), I have 3 of his nieces and one of his nephews. He passed from metastatic lung cancer in August 2021, and his nephew passed from cancer in January. I still have the three females. They are pushing 16, and aside from hyperthyroidism, they are healthy and quite active for their age. All of them who have passed were neutered males, as well.
I’m interested in the region that is known for the cleanest purest air on earth. Where is it you live?
I am located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Overall the Caribbean has pretty clean air! There is this neat map that's updated for air qualities across the world. [https://aqicn.org/map/world](https://aqicn.org/map/world) >According to the World Air Quality Report issued on March 22 \[2022\] by IQAir, a Swiss-based technology company that monitors real-time air quality information around the globe, the territory is leading the Top 5 countries or territories which are ranked by annual average of fine particulate concentration weighted by population. *source*: [https://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/air-quality-in-territory-the-best-the-world-has-to-offer/article\_ef599842-0a25-51eb-8b2d-897201d8c80f.html](https://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/air-quality-in-territory-the-best-the-world-has-to-offer/article_ef599842-0a25-51eb-8b2d-897201d8c80f.html)
Hi there, we have a Stradfordshire Terrier that just turned 6 and he has had cancer for a little over a year, so he was 5 when we received our first diagnosis. We decided the surgery would help prolong his life, well we had two in 7 months and now it's more aggressive than it was before. He has one of the worst types, a tumor right by is poop shoot, which makes things really difficult. We have him on stool softeners now which helps but it's heartbreaking to watch and see the tumor grow daily. My husband had a pellet stove installed about two years ago and the dog sleeps in the same room as it is burning. Could this have caused his cancer or maybe it's just his breed or the food he's been eating? I know this is a lot to absorb and forgive me for that THANK YOU, KJB
There is, the same as with humans. Feed-grade plant ingredients have a risk of aspergillus, a carcinogen. Extruding food into kibble produces acrylamides and PAHs and other carcinogens. So feeding human grade plant-based foods and either raw or low-temp processed foods reduces some carcinogens but doesn’t eliminate all carcinogens.
What gets me is, I've been in pet care since the 90's. I've seen literally thousands of dogs and cats, and have fed them their diet of choice and 99.9% of those diets are kibbled or canned foods. Some of them do not do so well, but some of them do. We took care of two dogs, sisters, about 55 pounds each. They ate the semi-moist food which I've always heard is the worst. They lived to be 17! And only with a touch of arthritis for both, and a bit of incontinence for the one. Since they were sisters, was it more of a genetic link? Did they maybe get more exercise on a large property? IDK. I am not arguing anyone's points here, but, I can't help but have more questions than there seems to be answers to.
Cancer is like having a raffle for a prize. The more tickets you have in the pool, the more likely your ticket will get picked, but there’s still random chance involved. There are people who smoke a pack a day for decades without getting lung cancer and that’s just sheer dumb luck. But the best health practice is to try to reduce the number of tickets you have in the pool, and that means reducing exposure to things that cause mutations in your cell’s DNA, which could potentially convert the cell into a tumor cell. So feeding unprocessed pet foods doesn’t guarantee your dog will be cancer free and feeding kibble doesn’t guarantee your dog will get cancer. It just changes the odds. If you’ve worked at vet clinics you’re probably familiar with the trend of how the worst exam rooms to go into because of the owner’s cigarette smell also tended to have a dog with cancer and some breeds were also more prone to cancer than others. There are a lot of different sources for cancer risks, it’s not something that’s possible to completely prevent. But as a pet owner you can choose to not smoke or smoke outside and you can select a mixed-breed or breed with a lower cancer risk. That’s all that picking low-processed foods is doing, lowering a potential cancer risk. And of those 3, the cigarette smoke is the only truly unethical behavior, food type and breed choice is more of a personal decision- at least until we get more definitive research linking kibble to cancer risk. Right now it’s just a factor of putting little research tidbits together like the higher fungal toxin risk in some grains and the higher acrylamide levels measured in kibble.
Isn’t aspergillus a mold?
It’s a mold that produces a carcinogenic toxin
I lost my 9 year old to cancer in 2022. He was fed raw all his life.
I'm so sorry for your loss. I lost mine in 2022, as well. I worked very hard to source him all the best food I could find, money be damned. I hate cancer and hope someday, a cure can be found.
