In our opinion, this myth has been perpetuated by McKibble and McCan to discourage pet parents from fooding real food. It is true that few research projects involve real food. However, the “no scientific research” declaration is a standard cop-out claim that has been used to “debunk” raw diets and in the process economise the truth regarding commercial pet food and associated industry. But one must realise that there is no evidence, whatsoever, to prove that kibble or processed foods are good for your fur kids as well! So, let’s make sure you are comfortable with this concept – no long-term research has been done to determine the long-term effects of feeding kibble, nor to determine if it is actually healthy for your dog, as the norm is to just assume it is healthy because it has passed a 6 month feeding trial, after which manufacturers will advertise their product as healthy, nor to determine if raw diets is better or worse than kibble, and so the list continues. Read the Raw Feeding Veterinary Societies position statement, WSAVA Problem 1: The Lack of Documentary Evidence of the Health Benefits of RMBDs (see: Article). Please read the related post(s) to gain more insight into the topic.
As the world changes, and information changes, new ideas are born and raised. Some individuals manage to move forward with the new information, and some not. Keep in mind that research can be fallible, research is sometimes biased, and research has come up with as many “truths” as there are researchers. We just need to be cognizant of our dietary and nutritional guidelines in the last century.
Research, by its very nature, should change as new information becomes available, and “stale” research is often used as the only measure or “stick of truth”, conveniently ignoring ideas that does not fit the “stale” paradigm of reference.