C4D,
The blogger I linked to is a veterinary infectious disease expert, and he discusses specific scientific evidence in the post I linked to, so this is not merely opinion but opinion informed by evidence and relevant expertise. The second link was not about raw diets because, as I tried to make clear in my post, I was not making a broad claim about raw diets but only responding to the specific comment that dogs were not susceptible to Salmonella infection or associated illness, a false claim that is often used to deny any potential risk to feeding raw meat. Again, I try to be specific and focused in these discussions since otherwise people waste energy arguing past one another.
The evidence is clear that infectious disease is a risk from any type of diet, that it is a greater risk from uncooked foods than cooked foods, and that it is a greater risk for people with potential immune system vulnerabilities (very young, very old, pregnant, ill, on immunosuppressive medications, etc.). This evidence needs to be considered when making choices about feeding raw. If evidence emerges that there are significant health benefits to doing so, then such risks may be worth taking and, as you suggest, it is appropriate to minimize them as best we can. If, however, there are no benefits to feeding raw compared with cooked homemade or commercial diets, then why take the risk at all? I’m still waiting for controlled studies looking at the relative merits of different feeding strategies because I don’t think the existing evidence is at all definitive.
Until that evidence is available, of course, we all need to make feeding decisions, and some may choose raw on the basis of the theoretical arguments or indirect evidence. That’s fine, and I’m not here to dissuade anybody.
What is problematic is when people make definitive claims that are supported by personal belief or anecdotes rather than real evidence. If you say your pets are healthy on a raw diet, that’s a perfectly fair observation. My pets are healthy on commercial diets, and neither experience says anything generalizable about raw vs. commercial foods. If, however, people claim raw must be healthier because of their personal experiences with it or because of the dubious theoretical arguments put forward for it, that’s not a legitimate claim. And if people claim all sorts of dire health problems caused by commercial diets, again those aren’t legitimate claims either without appropriate scientific evidence to support them.