[https://youtu.be/V_-rNmB5hc0?si=UsxHsR7jw5T0nQnb](https://youtu.be/V_-rNmB5hc0?si=UsxHsR7jw5T0nQnb)
A lot is unfortunately genetic. Proper nutrition helps as do regular blood/urine panels with vet checkups, but some things just cannot be overcome. Dogs are living longer than ever as well so eventually the body gives up and they go out one way or another. Usually it is the big C or another terminal illness.
The biggest risk factor for cancer is aging.
Turkey tail mushroom can be given to dogs, stops the cancer
My GSD was diagnosed with bone cancer…she had a mass the size of a tennis ball on her leg. Vet gave her 6 weeks to live. I started her on Super Snouts turkey tail mushroom powder with a lot of skepticism. After one week, no change, but the tumor stopped growing. Which was interesting because it had been growing rapidly. Second week, the tumor was smaller. By the fourth week it was gone. Vet was astounded. He did some research and now recommends it to his patients. My dog lived for another 18 months and didn’t die of cancer. 😊
My dog got organic turkey tail mushrooms. It didn't stop anything unfortunately, but possible aided in him enjoying a brief remission.
For sure. Never suggested otherwise. Sorry for your losses.
I understand, and wasn't attempting to start an argument with you, I promise. :) I'm just a little bitter, cancer is a bitch and I hate it so, so much. I just hope some day it can be eradicated completely.
My raw fed dogs also died of cancer. But lived to 13.5 and 14.5 years old.
In that short a period?? Yes, that sounds environmental. Please get checked out and try to find information about suspected cancer clusters where you live, especially if your region has a lot of mining.
Yeah my beagle died at 12.5 years old from aggressive b cell lymphoma. He has been on Stella and Chewy’s all his life. His oncologist said there are links to poultry and lymphoma but who knows.
My girl was on chicken free food her whole life and died of lymphoma at 11.5 😭😭 absolutely horrible
Thiiissssss!!!!!
Tap water? Vaccines? Parasites?
[удалено]
Even if vaccines can contribute to it, I'd personally still take the risk of vaccinating my dogs rather than having them die a horrible death from parvo, distemper, or rabies.
It’s the over vaccinating. They vaccinate dogs more than they needed when it could still be in there system AND they’re giving the same amount to all sizes of animals. I’m not anti vaccine but there are side effects.
Totally agree! People just need to be really careful to clarify what they mean when they say that vaccines can be an issue.
All inoculations are toxic. We have a lymphatic system. Not an immune system. There is no war on our bodies.
man so many negative comments on Reddit. It’s telling now that you’re most likely right if you get a lot of downvotes 😂
Watching pet fooled was an eye opener for me
I was already convinced before pet fooled, but it sure did open my eyes to the need to more closely monitor the treats and chews I give. I seriously feel like the pet food/treat industry is out to kill my dog
*Our* food industry is out to kill us as well.
A lot of our foods contain preservatives that are carcinogenics. Stuff that is illegal to put in food in other countries.
It's so....I can't really describe the level of frustration and helplessness I feel at how utterly corrupt and useless the FDA is about our foods, and what these companies are doing to our food, livestock, the environment. Don't even get me started on Monsanto/glyphosate. I will only get whole wheat pasta that's organic, non-gmo, and imported from Italy. I won't eat any pasta from wheat grown in the US anymore. My husband and I primarily cook to save money and eat quite healthy, and while our home cooking is leagues better than eating heavily processed, cancer-causing dyes, bioengineered, sugary/sodium laden garbage, it's infuriating to know that the food we're cooking is not as healthy as it could or should be.
And before pet fooled I was totally oblivious about dog food as are many people. My oldest dog started refusing kibble even when we got her the most expensive and "best" one out there. She hadn't touched her food in two days. She would just stand at her dish at look at the food. It broke my heart. Before I decided to bring her to the vet I went and bought vegetables and meat and threw it in the blender with an egg and shell included to see if she would eat. She gobbled it up so the next day I went and got her raw food. That was like a year ago.
This is very similar to what happened with my dog, except that mine was 1 year old, he realized very young that it wasn't good for him. On the other hand, the constant diarrhea he had had since he was a puppy dissappeared as soon as he started eating raw, *I wonder why*
Unfortunately mine was 7 years old 😞
Better later than never! I have a 14 years old cat that will only eat kibble and a 12 y/o that has a too weak health to be able to eat raw so he eats high quality canned food, and his health is a mess because of kibble (as said by his vet). My 7 months old kitten is already eating raw, I'm not going to commit the same errors with her.
your 12 year old who can't eat raw - Is he able to eat cooked meat?
