Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

cancer/diet poll

tiOurs
February 28th, 2008, 06:57 AM
Please answer what type of food you've been feeding mostly for the year or more before your pet got cancer, or now if they haven't developed cancer. Thanks!

want4rain
February 28th, 2008, 08:32 AM
im not sure if we count though.... Mister isnt even 2 yet. :)

-ashley

tiOurs
February 28th, 2008, 10:12 PM
hopefully enough folks will vote that age won't matter so much.

good night!


:sleepy:

pbpatti
February 28th, 2008, 10:16 PM
Sasha is 3 1/2 I have been feeding her kibble, Eagle Pack Holistic and now give her Origen. I had a Sibe who was 13 yrs old that died of cancer over 10 yrs ago, we fed her kibble. pbp

Stacer
February 28th, 2008, 10:28 PM
My kitties are only 2.5 yrs old so I voted based on my old cats who've died.
Speck my lovely old lady (13 yrs old) died of cancer, she ate Purina kibble her entire life (before I came here an got some education on foods)

Stupid (9 yrs old) died from diabetes, likely a result of eating Purina his entire life as well. Unfortunately we didn't have the resources of this site available to us to help him live a longer life. We didn't even know that cats could get diabetes.

They both passed several years ago. Since then I've got 2 beauties that I'm making up for all that was lacking with my first 2. I feel a great deal of guilt that I didn't know how horrible the food was that we were feeding them. They'd definitely still be alive today.

CyberKitten
February 28th, 2008, 11:17 PM
With all due respect, would it not be better to do a research study concurrently to discover what are the best foods for the best cancers. Cancer is not one illness. It is literally hundreds and I know I treat pediatric cancer so even there, I feel my knowledge is limited. Yes, I understand breast cancer and certain adult leukemias that I rarely see but would never presume to consider myself able to discuss them or know what food to treat a human or a person based on an unsampled poll. I know it will be interesting to see - and sad that we have people who have pets with cancer - but one has to even recall that cats with cancer do well on some foods, fogs on others. Even the kind of narcotics and anti-neoplastic meds used are vastly different depending on the type of cancer. So you almost need a poll for each type f cancer. Your poll might be better - if you want at least some kind of helpful info from it- if you ask using the exact type of cancer. It seems from my own reading of vet cancer journals ans studies- that cats and dogs and bunnies tend to develop certain types of cancers more than others. In the same way that I treat and do research on more acute leukemia and certain types of Hodgkin's Diseases and aplastic anemias among children rather than adults, certain species of cats and dogs and bunnies- not to mention all the other species - have extremely different and unique types of cancers specific to their breed and that type of cancer may be best helped by certain kinds of diets.

So while I have seen so many animals with cancer and help moderate a group on the subject, I welcome your topic but would advise you to perhaps ask it in a manner that would give you answers that would be truly helpful to your pet. (I am assuming you have a pet with cancer?) I know my Siamese cats even would do better on certain diets and chemical protocols than even my Sphynx Girls - according to am esoteric study I discovered recently.

It so often depends not just on the type of cancer - and again, so many people think of cancer and think it's like one illness. The problem is cancer is not one illness and one type can be as diverse as arthritis is from emphysema. So your query is a complicated one indeed and a research project I don't envy you. Of course, if you know the type of cancer, that will make it easier. Have you done a literature review- that may assist you in seeing what has worked.
I consulted a vet nutritionist when I designed my cats' diets I(I changed all my feline diets after the recent scare and now make their food myself but it was slow going, had to be introduced at a snail's pace not to upset their ever so queasy stomachs- much more so than most dogs tho less so than rabbits.) That way, you might get a better result - and something that will help ypuir pet. Have you asked the people on the carious forums for pets with cancer? Obviously, pets with cancers of the digestive tract have special needs but even pets who are ill from the chemo - tho cats do better than humans thankfully - have many options now available to them. There are days I wish I was a vet - it would I think make mine and more importantly, my patients' life easier. that made to be humerous book - the name of which I forget but my office manager says she plans to buy it and I have been searching 9There is one about dogs too if anyone know of what book I am talking about - 15 something for cats??). The author - looking at the US med system tho - says how friendly the receptionists are, that the patients get gifts tho I do think it sounds like my office too. We give away lollipops and tootsie pops and other alternatives and our receptionist is excellent with the kids and we have a ton of toys 9I go to every toy sale) and all my patients are so shocked when they have to leave and go to an "adult" practice that they return and want to come back. The transition is tough. But I digress and I apologize, sigh! I am sorry your cat (dog?) is ill and wish you the best in finding the best oncologist, center, treatment, diet and other specialists you will need. Good luck!!

