Home » Health » Is Pasteurization Process Good For Dogs?
formats

Is Pasteurization Process Good For Dogs?

An interesting scenerio is presented when reviewing the life of Louis Pasteur. In 1867 he established that putrefaction and fermentation were caused by micro-organisms thus providing an impetus to microbiology and leading to his pasteurization process for milk. Of course the advantage to using his methods as a quick fix instead of relying on a safe, sterile handling procedure allowed large cartels to profit from sales of milk. His discovery that most infectious diseases are caused by germs, known as the “germ theory of disease” is one of the most important in medical history. His work became the foundation for the science of microbiology, and a cornerstone of modern medicine. His development of the pasteurization process would present a process by which harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without destroying the food.

In 1995 Pastuer’s family released his notes which ultimately labeled him as a fraud. It was declared that he had lied about his research on vaccines and germs. In the end, just before his death, he declared that the terrain is more important than the germ.The terrain is everything and the germ is nothing. However, since the germ is so profitable, the medical world has written off his final statements as the madness of a dying man. It later was revealed that Pasteur was an ambitious self-promoter. Bernard Bechamp, one of Pasteur’s contemporaries, spent years proving that germs were the consequence of disease and not the cause. Pasteur’s theory was much simpler and highly profitable. It made economic sense. It made money.

Pasteur instructed his family never to release his lab notes. After his grandson died in 1975, they were finally released and made available to the public in 1995.
One final note- Pasteurization does NOT kill ALL harmful microbes in milk and it DOES harm the milk. This is backed up with the exposure of many Salmonella and Campylobacter outbreaks in the 80′s and 90′s. The heat process injures the milk. The pasteurization destroys milk’s intrinsic germicidal properties, not to mention healthy enzymes. Also, 50% of milk’s calcium is unusable after pasteurization. I guess we can’t believe all the milk commercials either.

I have presented this information on pasteurization because recent new products are being brought to the market billed as a fresh dog food that has gone through a pasteurization process. The food is claimed to be pasteurized which is promoted to offer bacterial safety. My suggestion is that a more prudent approach is to feed it raw. Remember- we just learned that the germs are not the cause but the consequence of disease. We need the patrhogens as our janitors that are needed to clean up the decaying tissue. They are the crows and the ants in the body. The controversy regarding the feeding of raw food versus cooked foods is a hot topic because of the current pet food recalls. The interpretation of Pasteur’s germ theory holds the key to the truth. I still say that the proof is in the results. Our testimonials tell the story the best. These provide us with 32 years of proof.

posted by Rob Mueller

Technorati Tags: , ,

Related posts:

  1. Barf Philosophy Like Swimming Up Stream
  2. Bacterial Concerns In Raw Meat
  3. Dog Saturated Vs Unsaturated Fats, A Deadly Comparison
  4. Reduced Eating Portions
  5. Flaxseed For Dogs and Cats
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
13 Comments  comments 

13 Responses

  1. Dear Rob Mueller,
    “we just learned that the germs are not the cause but the consequence of disease”.
    This afirmation is wrong. Germs are the cause of disease, not the consequence.
    Raw pasteurization make a safe protudcts and it’s much better than apertization. Apertization harm the nutritve compounds much more than pasteurization.
    Tchau.

  2. Mr Chau,
    This is a very controversial subject and it depends on who’s theory you believe. If you believe Bechamp’s theory like I do then you are incorrect.Please research this topic more before reaching your conclusion.
    Thanks
    Rob mueller

  3. Your conclusions dont make sense. Sorry!!!

  4. I welcome all responses to my article and am willing to debate my position on this matter. Exactly what conclusion are you finding that doesn’t make sense. Just like many other controversial issues there are always two sides to a story. If you can convince me differently then I will offer a personal apology. Until then I believe my statements are correct.
    Rob Mueller