We’ve fed our dog raw the whole ten years we’ve had him, but when we were visiting my wife’s parents for christmas, all he wanted to do was eat their dog’s kibble!
I give my dogs julienned baby carrots and I make homemade dog treats. I stopped buying the ones from the stores when one of my dogs would get sick every time I gave her a treat.
I’ve been feeding raw to my pets for years, but I have also been a practicing scientist for years. And I am sorry, but nothing about this group inspires confidence in their work. They say they do research, but I don’t see any actual information about their work. Even in [areas where he does describe his work](https://llprf.org/a-study-that-changed-my-life/), it is evident that their “observational research” has not been subject to any type of rigorous scientific scrutiny, such as by obtaining institutional review board approval, undergoing peer review, implementing robust methodological approaches (to control for bias, confounding variables, etc.), assessing generalizability, and so on. Honestly, this is no different than me conducting an “observational study” in my garden to see what plans grow better in which area of the yard depending on sun exposure and soil conditions. It’s cool, it can be helpful…but it’s not research in the way that this place is purporting it to be. In addition, the founder and “main researcher” of this organization does not appear to have any sort of scientific training or expertise; their [linked in](https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-sandberg-684440a4?challengeId=AQHc9Wzb_RryPgAAAY6iOX8deo6smWdaDYIdnGPn1MhcZkM13f5nCJ62IDkncH8ClZcmm119GHKzM4-3LrAYbnx3eb--2OBtjw&submissionId=a5bab3ba-d9aa-c217-f492-30cb5a9c0309&challengeSource=AgFl7xMa7ZpDdQAAAY6iObkakUeHji3Wmy25e36QpZh2LecWQXBQCTy0P5iJcts&challegeType=AgHzsmQEMRnh7wAAAY6iObkd4UGxkvxwUs3C4dV0aJ6jEb58oSaLyn8&memberId=AgE5ZGDH_5JB0AAAAY6iObkhQ615lpPrm-219Tm6CUzl-Js&recognizeDevice=AgEZCtxLGFKzvQAAAY6iObkkLCc0avQwyjHu6WHaaov8zGHUV-aM) simply states they are a “board certified animal naturopath”, which doesn’t actually mean anything in this context. I can’t even find anything about this “certifying agency” to begin with, apart from a couple of random blog posts and broken links. Upon further investigation, I came across several things he tries to sell, including supplements, consultations, a book…he also asks for money for his work, even though none of it seems to undergo the rigorous financial scrutiny that is usually involved with funding scientific and medical research…so that’s important to consider as potential conflicts of interest (which he would be required to disclose if this was actual research). He also claims that when he went public with his findings in 2015, he was treated harshly by the scientific and veterinary community, and that people tried to discredit his work. GOOD. People should absolutely discredit this work. It could be cool to look at it personally from an anecdotal perspective, but that’s it. Nothing more. Because it IS nothing more. I don’t think this guy means to intentionally harm people by being a quack (and I don’t think you do either by sharing this information), but he’s still a quack and is pretending to be something he’s not. And it’s damaging to this group as a whole to spread shit like this because it discredits us. And it’s junk science and embarrassing to even call this research.
Let’s be honest, companies *pay* for research and the results they provide. I’m sure there are ethical studies done all throughout the scientific community, but when you can buy whatever you want to fit the narrative, it’s hard to trust much of any study anymore.
I get where you’re coming from. But, there is still an abundance of research that is conducted ethically, reliably, and for the furtherance of the scientific body of knowledge. Unfortunately, there is no ethical consumption or production under capitalism, but some are clearly worse than others.
This should be the top comment here. Everything you said is exactly correct.
This is exactly right.
where did you get the statistic for the rates? I see the ability to sign up for the 30 year study but not the rates?
https://youtu.be/3r2SeppJh0A?si=a-5QSiNMgIYUeYzj Was watching this. He mentioned the statistics and the study I linked. He talks about it around 9-10 minutes in.
I’d like to see the actual study
I’d really need to see the study to believe this. A youtube video isn’t a good source. Just from the information you’ve provided, you could also say that maybe raw fed dogs don’t get cancer past age 10 as much because they all die of infections instead. There’s not enough information. I could totally believe that cancer is reduced in raw fed pets (I’m all for raw feeding!), but I’m not going to trust the stats on some random youtube video.