Obvious;ly, for me, it is impossible to reply to your question since I wold have to look up in my vet journals and books, do my research and have 200 plus answers for you. I sometimes wish cancer was one disease - it would surely make my work easier but the fact is it is anything BUT!!! (sigh!!).

Good luck in your endeavour!! And especially in caring for your beloved pet!! Have you checked out Punkie Louise's site? I think diet was important in her treatment iof cancer - and if I recall, it might have been lymphoma but I am uncertain. It's late and I am exhausted.

CyberKitten
February 28th, 2008, 11:21 PM
I forgot to add that cats are also severely affected if the cancer affects areas that impair their sense of smell which they need in order to eat. Like say throat cancer or cancer of the tonsils (I have 4 patients with that currently , usually have no more than 25-30 in a year so that is a little unusual) - which radiation or chemo often affect their ability to smell or the way they taste food (the same is true in humans)- sometimes it is the treatment, sometimes the illness. So again, the type of cancer is an exceedingly significant variable for the info you need.

Again, my best wishes ad thoughts are with you!!!

tiOurs
February 29th, 2008, 06:15 AM
Cyberkitten,

I didn't read your email, I spent too much time listening to you whine about raw rabbit. Take it elsewhere.

tiOurs
February 29th, 2008, 07:26 AM
sorry for the snark, CyberKitten.

there are always ways to slice and dice statistical setups to gain (and possibly lose) more specific information. However if enough people vote on this very general poll it's possible some useful trends could be detected.


:grouphug:

Love4himies
February 29th, 2008, 08:42 AM
Cyberkitten,

I didn't read your email, I spent too much time listening to you whine about raw rabbit. Take it elsewhere.


Ummm I think Cyberkitten is well experienced and extremely well educated in this area to be able to express her opinion... stay tuned, you will find out.

Love4himies
February 29th, 2008, 08:48 AM
Snowball passed away from cancer. Think it started in his kidneys, then moved to his sinuses. Once it moved there, he couldn't smell and stopped eating :sad:.

He was eating a combination of canned, kibble, and raw. The canned and kibble were not good quality and I wonder to this day had I discovered this site earlier and changed his canned and kibble (had BHA) if he would have lived longer.

jiorji
February 29th, 2008, 09:14 AM
i think you're looking for proof that raw is better for avoiding cancer. I'm neither pro nor con raw, but I think that food isn't the only thing that causes these things. Sometimes there just really is NO cause. And I think that you also need to take into consideration the environment you're in. For example I think that clean air as opposed to city smug is also helpful and i wouldn't be surprised if animals in the city tend to get sick more.

But i feed my cats kibble and they're healthy, yet young.

I think you should think about it this way: it doesn't matter if a pet dies off to cancer... what matters is that they had a full life, so go out there and give your dog as much entertainment as you can :thumbs up and feed raw if you wish, if you think it helps, but if it doesn't..you know...that's how nature works. You can't control it all :)

onster
February 29th, 2008, 10:53 AM
My cats alll my life have been fed kibble and never cancer...tho my last cat Ty developed a noncancerous tumour.

It would be reallly hard to draw conclusions, cuz the majority of ppl still feed kibble so their pets having cancer wouldnt necess. be a reflection of food....that is of course unless u get a large number of raw feeders (for a long time..say pets lifetime) that vote as well...

want4rain
February 29th, 2008, 11:35 AM
Cyberkitten,

I didn't read your email, I spent too much time listening to you whine about raw rabbit. Take it elsewhere.

aww come on now, Cyberkitten might be sensitive, self absorbed at times and long winded but she has a great deal of experience, a big heart and very little time to dedicate on here but she does anyway. more often than not she has a great deal of knowledge to impart.

