The beginning of the end of free pet food for Vet Students

Veterinary School Application Advising Ad
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
StartingoverVet

StartingoverVet

Flight Instructor for hire
Lifetime Donor
Verified Member
10+ Year Member
Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
24,120
Reaction score
8,865
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B01koKKCtXmgdENiZjhhTEdhZ1k/edit

Hills is ending their free pet food program to comply with AAVMC guidelines. (replaced by a new low-fee program).

The more I see "progress", the less I like it. 😡

<end rant>
Members don't see this ad.
 
Our Hill's rep was like, "Whoah, where did you get that? We're still trying to figure everything out with that. Please don't say anything."

So I'm not saying anything to my class, but it's here on the internets so it's only a matter of time. :lame:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
OSU told us about it a couple of weeks ago.
 
Oregon State already doesn't get free Hill's, because SCAVMA charges for it to help cover fees. It's still like 70% off.

We do have the free Purina University cards though, so I can still get a big bag of Purina delivered to my door step for free once a month.
 
dislike. would have stockpiled food the last two months if i had known this! time to replenish the pile of food in the guest room- 20lb bag lasts the little dog about three months, 40 lb bag lasts the other dog a few months as well
 
Yep, looks like I need to stock up too! No bueno.
 
I'm not thrilled about it, and I'm *really* not thrilled about the haphazard implementations of COI policies at universities. Just one example: We're going to lose our food, but our freshman nutrition class continues to include, for instance, a lab sponsored entirely by Hills.

So which of those is really more influential to us as future doctors? The Hills food that I get a dramatic reduction in price to buy, or the lab where Hills controls exactly what information we're given.

Seems to me they're taking away the easy stuff, but afraid to tackle some of the harder issues (like vet schools receiving significant funding/support from industry partners).
 
Last edited:
Wait!! In vet school your pets are getting free food?
 
wldlfstdnt said:
Wait!! In vet school your pets are getting free food?
Click to expand...

At the moment, both Hills and Purina have free pet food programs. Here at UMN we're like Oregon where SCAVMA 'owns' the Hills program; they charge a significantly reduced price for Hills (over consumer prices) and capture all those proceeds.

So the answer is 'yes' but with some caveats.
 
StartingoverVet said:
My guess is that will be discontinued as well.
Click to expand...

As of right now, Purina has no plans on discontinuing the Purina University cards, or the larger food program for the schools that have those as well. We just talked about it with our region rep when he was here a few weeks ago, because we've been getting questions about it due to the Hills stuff. But yeah, who knows when they will spontaneously change their minds. 🙁
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Gotta love how they start their "we've decided to go back to screwing you over" letter with "we are pleased to announce!" It's as if we won't notice so long as they use more! exclamation! points!!!
 
LetItSnow said:
I'm not thrilled about it, and I'm *really* not thrilled about the haphazard implementations of COI policies at universities. Just one example: We're going to lose our food, but our freshman nutrition class continues to include, for instance, a lab sponsored entirely by Hills.

So which of those is really more influential to us as future doctors? The Hills food that I get a dramatic reduction in price to buy, or the lab where Hills controls exactly what information we're given.

Seems to me they're taking away the easy stuff, but afraid to tackle some of the harder issues (like vet schools receiving significant funding/support from industry partners).
Click to expand...

agree. hills sponsors a ton of labs and talks here. and to be perfectly honest, I haven't been impressed by some of their nutrition talks. lots of contradictory info or just plain wrong material- to the point where I've pretty much stopped attending
 
cowgirla said:
agree. hills sponsors a ton of labs and talks here. and to be perfectly honest, I haven't been impressed by some of their nutrition talks. lots of contradictory info or just plain wrong material- to the point where I've pretty much stopped attending
Click to expand...

I think the problem is the research out there showing how susceptible 'we' (health professionals in general) are to influence from receiving gifts of any value. The research appears to be showing that the value of the gift isn't really relevant; it establishes a relationship that, because of the way we're wired as humans, is susceptible to manipulation. We all like to say that we're not, because we pride ourselves on objectivity. (The irony is that the research is pretty clear; I guess we're not as objective as we like to pretend.)

My gripe is that I think that's one big huge red herring.

Because the fact is, we aren't going to avoid having those relationships. There will be sales folks coming by my clinic regularly to give me free samples, or to buy me and my staff lunch in exchange to listening to their presentation, or .... etc. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of completely isolating yourself from those relationships.