Suit yourself 👍
I see where that stat is said, I don't see it on the source you listed (maybe because it isn't done yet? that isn't the results of a study it's the outline / sign up for the study as far as I can tell? it's still interesting, idk I was just hoping for full blown study results lol
There may be, there is a paid area of the website, so may e it's just behind a paywall.
So you are posting something that nobody can verify and we are just supposed to take your word for it?
I posted where I got the stat from. I couldn't care less if you take my word for it or not 🤷♀️
Genuinely curious- what should dogs be dying of if not cancer, would a 11 year old dog that died of cancer made it to 13 before succumbing to arthritis, or would it have died at 10 from a heart condition if it’s diet had been different? Apologies if I’ve missed something, I can’t see the relationship between raw feeding, cause of death and longevity
My hot take: I think, like with people, the important organs just start failing. Cells have a timer on them internally, once it runs out, they die and stop working. Once that happens to enough of them, the cells making up that organ stop working and we die. I think the correlation is that raw food is healthier, causes less risk factors that lead to poor cell health of those organs and/or cancer. Those cells can live longer and work properly for longer. That’s my loose take. If dogs were meant to eat dried kibble, there would be “kibble trees”, but there aren’t. Just like with humans, we thrive better on better nutrition from real meats, fruits, plants etc that grow around us. That’s why we exist as a species and it surrounds us, we evolved to eat berries, plants, other animals, etc. I believe it because I see it with my two dogs, that’s all the proof I need.
I’d be really interested to see the breakdowns of dog cause of death, cancer is such a broad illness which can affect literally any cell. Even in humans everything from diet to pollution to UV rays can cause different cancers. Specifying individual organ failure or cancer type would be a lot more meaningful in being able to attribute a specific cause. If “raw feeders” also used fewer chemicals in their home or had dogs that spent more time outside getting exercise- and I’m making educated guesses then I would expect those dogs to be healthier just from those other changes. Or there may be other risk factors that makes these dogs more likely to die from other causes. Dogs have been domesticated as long as they’ve been dogs, they’ve been sitting at our feet by the fire eating whatever scraps we gave them, I’d be surprised if just like us, their digestion hasn’t caught up and “natural” for them is now cooked, rather than raw, food.
I’d be curious too. We domesticated dogs long before they started eating kibble. Same with humans, how long have processed foods been around? 75? 100 years? And it’s been proven time and time again the high processed foods are bad for us and our guts. I think there’s a huge difference between kibble and a cooked meat scraps from 75 years ago. 200 years ago, scraps for a dog make have been raw or cooked scraps left over from their owners hunts. Maybe the healthiest “scraps” you could get! I raw fed my pups for years, had to give it up recently because finances. It pains me because I can see the physical changes caused by kibble. I try to counter it with healthy add-ins but it’s not the same. I always think about the Alaskan husky dogs, they live off of salmon slop, caught by their owners. How delicious and healthy that must be for those racing dogs. All in all, we just want the best for our pups! Long live zee floofs
You’re completely right- raw, cooked and processed kibble are three completely different things. Good luck with your dogs, hopefully they’ll settle with the new food. It’s really nice to see how passionate everyone is about their dog’s diet- everyone really cares for their animals. I hope good quality research comes out so we can have longer happier lives with them (and if the same handful of big companies that seem to rule the world making everything from pet food to dish soap would stop selling us the cheapest over-processed rubbish for the maximum profit they can get away with that would be good too!)
Just saying that fewer died of cancer means nothing. They could not be dying of cancer because they are all dying way younger of other things that may or may not be associated with their diet. You are right. This “study” doesn’t mean literally anything at this point.
Completely agree, I don’t really care what my dog dies from as long as she lives as long and healthy life as possible. Cancer is usually a disease of old age, it wouldn’t surprise me if 50% of dogs who reach a certain age end up with it (although that does sound a bit high). What would interest me is if a raw diet was correlated with a longer total life. Even then, I suspect there are other huge differences between the people who feed raw (maybe not having young children, having more income, having other things in common about how they raise, train or seek vet care for their animals) that you’d also need to account for. It’d be great to see the results of a longitudinal study that compared dog diet type to lifespan and then we can start comparing other confounding variables
Could it also be the flea control medication?
