Feed for




Contact Us







Smoke & Mirrors


Campaign Diary

FOI Enquiries

Pet Food Debate (AVS)

F.O.I Enquiries

Freedom of Information Act  
The information below was obtained under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000  

The FOI Act allows organisations to withhold certain exempt information and of course it's a 'cat and mouse game' such that the information below is only a partial snapshot of the junk pet-food industry/veterinary profession manoeuvring. Some people refer to the 'Freedom From Information Act'.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons  
We asked the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) to provide us with some documents from their files.

The RCVS is the regulator (‘police’) responsible for ensuring the honesty and integrity of the more than 20,000 UK registered vets. See here how the ‘veterinary police’ collude with the PFMA, BVA and DEFRA in their efforts to repel and discredit the raw diet claims.  
RCVS News  
See how they twist and turn as they perfect their spin — and shift the responsibility onto individual vets. Friend of the junk pet-food industry and RCVS Past President Professor Halliwell recommends:

‘Following detailed perusal of the extensive correspondance [sic], and discussion at a number of meetings, the College has concluded that the concerns expressed [by UKRMB] are without substance (or maybe “are without validity”).’ RCVS News

RCVS - Early Day Motion 335, December 2004  
The RCVS prefers to ‘sit tight’ and not make any public statement. However they prepare and keep a statement in reserve — a statement that makes matters much worse. The RCVS add their superior weight to the false and misleading ‘active endorsement and promotion of processed pet foods by vets’. EDM 335 Correspondence  
RCVS - Early Day Motion 1003, November 2005  
EDM 1003 calls for ‘a wide ranging inquiry into that [UKRMB] group's serious concerns relating to human and pet health, the economy and the environment’.  
See how the RCVS, DEFRA, BVA and PFMA manufacture their false and misleading statements.  
EDM 1003 Correspondence  
RCVS - Snippets on RCVS stance on false advertising  
See how Sainsbury’s Supermarket chain incurs the wrath of the regulators for making allegedly misleading or false claims.  
The RCVS Legal Department and Hill’s Legal Department appear to be on close and friendly terms.  
Sainsbury's Correspondence  
Some organisations, e.g. RCVS, have clarified the information they will be obliged to disclose on request -  
RCVS News (see page 3 link).  
It is worth noting that information withheld can be as informative as that which is disclosed.  


University of London  
The Royal Veterinary College demonstrate their reluctance to impart information which should be freely available. Royal Veterinary College Correspondence  
Edinburgh Veterinary School  
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies The University of Edinburgh correspondence with Pet Food Manufacturers  
This set of correspondence, disclosed in a reply to an FOI enquiry, illustrates how closely pet food manufacturers and veterinary schools are enmeshed. Edinburgh Veterinary School Correspondence  
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies The University of Edinburgh  
Self explanatory reply to a Freedom of Information Act enquiry.  
Edinburgh Veterinary School (Royal Dick) Correspondence  
Bristol University Vet School  
FOI enquiries demonstrate the extensive and appalling involvement of the school with junk pet-food companies -- check out the recommended reading list of 'nutrition' books written by junk pet-food employees.  
Bristol University Vet School Correspondence  
When asked to comment on the likely costs of a comparison feeding trial for cats Professor PWC Read, Senior School Administrator wrote:  

“I have discussed at some length with my colleagues the possibility of conducting research into whether pet food is causing various illnesses in cats. We feel that to conduct a meaningful trial, it would have to be nationally based epidemiological study over the life-span of tens of thousands of cats. This would be an enormous study and would probably cost in the region of £5 million.”


See how pet food companies buy influence, silence and the development of so-called peer reviewed evidence.  
Bristol. Correspondence  
Cambridge. Correspondence  
Edinburgh. Correspondence  
Liverpool. Correspondence  
Unless otherwise stated, all information, articles, reports, photos and images on this web site are the copyright of UKRMB. Permission to reproduce anything from this web site must be obtained from info@ukrmb.co.uk.