So we ought to be trained to manage the relationships appropriately. We ought to be taught how one engages with the industry in a productive way that minimizes the industry influence over our decisions.

But schools appear to be opting instead to go for the isolationist approach of severing contact between students and industry. If the student can't get free/discount Hills food, that's considered a COI victory.

Brilliant. Now we'll graduate students who are all the more susceptible to influence once they graduate, because they haven't had a chance to get guidance in managing those relationships during their formative academic time.

Part of this is driven by the public perception of vets being in the pocket of industry. ("You push Hills on me because you make money!")

Call me cynical, but I don't think these COI changes at vet schools are going to have even the most minimal of impacts on that perception.
 
The human hospital I worked at stopped all sales lunches (and a sad day it was) and gifts. I only imagine things will move that direction too post-school.
 
Vet students are not sheep. They will not only recommend Hills or Purina because of a free food program during school nor will vets only use an antibiotic just because the rep bought then lunch. Give us some damn credit.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Jamr0ckin said:
Vet students are not sheep. They will not only recommend Hills or Purina because of a free food program during school nor will vets only use an antibiotic just because the rep bought then lunch. Give us some damn credit.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

I agree, but the PERCEPTION by the client is there. That's why I think this is the right move to make.

Though I agree the more prudent action to make would be to find alternate funding for nutrition research/education. It always makes me cringe when I see a study comparing kibble to another less processed diet and see it was sponsored by Hill's or Purina.
 
Jamr0ckin said:
Vet students are not sheep. They will not only recommend Hills or Purina because of a free food program during school nor will vets only use an antibiotic just because the rep bought then lunch. Give us some damn credit.
Click to expand...

What's your response to the (as best I can discern) very legitimate research that contradicts your assertion?

I realize we all want to think we're not easily influenced and that our gut reaction is to say "Pbbbht. No way am I going to recommend a company because they give me free food." But if we're really the objective scientists we claim to me, we need to objectively evaluate the possibility that we might be influenced without our being aware of it. And if that's what the research is showing...... then I think we're hypocritical if we reject the research without having a very good reason to do so.

Vet students aren't sheep, but they are human.
 
When I was moving up for school, my previous vet invited me to do rounds and they were having a lunch and learn with royal canin that day. The royal canin lady asked my vet why his shelves are stocked with science diet (they have some royal canin as well) and he straight up said " I don't know, it's just what you are most exposed to in school and they gave us free food. It wasn't much of a conscious decision I guess."
 
Emiloo4 said:
When I was moving up for school, my previous vet invited me to do rounds and they were having a lunch and learn with royal canin that day. The royal canin lady asked my vet why his shelves are stocked with science diet (they have some royal canin as well) and he straight up said " I don't know, it's just what you are most exposed to in school and they gave us free food. It wasn't much of a conscious decision I guess."
Click to expand...

I think part of it has to do with exposure, too. It's more difficult to stock a little bit of a lot of brands, so vets have to prioritize and limit it to certain brands. It's very easy (and very subconscious) to just go off of the brands you were introduced to/use.

It's also very easy to unconsciously manipulate others' decisions through this, too. People will ask you what kind of brands you use, or assume because you stock the brands that they're good ones. It's a difficult line to draw, as while you guys are not consciously influenced by the marketing, subconsciously it's very easy to drop "hints" about preferences everywhere and while you may not want to be influenced, through your habits and what you stock and even what you do, you will be influencing the lay people that you assist.

A simpler way of putting it is that there is an unconscious bias by people, whether it's a positive or negative bias. People who feed Royal Canine (or whatever) will sometimes think bad of those who feed Hills, or vice versa ("they're paying HOW MUCH for food?!!?"). Veterinarians encounter those biases even as simply as putting different types of food in their stock - "Well, /my/ vet has Science Diet and Hills in their shop, so those must be the best" kind of thing. You may not consciously think about this when you're choosing what to stock, and it may not even be your decision, but somewhere down the line, the influence is happening.

I may not be a vet-student, but unconscious influence/bias is something we study quite a bit in my classes (though I'm tired so I'm not sure how clear I'm coming across).
 
I guess I don't have a response. I don't feed Science Diet because its what my clinic stocked, and they don't stock it because of vet school.

