True: The officers of those bodies are well aware of the serious allegations, with the implied need for open discussion and resolution. However, they work to prevent those allegations being communicated to the veterinary community; they seek to stymie debate.

The journals of the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association have steadfastly refused to review the book, Raw Meaty Bones which contains Dr Lonsdale’s views, despite the opportunity that presents for them to state their official position and trash the book.

True: Veterinary associations world-wide are united in attempts to denigrate Dr Lonsdale. The so-called ‘inflammatory comments and remarks’ made by Dr Lonsdale were made by him in the context of a formal complaint to Australian veterinary authorities about widespread malfeasance in the veterinary profession. Rather than investigate Dr Lonsdale’s allegations the veterinary profession sought to silence the whistleblower and thereby compound the malfeasance. Questions were raised in NSW State Parliament about the Australian Veterinary Association ‘kangaroo court’ www.rawmeatybones.com. (Why does the British Veterinary Association seek to associate itself with the workings of a kangaroo court?)

Scaremongering: Dr Lonsdale raises important issues in plain English. Why does the British Veterinary Association attack the man, not the message? Why does the British Veterinary Association retail snide, unsubstantiated accusations?

True: The Today programme on BBC Radio 4 tried to convene an on-air discussion between Dr Lonsdale and the RCVS. As to the alleged reasons for the refusal of the RCVS to participate and the ultimate cancellation of the programme, we cannot be sure. We do know that Dr Lonsdale was fully available but that the planned interview did not go ahead. We question what pressures were brought to bear on the BBC leading to their abandonment of the interview — with or without the RCVS.

Despite the seriousness of the long-running issues, and numerous Australian and New Zealand national television and radio programmes on this subject, the BBC conspicuously fails to inform British viewers and listeners. We believe the information black-out by the BBC needs urgent investigation and correction.

True: The President of the RCVS met with Dr Lonsdale, at Dr Lonsdale’s request, in June 2004. It appears that details of their discussions have been communicated to the BVA and that both the RCVS and BVA use similar stalling tactics. It’s true the veterinary profession needs to continue discussions for the foreseeable future. But action to resolve the issues should not depend on the production of more articles by a lone voice of conscience hidden away in the veterinary press.

Since commencement of the Raw Meaty Bones campaign in 1992 the veterinary profession has had ample time to resolve the matter. That the BVA call for more circular discussion whilst the bodies fall is insulting to pets, pet owners and the wider community.

The remarks of the RCVS and the BVA are also disingenuous and misleading.

Dr Lonsdale has had two landmark papers published in peer reviewed journals. However, he has endured long fruitless battles with the journals to publish other articles. At one point, arising out of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association’s refusal to honour a written agreement to publish an article and the refusal of the RCVS to discipline the BSAVA, Dr Lonsdale appealed to the Patron of the RCVS, Her Majesty the Queen.

Dr Lonsdale’s 389 page book, Raw Meaty Bones, contains a comprehensive, referenced compilation of the scientific, consumer, economic, political and environmental facts. It has been ‘peer reviewed’ by five distinguished veterinary surgeons whose signed comments and reviews can be seen at www.rawmeatybones.com. The BVA, BSAVA and RCVS have steadfastly refused to review the book or alert British veterinarians to the existence of the information.

(As a mark of sincerity the BVA and BSAVA could, at a moment’s notice, publish full-scale reviews and features on Raw Meaty Bones — or otherwise publish full official statements as to why they refuse to review the book.)

Outrageous and false: It’s outrageous that the manufacturers of substances that devastate animal health should ‘sponsor’ lectureships at veterinary schools.

Veterinary schools along with animal welfare bodies, pharmaceutical companies and all aspects of pet animal care and management are enmeshed with the pet food companies. Tribal loyalty locks participants in an embrace with the companies — such that no-one, or almost no-one, is prepared to speak out.

Obfuscation: The companies spend huge amounts of money buying influence at all points in the system. Recipient organizations and individuals, and those hoping to become recipients, do nothing to upset their benefactors. They do, however, obscure unpalatable, commercially damaging material from veterinary students, pet owners and the wider community.

Red herring: Nutrition, so-called, when taught is little more than product marketing for the junk food marketers. But veterinary school focus is more on the ‘clinical’ aspects — the diagnosis and treatment of sick animals. Most veterinary clinical teachers fail to implicate or give due weight to the role of diet in disease. How else can we explain the fact that young veterinarians graduate in almost total ignorance of the prime reasons for illness and disease in companion animals? (See Raw Meaty Bones for details.)

Unlikely: Heads of veterinary schools are in large part accountable for the widespread malfeasance and failure of the ‘educational’ system. It’s not likely they will welcome scrutiny of their performance.

Outrageous: The companies spend £millions and present marketing hype and product development as ‘research’. Governmental bodies, either wittingly or unwittingly, give credence to the deception.

To our knowledge, not one piece of research has been published comparing the health of processed-food-fed as opposed to naturally-fed animals. One high-ranking professor wanted to conduct that relatively simple investigation. He was blocked and had to abandon his attempts.

True: Billions of pounds worth of product and billions of pounds worth of veterinary services are sold to an unsuspecting public on the basis of fabricated evidence.

Misleading or false: The companies and veterinary colleges operate revolving doors. Whilst the BVA confirm the extent to which the veterinary profession is enmeshed, it’s untrue to suggest research performed is ‘independent’. The veterinary colleges are engaged in a conspiracy of silence, ‘living a lie’ and few are prepared to break the silence.

Misleading or false: Whilst the journals are crammed with the output of biased research it is unwise to set much store by the peer-review process that the Editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, labelled: ‘Biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish and frequently wrong.’

Journal peer reviewers don’t sign their reviews; they operate in secrecy, and ‘scientists’, whose papers are reviewed, mostly come from the same pool of pet food company servants.

Absurd: It’s absurd to label the marketing exercises of the companies as ‘the science of small animal nutrition’. Although it’s true to say ‘this combined body of work’ has provided the junk food industry with a stranglehold.

Appalling denial: Even die-hard ‘specialists’ and the companies themselves, acknowledge some aspects of commercial food injure pet health.

It’s a chilling reminder of how the veterinary authorities, without a trace of embarrassment, club together to provide a protective cordon around the junk pet food monster.

Nonsense: Owners have their ‘choices’ limited to no-choice and then are told to form their own opinions. Where does professional responsibility and accountability fit in this equation?

More nonsense: What ‘reputable scientific evidence’ do owners have access to? What readily available information do owners have to hand?

Outrageous: Encouraging owners to pay to injure their pets’ health and then labelling that a ‘convenience’ offends basic concepts of decency and fair play.

False: It’s impossible for commercial pulverized offal and grain based foods to attain the complete and balanced properties of natural food.

Empty rhetoric: Where is the evidence?

True: The British Veterinary Association has stated its position.