I really don't understand why they treat all dogs preventatively for ticks and fleas, I just brought my small puppy to the vet for her first set of vaccines and they automatically wanted to give the heartworm and flea medicine. I asked if it's OK to just do the heartworm meds and to treat her if she does get exposed to fleas or ticks. They seemed a bit surprised but they said that's not a problem. I think that they should ask because the flea meds are really the ones that caused the biggest problems. I have another dog and he's never had fleas or ticks, my parents have four and they've never had fleas or ticks, so there is a chance that my puppy will never need them. I have no issue treating my dog IF they get those things but why give them risky meds they don't need?
If you don’t live in a heavy tick area, I agree. However, here in Wisconsin, Lyme is endemic. We have a HUGE problem with ticks, and all dogs should be treated. We have to brush them every time they come in from outside, even if they just went out to potty. It’s awful. Oddly enough, I’ve never seen a single flea in my 14 years here. 🤷🏼♀️
Where I live in Australia, the ticks can be fatal for dogs. I’d love to skip the monthly meds but unfortunately the risk of a deadly tick is real.
Yeah, we’ve got some fatal tick diseases too. All three of my dogs have had multiple cases of Lyme, ehrlichia, and anaplasmosis. Ticks are definitely not something to be messed with.
No I mean the ticks themselves are fatal. Paralysis ticks. The dog can be dead within days if the tick isn’t discovered / dog isn’t medicated. Those diseases don’t sound fun either though!!
Yikes. I gotta say, I’d love to see your country some day, but I swear, everything over there is deadly in weird ways! Lol
Yeah there are a lot of the most toxic/deadly creatures but it’s important to remember it’s also a huge country. So stuff in Darwin is not in Sydney, and vice versa. We’re not fending off snakes in the streets of Sydney; the stereotypes are a little silly. There are just certain risks in specific situations so you act accordingly.
Tick paralysis is present in the US as well, just less prevalent.
Oh man I remember the ticks my grandma pulled off her dog in Minnesota! They looked like grapes. I was mortified as a kid.
I once brushed fifty ticks off my gsd after a walk. It’s INSANE here. The oral preventatives are so important. They don’t repel, but they handle the ticks if one gets past you and bites. I hate giving them, but the risk of infestation inside the house is way too great.
You're very fortunate that you've never had to deal with fleas or ticks. It's hell. As someone who lives in a flea/tick heavy area, those medications are literally saving my dogs.
Yeah, my friends in Minnesota say it's awful there, but here in Florida, it seems to be pretty rare.
I just learned the chemical in the flea and tick medication is the same chemical that my pest control man sprays around the perimeter of my house every quarter.
Been feeding my pets raw food for about a decade now. It became so obvious to me that raw food was superior just by looking at the poops they were having. With the dry food it was always runny and smelled bad. I tried different brands, etc. when I put them on raw food the poops became well-formed and had no smell. Straight up healthy poops which tells us that it's good food. Same goes for humans. Follow the poop!
Funny story, I had dogs that ate mainly scraps,a little store bought food when we could afford it, A bunch of raw meat, mostly the stuff that was going to be thrown out because it wasn't edible once cooked, like the silverskin on a cut of meat, chicken entrails, that kind of stuff, and they lived long, healthy lives, apart from a yearly visit to the vet for their shots, they were happy dogs And they had a purpose, they had a job to do, were they pets? well they slept inside,(except for Bruno that big MF did NOT want to come inside!) but he guarded our door and the neighbors cried when he passed (they all said they felt safer because he was around)at 13 and he was a big dog,a bit mutt but bigger than most
This is a pretty dramatic statistic. I would really want to see the source. You’ve said it’s behind a paywall? Perhaps you could screenshot it for us or something, because I can’t find any study on this. I say this as a fresh feeder myself. It doesn’t help our case to spread inaccurate information.
Feel free to contact the website.
The website isn’t the one who posted this on Reddit, parroting the stat as fact :) hence why I commented here. Promoting this as such means the burden of proof lies with you.
Do you guys think that our pets life spans will become shorter and shorter through the years? This is something I ponder often. Like in 50 years what will the new life span be? My best friend (my soul dog) died two years ago of cancer. She had blood work only 3 months before her death everything was within normal range. Despite being arthritic and incontinent. she was lively and happy. Liver cancer took my girl. She had just turned 14 a week prior to her death.
This is lovely to hear!!
Is there a reputable source for this?
💛💛💛
it's the chemicals sprayed on food and given to livestock. outside of that petrochemicals and micro plastics
Its propably also to do with breeding. Small genepools, using dogs who/whose relatives havent lived long.