We had drug reps come into our clinic all the time and buy us lunch. We didn't immediately stock every drug they advertised.

I get Purina and Hills food at school for free. But I have my own opinions about which food is better, not based on my free food, a backpack, and a pen.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Odd, we have to pay here. We can get up to 30lbs of either Purina or Hills for $15, but its not free.

And our school is pretty loose with the guidelines.
 
Jamr0ckin said:
I guess I don't have a response. I don't feed Science Diet because its what my clinic stocked, and they don't stock it because of vet school.

We had drug reps come into our clinic all the time and buy us lunch. We didn't immediately stock every drug they advertised.

I get Purina and Hills food at school for free. But I have my own opinions about which food is better, not based on my free food, a backpack, and a pen.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

We're not saying that it happens immediately like that, and who knows, maybe you're an individual that isn't affected by the advertising. But not everyone is immune. The majority of it is subconscious - so maybe you won't go out and stock the drugs right away, but later possibly, when someone is choosing what to re-stock, there might be some bias there.

It's not as overt as you're saying - it's much more subtle and harder to catch that way.
 
bbeventer said:
Odd, we have to pay here. We can get up to 30lbs of either Purina or Hills for $15, but its not free.

And our school is pretty loose with the guidelines.
Click to expand...
Most of the time if that is the case, the companies give the food for free, and the money goes to SCAVMA or the like at your school.
 
nohika said:
We're not saying that it happens immediately like that, and who knows, maybe you're an individual that isn't affected by the advertising. But not everyone is immune. The majority of it is subconscious - so maybe you won't go out and stock the drugs right away, but later possibly, when someone is choosing what to re-stock, there might be some bias there.

It's not as overt as you're saying - it's much more subtle and harder to catch that way.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's the establishment of relationship that they want, because they're playing a long game. They're not looking for the immediate influence over you. You got free food from one company all through school, so when their rep calls a year or two after you're out in practice and you're the person responsible for choosing what foods to stock, you feel a built-in responsibility to take their phone call, whereas some other salesperson you'd just blow off completely and not even talk to. It's little things like that.

But like I said - I think we're better off developing skill at managing those relationships than we are having schools try and pretend it's a good thing to sever any relationship that benefits a student. I think that just leaves the average student that much more unprepared for the post-school world.
 
Meh, I fed Science Diet before starting school and getting it for free so I don't think that the fact that I get it free has influenced me but I can see where it could have an effect on people, especially client perception.

For our dental surgery lab, a company let us borrow all the dental equipment for it and had a sales rep there to "answer any questions" we might have about the equipment. That bothered me. Then the equipment kept breaking so I wan't impressed anyways. I just felt like it was inappropriate to have a sales rep in the actual lab with us.
 
Lissarae06 said:
Meh, I fed Science Diet before starting school and getting it for free so I don't think that the fact that I get it free has influenced me but I can see where it could have an effect on people, especially client perception.

For our dental surgery lab, a company let us borrow all the dental equipment for it and had a sales rep there to "answer any questions" we might have about the equipment. That bothered me. Then the equipment kept breaking so I wan't impressed anyways. I just felt like it was inappropriate to have a sales rep in the actual lab with us.
Click to expand...


I figured he was just there to make sure 1) we didnt trash his stuff and 2) make sure we knew how to work the particulars that might vary from other brands of machines.
He never mentioned sales to us, He was pretty helpful - actually knew what he was doing and how to tell if you had polished/scaled enough on the teeth. We didnt have any trouble with the equipment.
 
LetItSnow said:
What's your response to the (as best I can discern) very legitimate research that contradicts your assertion?

I realize we all want to think we're not easily influenced and that our gut reaction is to say "Pbbbht. No way am I going to recommend a company because they give me free food." But if we're really the objective scientists we claim to me, we need to objectively evaluate the possibility that we might be influenced without our being aware of it. And if that's what the research is showing...... then I think we're hypocritical if we reject the research without having a very good reason to do so.

Vet students aren't sheep, but they are human.
Click to expand...

But just by being exposed to a Hill's product as opposed to another product, you are more likely to select that brand because you are familiar with it. If I've heard of an antibiotic by Bayer, and never heard of one by Merck, I'm more likely to select the Bayer product because I don't know about the Merck one. Smaller food companies that can't afford to promote their products like Hill's and Purina are thus at a disadvantage.
 