  5. In response to the title of your article: “Is the Pasteurization Process Good for Dogs?”, my response is a resounding “yes!” Pasteurization offers balance-balance between the numbers of harmful and beneficial bacteria, balance between destruction and maintenance of the foods inherent nutritional benefits and balance between cooking and raw. In the normal intestinal tract, balance between competing microbes is the pinnacle of gastrointestinal health. Why not supply a product balanced according to these principles? Comparing milk and its pasteurization to feeding a raw diet is not a fair comparison because most milk producing cattle have a concentration of abnormal amounts of bacteria in the utter already due to clinical or sub-clinical mastitis and a safe, sterile processing procedure is only part of the battle. Most food products including meat can be or are contaminated with potentially harmful bacteria during processing i.e. coliform bacteria from feces. Germs only cause disease if they overwhelm the ability of the animal to control the germ. Again, we get back to balance. I asume when you say terrain you are talking about the animals’ gut flora. If the flora is out of balance(terrain) , then disease results from minimal insult. If the terrain is healthy, then disease does not occur unless the bacterial load overwhelms the terrain. Raw foods can, even in dogs, overwhelm the terrain. Germs can be both a cause and consequence of disease (see Koch’s postulates.) Pasteurization denotes balance similar to the balance inherent in the GI tract flora.

  6. On anther note, your assetions and conclusions imply that all terrain in each animal is the same or in your case ideal. That is never the case as animals are constantly under a barrage of insults. Why not limit those insults by lessening the initail burden!!!!

  7. Rob
    I feel compeled to reply to your email response!! By the way, I think you have a great product and niche!!! Anyway, you reference “we all have conflicting theories on the imprtance….” Balance is the key to bacterial loads causing disease. Bacteria are important in digestion when in balance and harmony with the other microbes in the digestive tract. Your second statement about the amount of food you have sold without problems is anecdotal. Hills, Purina or really any other mass producer makes this same claim. Your third statement about lawsuit claims is flawed. Most animals with digestive disturbance seek the advice of a veterinarian not the food manufacturer unless the food is manufactured with blatent flaws or malicious intent. Dogs are adaptable and tolerate a wide range of foods even though they may be unhealthy. Another statement “manufactured using human food standards.” Most all meat products are sold with a label stating “cook thoroughly.” This is to protect the consumer from foodborne illness. No human standard recommends raw consumption. I agree with your kibble conclusions. Again, I respect your product and raw feeding however disagree with your stance.

  8. MRichter

    I’ve been following this discussion; it’s very interesting. I’ve been wondering about this- Rob, will you respond and give the raw food response to this debate? I’ve fed my dogs raw diets and they’ve done pretty well.

    • Rob I feel coelepmd to reply to your email response!! By the way, I think you have a great product and niche!!! Anyway, you reference “we all have conflicting theories on the imprtance….” Balance is the key to bacterial loads causing disease. Bacteria are important in digestion when in balance and harmony with the other microbes in the digestive tract. Your second statement about the amount of food you have sold without problems is anecdotal. Hills, Purina or really any other mass producer makes this same claim. Your third statement about lawsuit claims is flawed. Most animals with digestive disturbance seek the advice of a veterinarian not the food manufacturer unless the food is manufactured with blatent flaws or malicious intent. Dogs are adaptable and tolerate a wide range of foods even though they may be unhealthy. Another statement “manufactured using human food standards.” Most all meat products are sold with a label stating “cook thoroughly.” This is to protect the consumer from foodborne illness. No human standard recommends raw consumption. I agree with your kibble conclusions. Again, I respect your product and raw feeding however disagree with your stance.

      • Hi Julio,
        Isn’t it fortunate that we live in a country where we can all express our opinions and not feel guilty. I expressed my views and you obviously have a differing of opinion. That is great and all I can say is as a company we have been fortunate to eliminate any serious problems with our diets regarding bacterial issues or any other issues. I agree with you that the first line of defense is with a veterinarian but if the situation was serious we would be sure to be notified. We have a clean record and the reason I believe it is so good is because of the manufacturing protocol we use to make the diets. We follow the same manufacturing safety policies that are set up for human food products. We use ingredients that equal or exceed human standards for quality. We utilize the very best freezing technologies to safe guard or products. Regarding your comments on cooking the food- our philosophy is to mimic the food mother nature intended and that doesn’t involve cooking the food for the animal. They have been given different mechanisms to handle bacterial laden food. We have estsblished the standard for properly feeding a biologically appropriate food for the pet. I’m glad we agree on the kibble conclusions that I made.
        hope this clarifies my position on these matters.
        Rob Mueller

  9. In order to properly outline my position on this issue I think I must address each statement made by Marc and render an answer based on my theories of raw feeding and nutrition.