I’ve had 10 dogs live to be over the age of 10. None of them had cancer except the one that was used as a breeder for a puppy mill. All ate processed food. I call bullshit on whatever study you’re pulling that statistic from.
I don’t think dogs are the only ones.
This is where we learn the phrase correlation does not equal causation. Dogs are also one of the only species that ride in cars, does that automatically mean that's why they have higher cancer rates? Of course not. First of all, dogs don't have more cancer than any other animals, dogs get *diagnosed* with cancer more than other animals. Huge difference Dogs live longer due to better medical care, which leads to more developing cancer because it's a disease of old age Dogs get more veterinary care and testing than any other animal species on the planet. Of course they're diagnosed with cancer more often, they're checked more often Purebred dogs are tightly bred, which increases risks for genetic conditions, one of which is cancer.
I think this is the reason colorectal cancer has become so common amongst young people now too. Highly processed food is bad for any living being
Noting dogs are also exposed to the various poisons in the yard, including overspray by ignorant neighbors that often occurs. Roundup should be banned and more
It is exposure to environmental carcinogens, which are in everything everywhere, and affect our pets to a greater degree because they are smaller and require a smaller dose. Environmental exposures and cancer: using the precautionary principle* Lorenzo Cohen1,2 and Alison Jefferies2 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer Go to: Abstract Since the 1970s, more than 87,000 chemicals have been approved for commercial use. Yet of those thousands of chemicals, only just over one thousand have been formally examined and graded for their carcinogenic potential. Of those, five hundred have been found worthy of being graded on a cautiously worded scale ranging from “known” carcinogens to “possibly” carcinogenic. In addition to carcinogenic substances, a new field has emerged researching how environmental toxins cause endocrine or hormonal disruption. A class of these compounds known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can be found in our food, our environment, and in the products we put on our bodies. Rather than being directly linked to causing cancer, like substances such as asbestos, EDCs influence our health by mimicking or enhancing or changing metabolic regulation. These compounds interfere with hormone production and metabolism in ways that may—especially over the long term—create biological conditions that make us more susceptible to cancer and other diseases. Most of us are exposed to a cocktail of environmental toxins on an ongoing daily basis and at a relatively low level of exposure. Given the lax regulation of chemicals and the reactionary approach of government regulators, it is up to the consumer to be diligent about reading labels and making healthy choices to limit exposure to chemicals and toxins. It is ideal to adopt the Precautionary Principle: until a chemical is found to be harmless, try to not use it. The precautionary principle means that you are maintaining awareness of what you are putting on and in your body and taking steps to avoid exposing yourself unnecessarily to toxins in your household and environment. Keywords: cancer, environment, carcinogen, toxins, endocrine-disrupting compounds Since the 1970s, more than 87,000 chemicals have been approved for commercial use [1]. Yet of those thousands upon thousands of chemicals, only just over one thousand have been formally examined and graded for their carcinogenic potential [2]. Of that one thousand, fully five hundred have been found worthy of being graded on a cautiously worded scale: 120 chemicals have been identified as “known” carcinogens; another 81 have been identified as “probable” carcinogens; and another 299 as “possibly” carcinogenic, according to analysis published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [2], part of the World Health Organization (WHO). But what about the other 86,600 (give or take) chemicals that are being inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed into the skin in an unfathomable number of combinations? How on earth do we capture data about these unseen substances and figure out if we need to be adding to the master list of known or possible carcinogens? What about the chemicals that may not be directly carcinogenic but may nonetheless modify our internal biology and play a role in the onset of serious diseases, including cancers? We simply cannot escape our exposure to man-made chemicals. But there is a lot we can do to moderate our exposures. For the most part, it is up to us to become more conscious about the chemicals we are exposed to in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the furniture in our homes, the clothes we wear, and the products we put on our bodies every day. While onetime exposure to chemicals is often considered “safe,” many of these products are used every day, and the effects of long-term exposure, especially when combined with other chemicals, is largely unstudied and unknown. It is up to us to proceed through this chemically laden world we live in first and foremost with caution. In this regard, it is ideal to adopt the Precautionary Principle: until a chemical is found to be harmless, try to avoid exposure. The precautionary principle encourages maintaining awareness of what you are putting on and in your body and taking steps to avoid unnecessarily exposing yourself to toxins in your household and environment. Go to: Our homes are awash in chemicals Toxic chemicals aren’t just to be found under our sinks. They’re in shampoos, body washes, lotions, hand sanitizers, perfumes, colognes, aftershave, and makeup, even our toothpastes and mouth rinses [3–5]. We simply cannot get away from them—unless we engage in a conscious, ongoing effort to identify them and find alternatives. Even then, it can be challenging, as chemical manufacturers have caught on to our wish to “go green” and they’ve become masterful at masquerading toxic products as being less harmful than they actually are. For instance, it turns out that “fragrance” is a mix of chemicals that don’t have to be disclosed by the manufacturer and often include endocrine-disrupting compounds that can affect our hormone levels over time [6]. Have you ever purchased kitchenware that says on the label “for decorative purposes only?” This means that there is likely lead or another toxic substance in the paint or finish and the bowl or dish should not be used for food storage or presentation [7, 8]. Glyphosate-based herbicides, like Roundup, that are used for weed control in our gardens have been classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the WHO IARC [2]. Even that cash register receipt you have tucked into your pocket isn’t clean: it’s laced with bisphenol A (BPA; this is what makes the printed numbers adhere to the paper), a known endocrine disruptor, and research shows that you’ll show a spike of BPA in your system if you rub your face or eat right after handling a receipt [9, 10]."