I volunteered at a clinic where the vet chose Royal Canin over Science Diet because the company treated them a lot better :/

Realistically, clinics should be choosing food based on how well they are for an animal and, secondly but not as importantly, how much the clinic wants to make in profit.

Then again, I'm one of the rare ones who would chose a different brand if I had pets, even if the school gave me free or discounted food.

Sucks to hear about it though.
 
Trematode said:
I volunteered at a clinic where the vet chose Royal Canin over Science Diet because the company treated them a lot better :/

Realistically, clinics should be choosing food based on how well they are for an animal and, secondly but not as importantly, how much the clinic wants to make in profit.

Then again, I'm one of the rare ones who would chose a different brand if I had pets, even if the school gave me free or discounted food.

Sucks to hear about it though.
Click to expand...

Profit margins on pet food are terrible - most clinics offer them as a convenience to their clients, not as a money maker.

I don't have any problem with a vet who chooses one company over the other because the company treats them better, if both companies can offer a similar quality of product that is scientifically proven to work. Isn't that basic customer service 101? If I were to be in SA (which I won't, never fear...but the same applies to any sourcing company) and I have a company that I'm spending a lot of money on and they don't respond to phone calls or mess up my orders, then damn straight I'll change to the company that shows they appreciate my business.

Davis has had these restrictions in place for 2 years already. We now pay a yearly fee to SCAVMA for the food. We're not allowed any of the free stuff most other schools have. Welcome to the future and enjoy your free heartgard, frontline, backpacks, etc while it lasts because you'll lose those next!
 
quantized said:
I don't have any problem with a vet who chooses one company over the other because the company treats them better, if both companies can offer a similar quality of product that is scientifically proven to work. Isn't that basic customer service 101? If I were to be in SA (which I won't, never fear...but the same applies to any sourcing company) and I have a company that I'm spending a lot of money on and they don't respond to phone calls or mess up my orders, then damn straight I'll change to the company that shows they appreciate my business.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Sure, "in theory" you should be offering "the best for the animals" but honestly, most premium pet food is essentially the same - its all founded on the same scientific principles - however it becomes really difficult to stock some foods without company support. One clinic I worked at swapped from hills to royal canin PURELY for that reason - we went a year without a rep and it was becoming nearly impossible for us to get company support - information on new foods, information on the current foods, measuring cups, food returns etc. It was actually making our lives more stressful to stock the food, so of course we are going to switch.
 
CanadianGolden said:
But just by being exposed to a Hill's product as opposed to another product, you are more likely to select that brand because you are familiar with it. If I've heard of an antibiotic by Bayer, and never heard of one by Merck, I'm more likely to select the Bayer product because I don't know about the Merck one. Smaller food companies that can't afford to promote their products like Hill's and Purina are thus at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

I've seen PLENTY of promotion from the "smaller" companies (who are often a part of a large conglomerate that also owns many other pet food companies) in the form of TV ads, in store promotion, magazine ads, etc etc but for they have never been as willing to work with veterinarians/students with education about their product as Hill's, Purina, RC, Iams etc...If another company came to my school and gave a lecture, for example, I would for sure go and be eager to learn. In the end I'm going to recommend what food I know the most about (which often goes hand in hand with what I got discounts on during school) because I can explain to clients exactly why I'm recommending that food. I certainly do not have time, and don't think many other vets/students do either, to go out and search through all the BS crap on the internet to try to do my own research on what pet foods are best. If Blue Buffalo/Wellness/momandpop allnaturalorganicholistic pet food company want me to recommend their food then I welcome them to come tell me why!
 