-ashley

Frenchy
February 29th, 2008, 11:43 AM
Cyberkitten,

I didn't read your email, I spent too much time listening to you whine about raw rabbit. Take it elsewhere.

Newbie already disrespecting members ... this is not how it works here hun , if you don't like it , look for another forum.

MerlinsHope
February 29th, 2008, 05:22 PM
So while I have seen so many animals with cancer and help moderate a group on the subject, I welcome your topic but would advise you to perhaps ask it in a manner that would give you answers that would be truly helpful to your pet. (I am assuming you have a pet with cancer?) I know my Siamese cats even would do better on certain diets and chemical protocols than even my Sphynx Girls - according to am esoteric study I discovered recently.

Cyberkitten, have you collected information, or are you able to say, if the incidents of cancer is higher in one group than in the other, ie: dogs versus cats?

I am of the impression that right now cats suffer less from cancer than dogs do.
I'm not really sure why, but it seems to me to be the case.
Thanks
Merlin

Smiley14
February 29th, 2008, 05:34 PM
Cyberkitten,

I didn't read your email, I spent too much time listening to you whine about raw rabbit. Take it elsewhere.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I voted, but now I wish I hadn't. That was very rude.

Smiley14
February 29th, 2008, 05:44 PM
sorry for the snark, CyberKitten.

there are always ways to slice and dice statistical setups to gain (and possibly lose) more specific information. However if enough people vote on this very general poll it's possible some useful trends could be detected.


:grouphug:

Glad to see you apologized at least. That was completely uncalled for and not a good way to introduce yourself to a new forum.

It's an interesting poll, but there are a finite number of factors being broadly excluded from this that make it anything but accurate. :shrug:

CyberKitten
February 29th, 2008, 06:41 PM
Oh my... just a little uhm.... shocked and hurt by that comment. I won't belabour the life of my beloved rabbit who I invested (in more ways than one) as much time as you are in trying to help your dog so I would think you could undersatand that at least - that I would suggest we have in common. And sorry to digress- it is just that you mentioned him again and that always still makes me sad but this is a bad time in my life- tho I see yours is no picnic.

That said, I see no point in judging others even if they judge me or others before they even know me (I have never understood that nor will I ever and if I ever do it, someone pls remind me, lol)

So, Apology accepted.And yes, I am sensitive (and oh dear, worried if I am self absorbed since it is not my fav characteristic in ppl so I'll try not to talk about my work or myself but I did not think I talked more about myself than others did want to know, none of us is perfect and I know for sire I am not! I try but I know it's just not possible. Just ask my mother - she who had to have the perfect everything, lol 9I am not it acc to her, heheh)

I belong to this forum to try to help people in areas I can and learn what I can with others who possess info and knowledge I may not have and not to argue about superfluous issues that are useless and of no relevance to our helping each other care for our pets, all of whom we love or we would not be here seeking solutions!

Thanks to all of you who supported me- I appreciated it. I am the first to admit when I am wrong and always try to be scrupulously fair but again, I am not perfect and sometimes say things without thinking first. Mostly because I am in a perpetual hurry which is not a good thing but it's my life. I also thank you for the apology. I guess I was not certain what your dog having cancer had to do with my bunny and his illness but again, I think we share more than we differ because we both love our pets since I can tell you obviously care deeply for your dog and I am so sorry to hear of his cancer!! (I read the other post just now, just realizing it was the same person and pooch.)

Re the question about dogs and cats again the only answer I can give to you re that - and pls remember I am not a vet not am I an expert in this area tho will admit to expertise in oncology - is that it very much depends on the type of cancers. And just like the factors we live by that help us in preventing cancer (eating veggies, staying away from known carcinogens, out of the sun (I wish someone had told me that as a child so I cold have avoided melanoma but it was not well understood when I was a child so like zillions everywhere, with my Irish white skin (even tho I am also part Jewish, I ended up with the Irish skin genes - Gawd, I hope that isn't what she means by being self absorbed, if it is, I am sorry!!!), etc, there are actions we can do help our furry friends. Cats are very susceptible to melanoma and white cats and meezers especially (well they have so much white fur) and white kitties should never stay in the sun (I envision my YY in a sun hat, lol) - not a bad idea for a poster for feline cancer come to think of it.