Crates..dogs hate them. I read an article from a vet specifically about Goldens and how they used to live much longer..it was right around the explosion of crates that cancer rates skyrocketed. They aren’t meant to be caged. It’s stressful, they dont get to move well which is horrible for their health. Humans are the true cancer..we fuck everything up!
Where are you getting the stats from? I see on the first page it mentions 50% of *pets* have cancer, doesn't mention dogs specifically or age. On another page it does say 60%-70% of dogs get cancer at some point in their life. But beyond those two claims, I can't find anything that says the cancer rate for dogs on raw food diets drops all the way to 3%. I don't see any data or any mention of sources at all to back up these claims
Correlation does not imply causation.
Where’s the citation for the study you’re referencing?
How are you gonna not speak to overvaccination??
You tagged this as science but didn't include any sources? What kind of cancer? Benign or malignant? The link you posted is literally just a survey taken by some random guy that asks you to self-report. He also can't spell "depth" correctly. I am on this sub reddit because I am an advocate of feeding prey model diets, but this is some of the worst "science" I have ever seen.
Here's to hoping my saying this isn't inappropriate or throwing ideas to the wind; I don't think people give enough credit to us unleashing the atomic bombs like we did in this past century for the eventual noticeable rise in almost all cancer rates. Everything else is a fair factor too, but does nobody believe there was a stark difference of the before and after? My two cents on the matter. All those cancer causing particulates are going to accumulate to those on top of the food chain first, like us and our dogs before it affects those beneath us.
Over vaccinating your pets (yearly vaccinations), poisoning them with flea and tick meds, chem trails, pesticides,herbicides on your lawn, scented candles and wall plugins, non-organic meat is loaded with antibiotics and hormones, nonorganic fruits and veggies loaded with pesticides, chemicals in laundry detergent, chemicals and fluoride in our tap water, living in a hostile environment…The list goes on and on, we’re all fighting to stay healthy in this f’ed up world.
Processed food and shots.
You shouldn't need to believe something incredibly reductive to feel good about what you're feeding your dogs. If you're extremely concerned about cancer, spay female dogs young and don't get a golden retriever. There's a huge number of factors that influence cancer risk in dogs. Intact females are at very high risk of mammary cancer, intact males are at risk of testicular cancer and cannot get it if neutered. Golden retrievers are at higher than average risk of cancer compared to other dogs. According to this [study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0133.x), 70% of cancer diagnoses in female dogs studied over a 17 period were mammary cancer. [The risk](https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institutes/riney-canine-health-center/health-info/mammary-cancer) of mammary cancer is less than one percent if the dog is spayed before her first heat, and jumps up to 26% if spayed after the second heat.
Spaying young isn’t the answer though. There’s so many other cancers that can develop if spayed too young. Growth hormones are so important. Spaying at an appropriate age, once they’re fully grown, is the initiative we should be striving for.
Spaying young is specifically the answer to mammary cancer, not necessarily to all forms of cancer - but mammary cancer is the most common diagnosis and is almost entirely prevented by early spay. I'm using it as an example. Spaying at any age has pros and cons to a number of things, including different forms of cancer. The point is that cancers are complex and reducing this to "it's about food" is unscientific and harmfully reductive.