krist said:
I've seen PLENTY of promotion from the "smaller" companies (who are often a part of a large conglomerate that also owns many other pet food companies) in the form of TV ads, in store promotion, magazine ads, etc etc but for they have never been as willing to work with veterinarians/students with education about their product as Hill's, Purina, RC, Iams etc...If another company came to my school and gave a lecture, for example, I would for sure go and be eager to learn. In the end I'm going to recommend what food I know the most about (which often goes hand in hand with what I got discounts on during school) because I can explain to clients exactly why I'm recommending that food. I certainly do not have time, and don't think many other vets/students do either, to go out and search through all the BS crap on the internet to try to do my own research on what pet foods are best. If Blue Buffalo/Wellness/momandpop allnaturalorganicholistic pet food company want me to recommend their food then I welcome them to come tell me why!
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. You know about Hills or Purina etc so you recommend it. Personally, what I learned about those products generally makes me not recommend them. If I am not familiar with a brand, I can look up the ingredients or call the company to ask questions that will help me determine whether the food is a good fit for a patient. Or I can ask the client to call and get that information. The last time I tried to contact Hill's with an ingredient question, I got no response and gave up after multiple attempts. Doesn't make me want to recommend that product. However, what if there's a great food that would be perfect for 20% of patients with condition X (for example) but the company never came to the school so instead I promote Hills for condition X because it's the only food for condition X that I have learned about. That's not good for my patient--better for me to go research foods for condition X, learn about the possibilities, and pick one based on that. And yes, looking up foods to treat or manage a condition is part of treatment. It's not unreasonable to ask a vet to be familiar with foods available, or look them up on request.
 
CanadianGolden said:
But just by being exposed to a Hill's product as opposed to another product, you are more likely to select that brand because you are familiar with it. If I've heard of an antibiotic by Bayer, and never heard of one by Merck, I'm more likely to select the Bayer product because I don't know about the Merck one. Smaller food companies that can't afford to promote their products like Hill's and Purina are thus at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

If these companies can't afford to educate the veterinary community about therapeutic diets, do these companies have the resources to put in to research and develop optimal diets for medical conditions that are highly responsive to diet?

CanadianGolden said:
Exactly my point. You know about Hills or Purina etc so you recommend it. Personally, what I learned about those products generally makes me not recommend them. If I am not familiar with a brand, I can look up the ingredients or call the company to ask questions that will help me determine whether the food is a good fit for a patient. Or I can ask the client to call and get that information. The last time I tried to contact Hill's with an ingredient question, I got no response and gave up after multiple attempts. Doesn't make me want to recommend that product. However, what if there's a great food that would be perfect for 20% of patients with condition X (for example) but the company never came to the school so instead I promote Hills for condition X because it's the only food for condition X that I have learned about. That's not good for my patient--better for me to go research foods for condition X, learn about the possibilities, and pick one based on that. And yes, looking up foods to treat or manage a condition is part of treatment. It's not unreasonable to ask a vet to be familiar with foods available, or look them up on request.
Click to expand...

So what companies have you had good rapport with? Who has actually given you nutritionally important information other than taglines like "grain-free, all natural, etc...? Where did they get their information? Do they have a veterinary nutritionist on staff? Can we trust their quality control, why? Where are they on AAFCO testing (yes, I do understand the limitations of this system, but it's something)? I'm not trying to attack you or be sarcastic or anything. I'd just like to know which small companies you trust and why.

Ok, so let's pretend we don't get free food from Hills/Purina, and don't know about their products. And let's take away Royal Canin too. What diet would you feel comfortable feeding to a CKD cat? What diet would you feel comfortable feeding to a food allergy animal? I ask about vet therapeutic diets because that's what we're most likely to stock in our practices.

I'd honestly really like to know what alternatives there are to the BIG 3 companies that make vet therapeutic diets that we could trust. For something like hypoallergenic diets, my understanding is that it really does take a pretty sizable company to be able to dedicate machinery/manufacturing process to certain ingredients and not allow contamination.
 
Minnerbelle said:
If these companies can't afford to educate the veterinary community about therapeutic diets, do these companies have the resources to put in to research and develop optimal diets for medical conditions that are highly responsive to diet?



So what companies have you had good rapport with? Who has actually given you nutritionally important information other than taglines like "grain-free, all natural, etc...? Where did they get their information? Do they have a veterinary nutritionist on staff? Can we trust their quality control, why? Where are they on AAFCO testing (yes, I do understand the limitations of this system, but it's something)? I'm not trying to attack you or be sarcastic or anything. I'd just like to know which small companies you trust and why.

Ok, so let's pretend we don't get free food from Hills/Purina, and don't know about their products. And let's take away Royal Canin too. What diet would you feel comfortable feeding to a CKD cat? What diet would you feel comfortable feeding to a food allergy animal? I ask about vet therapeutic diets because that's what we're most likely to stock in our practices.

I'd honestly really like to know what alternatives there are to the BIG 3 companies that make vet therapeutic diets that we could trust. For something like hypoallergenic diets, my understanding is that it really does take a pretty sizable company to be able to dedicate machinery/manufacturing process to certain ingredients and not allow contamination.
Click to expand...