    1. ? Balance is the key to bacterial loads causing disease. Bacteria are important in digestion when in balance and harmony with the other microbes in the digestive tract.—

    This is right and in my opinion disrupting the balance by sterilizing the intestinal track is doing more harm than good. I am currently in Mexico and I have to be very careful for what I eat in this country because of the difference from eating pasteurized foods and the sterilization that we do in our digestive systems in the USA. It isn’t fair to compare human nutrition to animal nutrition because the digestion time, enzyme content and stomach pH is different between the two. I believe that trying to disrupt what mother nature has created is to disrupt the natural balance that is needed to retrieve the proper amount of nutrients from the ingredients in the food.

    2. Your second statement about the amount of food you have sold without problems is anecdotal. Hills, Purina or really any other mass producer makes this same claim.—

    The claim I’m referring to is the amount of food that I have personally sold that has been successfully fed to dogs without incidence such as the Menu Foods scare. The standards that we use to make our raw food diets are the same standards used for processing human food. This process is our best way to assure a low level of bacterial overgrowth. It is a safety standard that works effectively without pasteurization or heat processing. for humans it is suggested to cook our meats because over time we have gravitated to this process but our pets have always been equipped to digest and process their food without the luxury of cooking their food. the point is- don’t disrupt the laws of nature.

    3. Your third statement about lawsuit claims is flawed. Most animals with digestive disturbance seek the advice of a veterinarian not the food manufacturer unless the food is manufactured with blatant flaws or malicious intent. Dogs are adaptable and tolerate a wide range of foods even though they may be unhealthy.-

    I disagree with his conclusion about the manufacturer not knowing when there is a problem. in a situation when a bacterial or ingredient issue develops the manufacturer will be keyed in on the problem. When a lawsuit claim is filed it always includes the manufacturer in the claim. Our company is proud of the record we currently have regarding claims and this is due to the stringent standards employed in our manufacturing process.

    4. Dogs are adaptable and tolerate a wide range of foods even though they may be unhealthy.-

    That is a true statement. It is our goal to offer a nutrient of raw foods that will best improve the immune system which creates the best defense mechanism known to man. That is why a dog can consume even the most diverse selection of food items and have very little difficulty digesting the food. It can even digest carrion and that is something the human system cannot do.

    5. Another statement “manufactured using human food standards.? Most all meat products are sold with a label stating “cook thoroughly.? This is to protect the consumer from food-borne illness. No human standard recommends raw consumption.-

    We use human food standards in an attempt to offer the nutrients with the least amount of bacterial load. We are more concerned about how the consumer handles the product than the manufacturing process itself. We offer advice on how to conduct proper food safety and handling procedures when presenting the diet to the animal. Suggesting to cook the diet would be going against what nature has suggested for this species. It is like putting the wrong gas into your car’s gas tank. It may run fine for a while but over time it will disrupt the internal workings of the engine – leading to premature failure and decreased longevity. Again I repeat that cooking the food goes against the laws of nature for this species.

    I’m so glad that you agree with my conclusions about kibble diets. I have seen the results of feeding an appropriate raw food diet to dogs. That is why I am adamant about presenting the diet in the proper presentation – that is raw not cooked. It only takes heating the food to a minimum of 118 degrees F. to destroy the life giving enzymes and phytonutrients in the food. These are the different factors that makes our raw food choice superior to heat processed food.

  10. Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide
    credit and sources back to your website? My blog is in the
    very same area of interest as yours and my users would truly benefit
    from a lot of the information you present here. Please let me know if this alright
    with you. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>