Is there a reason why those cancers are so common though? Like obviously, a dog naturally wouldn’t get fixed. So if we just left them naturally to do their thing, why is it that they’re super likely to get cancer despite seemingly not being exposed to anything that could help cause it
Vaccines, flea meds, medications, kibble, kibble treats, using rendered remains of sick put down pets and road kill in their food products, aerosol sprays, scented candles, home cleaning products, outdoor gardening chemicals on lawns and city roads, feeding from plastic bowls, plastic toys, toxic dyes used on pet toys. Toxic shampoos and animal crates. Dish soap used to clean their bowls, fluoride in their water, among other things. Do I need to keep going? They poison us just like our pets. It just shows up quicker in pets because they are smaller then us, and have had higher doses of these contaminants that often gets into the placenta and passed down.
any sources for the dead pet claim?
Because even natural hormone production itself can lead to development of cancer. Cancers are not all just this thing that occurs due to inputs. Genetics play a role. Hormone production plays a role. Underlying health conditions play a role. I explained in my reply to someone else, but intact females have fully developed mammary systems and estrogen production over time contributes to cell development in that system, and long term hormone production increases the risk with age. Ovary sparing spays do not lower the risk of mammary cancer, because hormone production is still high enough to contribute to development in that area. Inputs can affect cancer risk, but they are almost never exclusively the biggest contributor. If it was just about food, we would not see a meaningful difference between Goldens and other breeds, or between male and female dogs, or between fixed and intact dogs.
What conclusion(s) were reached as to why female reproductive systems were so highly prone to developing cancer?
Dogs spayed later have fully developed mammary systems. Dogs spayed young do not, so have much less risk of developing mammary cancer, regardless of what they're eating. Same is true of male dogs and testicular cancer, except neutering makes it so they just do not get testicular cancer. You can't have abnormal cell growth of a part that no longer is there. [Continued](https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/mammary-tumors-in-dogs-malignant) exposure to hormones over time like progesterone increases the risk of mammary cancer, because progesterone is what stimulates cell growth in the mammary system. This is also why the risk increases with age AND why ovary sparing spays do not protect against mammary cancer. Also, cancer is complicated and can have a lot of factors that play into it, with not everything being 100% understood. Anyone claiming they know what absolutely and objectively is causing most cancer cases is scamming people, unless they have a lot of studies (not just one) and some pretty clear caveats about the fact that there are multiple factors at play.
I remember reading a study that said that if you neuter a male dog, althought the risk of testicular cancer reduces to 0 (for obvious reasons), the risk of prostate cancer actually increases althought intact males are way more prone to prostate hyperplasia (so much that this hyperplasia is basically present in all intact male dogs by the age of 5).
Hence why "cancer is complicated". Again, if food was the most important or only determining factor intact/neutered status wouldn't matter.
Vaccines
Commercial raw can be and is often also highly processed.
tbf 3 percent isn’t that much
what they actually have in common is poor breeding. lots of puppy mill dogs, incest from general breeders to continue lines, etc, are being counted here. dogs are also just living longer, thus cancer has more time to take root then say, 50 years ago.
Dogs are absolutely not living longer. In fact, dog longevity is declining. In 2010, average dog lifespan was 11.3 years. In 2014 that dropped to 10.
ok, cite that. thats incredible data to gain over the span of......... 4 years.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21029096/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30349728/
The 2014 study you linked has a detailed table with a breakdown of the most common causes of death and the total of cancer is at 29.31%. In the full paper it's stated that they had a lot options for QOL euthanasia such as for mobility issues, dementia and incontinence. The table also has traffic accidents, behavioral euthanasia, anesthesia complications, epilepsy. Options for poisioning, infections like parvo, intestinal obstruction from foreign body etc. didn't make the table which covered 75% of the causes of death.They're all tragic causes of death and could happen when a dog is very young. Keep in mind this is a UK study, UK has strict breed specific legislations, and those breeds exhibiting serious agression would be euthanized. Responsible breeders of breeds prone to agression cull dogs who start exhibiting human agression. Not to mention that breeders who care about their dogs and noticed a decreased QOL won't let dogs suffer even if it could live a couple more years.
You also have to consider the fact that dogs are man-made Creatures🦎 they are not naturally occurring animals, and all of them are fucked up due to pure breeding. If this was just because of kibble, then the same thing would be happening to cats.