Those are my same thoughts, basically. These smaller companies can't dedicate resources to research and development. In turn, they are more likely to have formulation errors and cause health problems.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
What are everyone's thoughts on the various food recalls over the past few years? I've seen recalls for food from the "Big Companies" - yet we should trust these companies because they have more money to spend to reduce these errors?

As for the free pet food during vet school, anecdotal evidence aside, these companies don't provide free pet food because they love vet students. They provide free pet food because they have seen a positive effect on business from this program. Hills, Purina, Royal Canin, etc. are businesses. As subsidiaries of publicly traded companies, their priority is to make money for shareholders and they're going to spend money on programs that generate revenue for themselves. Whether that revenue comes from more practices carrying their brands of food, or veterinarians recommending their brand for non-prescription diets, these free food programs obviously have a long-term effect. If they didn't, there would be no free (or reduced cost) food programs for vet students.
 
Last edited:
nyanko said:
So are Natura, Merrick, Blue Buffalo, Solid Gold, Canidae, etc. So what?
Click to expand...

That was said in the context of providing free food for vet students. My argument is not that all pet food companies aren't businesses, but as far as I know, Natura, Merrick, Blue Buffalo, Solid Gold, Canidae, etc. do not participate in free/low cost food programs for vet students.
 
felinelvr44 said:
That was said in the context of providing free food for vet students. My argument is not that all pet food companies aren't businesses, but as far as I know, Natura, Merrick, Blue Buffalo, Solid Gold, Canidae, etc. do not participate in free/low cost food programs for vet students.
Click to expand...

well why not, if it's so effective?

(Natura has a history of participation in some of these before)
 
nyanko said:
well why not, if it's so effective?

(Natura has a history of participation in some of these before)
Click to expand...

I have no idea. That is not my argument.

What I said in my post above is that food is provided for free or at low cost by these companies for a reason. We can sit at our computers and argue that we won't be swayed to choose one brand over another just because we get free food, but the reality is that these companies are getting a return on this investment.
 
felinelvr44 said:
I have no idea. That is not my argument.

What I said in my post above is that food is provided for free or at low cost by these companies for a reason. We can sit at our computers and argue that we won't be swayed to choose one brand over another just because we get free food, but the reality is that these companies are getting a return on this investment.
Click to expand...
Your argument is that because the program is effective there is something inherently bad about it. That is completely flawed.

We should villify a company for making money with a strategy.

They have found an effective means to educate and persuade vets to use their products. I find nothing wrong with that, and have seen no evidence that companies that don't do so have superior products. Too many people equate profits with nefarious motives. That is not necessarily true nor false.

Advertising is used to educate as well as persuade (KNOW - WANT -DO in case you ever took a marketing course). There are plenty of products we use the ones we know best because there is no compelling evidence otherwise.

Should I stop using ethicon sutures because they provided us with free stuff?

And I got a free pen from Sharpie. Surely I shouldn't use sharpie markers anymore.

Your argument assumes those effective strategies are an indictment of a company's products. It is an irrelevant factor.

Might I be persuaded. Yeah. Is there a harm occurring? I don't see it, and if it is, it is awfully nebulous to figure.
 
felinelvr44 said:
What are everyone's thoughts on the various food recalls over the past few years? I've seen recalls for food from the "Big Companies" - yet we should trust these companies because they have more money to spend to reduce these errors?

As for the free pet food during vet school, anecdotal evidence aside, these companies don't provide free pet food because they love vet students. They provide free pet food because they have seen a positive effect on business from this program. Hills, Purina, Royal Canin, etc. are businesses. As subsidiaries of publicly traded companies, their priority is to make money for shareholders and they're going to spend money on programs that generate revenue for themselves. Whether that revenue comes from more practices carrying their brands of food, or veterinarians recommending their brand for non-prescription diets, these free food programs obviously have a long-term effect. If they didn't, there would be no free (or reduced cost) food programs for vet students.
Click to expand...

Sure, it might have some effect. What has more effect for the majority of vet students, in my opinion, is companies having veterinary nutritionists on staff formulating their diets and independant research validating the formulations of their diets. If you can show me research that shows me your diet works, im going to use it. Simple.

Also I honestly believe that salmonella contamination (the problems that a few companies faced) can happen to ANY food processing plant. I would be significantly more concerned about contamination in a smaller company, as they might not have the financial ability to deal with it sufficiently, leading to further contaminations (ie, im pretty sure one company actually built a new factory due to the resiliance of salmonella).

And FWIW, many of these companies are scaling back their student feeding efforts because they feel it has a neglegible effect on students. We havent had solid student feeding programs in Aus for years - here at murdoch, you have access to discount pet food for one year from both RC and Hills. Thats it - and the reasoning behind it is because the companies dont feel they see a significant return on their investment and in times of financial belt-tightening, it provided the least benefit to them.
 
felinelvr44 said:
What are everyone's thoughts on the various food recalls over the past few years? I've seen recalls for food from the "Big Companies" - yet we should trust these companies because they have more money to spend to reduce these errors?

As for the free pet food during vet school, anecdotal evidence aside, these companies don't provide free pet food because they love vet students. They provide free pet food because they have seen a positive effect on business from this program. Hills, Purina, Royal Canin, etc. are businesses. As subsidiaries of publicly traded companies, their priority is to make money for shareholders and they're going to spend money on programs that generate revenue for themselves. Whether that revenue comes from more practices carrying their brands of food, or veterinarians recommending their brand for non-prescription diets, these free food programs obviously have a long-term effect. If they didn't, there would be no free (or reduced cost) food programs for vet students.
Click to expand...

Two quick comments on these topics.

1) The recalls don't make me think less of a company. If you look at the percentage of product distributed versus the percentage recalled (or better yet, the percentage that actually has a problem) ... I feel pretty good about it.

2) As you can see from my other comments, I'm still waiting for any one of the "Bah - I'm not impacted by this stuff" people to give me a solid, evidence-based refutation of the studies showing we ARE impacted by the freebies.... so don't take this comment the wrong way.... but it's entirely possible that even the big companies aren't sure their 'investment' is paying off. It's entirely possible they're just gambling, or they intuitively believe it will pay off, or simply doing it because hey, the other company is doing it. I've worked in fairly major decision-making positions in massive companies in the business world - not all (or perhaps even most) business decisions are based on good evidence or business sense. Anyway - point is, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that that they've seen a positive effect. I'll say the same thing to you I've said to the people insisting that they're above being influenced: show me the evidence.
 
Last edited:
We currently pay $15 for a 30-40lb bag. Got an email yesterday that it's going up in January 😡
Guess I won't be stocking my shelves with Science Diet in 4 years :whistle:
 
Ours isn't free right now anyway. It's cheap, but the money goes to SCAVMA. I guess it makes sense, but it does suck. I'm going to stock up as much as I can on food for now because really, I've got a tiny dog and I'd rather not pay a whole lot more. If it goes up too much, I'll go back to what she was on before because it worked a little better for her than what she's on now anyway.
 
So It's been a few months since I have poked around here, but I will state with a fair degree of confidence that these feeding programs will not affect what products I recommend in my future practice. While I don't have a double blinded study showing that I am not going to be biased towards supporting these companies, I really doubt I have much of an opportunity to plug Purina dog food in a bovine practice. I don't even feed it myself during the summer when I can't get if free, my dog switches foods fine so I get something a little more economical in the summer. There are some companies I support more strongly after they feed me lunch and put on a wet lab, but that is more related to the fact that they have made me more familiar with their product and underlying research. I will often ask a couple vets in the field or school clinicians about it to get some other opinions, but it is nice to be educated on products as long as you know how to evaluate their studies and what questions to ask. There have definitely been some presentations where I walked away with a much poorer view of the product than I came with, and it happens more often than you would think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
SDN Article: Ask the Professional: University of Illinois Vet Med Master of Veterinary Science Program
Replies
2
Views
646
OPE Illinois CVM
O
BigBang1234
International Students for Vet School
Replies
23
Views
2K
Minnerbelle
Minnerbelle
Cowsrcool
Current Vets and Vet students: WWYD?
2
Replies
72
Views
5K
indysadventures
indysadventures
YellowYolk413
Help Determine Pet Sitting Rate
Replies
7
Views
636
sydneyandreano
S
nimblechicken
University of Wisconsin or Penn Vet??
Replies
2
Views
648
thesunshinefuturedogtor
thesunshinefuturedogtor
Top