Dogs too can be susceptible to skin cancer Fair coloured pooches with special attention being paid to exposure to the underbelly or inside of the back legs.
In hilly regions where ultraviolet light is particularly strong, skin cancer often affects pointers, bull terriers, pit bulls, and Dalmatians. "In Dalmatians," I just actually read curiously. "the cancer will circle around a black spot and won't enter the black skin." It will of course affect the white fur!

Dogs have a much higher incidence of nasal sinus cancer than do people. This is thought to be because they are always sniffing ans using their noses more. The 4th most common kind of cancer in bot cats and dogs is mouth cancer - probably because they use their mouths more than we do to do things besides eating and talking. Like they groom themselves with their tongues for example.

You will not be surprised that I have read practically every research paper available on cancer in Siamese and Siamese kitties, who alas can be prone to a variety of cancers (some 40 plus types) - like salivary carcinomas and intestinal carcinomas\ also tend to get them at a younger age, sighhhhhhh!!! So if anyone comes up with a surefire diet for cancer, I want it, lol

Older dogs for some reason often get bone cancer more often than younger dogs. This makes me worry for my beloved chocolate lab - my brother's dog that I love so deeply - and he has already had hip dysplasia, sigh!

One bright spot is that our furbabies very seldom develop gastrointestinal tract and lungs because their diets are often better than ours and they do not smoke- unless they live with too much 2nd hand smoke.

Cats and dogs who are spayed and neutered early have less chance of developing certain cancers.

I do have some stats from an epidemiology conference I attended not too long ago at a famous univ. I am almost scared to mention which one, lol

There, I learned that dogs have 35 times as much skin cancer as do humans, 4 times as many breast tumors, 8 times as much bone cancer, and twice as high an incidence of leukemia. Again, as prev stated, the only types more frequent in humans are lung cancer is 7 times higher in humans, and stomach/intestinal malignancies are 13 times more frequent in humans than in dogs and cats. It is clear that the higher incidence of lung cancer in people is due to the human habit of smoking---but the cause of the higher incidence of gastrointestinal malignancies in humans is not less misunderstood, acc to this researcher. It could be diet, but he also said "it may also be a species idiosyncrasy; humans as a species may be exceptionally susceptible to tumors of the stomach and bowel."

I know this is not a simple answer and it has helped retain my bad rap as long winded (sorry but it was a question that needed to be answered, :D) but I hope it helps!!

And, tiOurs, I only hope the best for your dog and you!!!! My thoughts and prayers are with you both!!!

tiOurs
March 2nd, 2008, 10:23 PM
would it not be better to do a research study concurrently to discover what are the best foods for the best cancers

Appetite is a big issue with most cancer pups. I think most of us who have dogs with cancer are happy to feed our kids pretty much whatever they'll eat. I'm fortunate that my girl has eaten well all along and she's really thriving on the raw diet. All the muscle wastage and atrophy she had before surgery is gone--6 weeks post surgery. Many of the folks with cancer dogs have real problems with appetite, specially if they're doing chemo. There is a cancer diet on the canine cancer website. It's what most of you here probably already know; low carbs, no grains, high protein and fat. Apparently cancer cells can only metabolize carbs.

Thousands of folks with dogs and cats read this forum and if thousands of people would answer this very general poll and a large majority feeds one type of food and their dogs do or don't get cancer, it's pretty useful information. Granted there are lots of types of cancer but even if we made a more general poll that asked if your pet had ever been sick and what type of food you've been feeding, and a large majority had or had not ever been sick on a particular type of food it would be useful. I'd heed that info. The main power behind this is the huge number of people that could possibly respond; that's what could give it validity.

think you should think about it this way: it doesn't matter if a pet dies off to cancer

I have to wonder if you've had a pet die of cancer. I give my pets the best life I can, they have many acres to run on, I feed them the best food I can find. I love and enjoy the daylights out of them and I will tell you that there's not much worse in life then watching their lives end wasting away from cancer. :cry:

aww come on now, Cyberkitten might be sensitive, self absorbed at times and long winded but she has a great deal of experience, a big heart and very little time to dedicate on here but she does anyway. more often than not she has a great deal of knowledge to impart.

Rain, I sense you are a very wise and kind person. Thanks for calling me on that.

Newbie already disrespecting members ... this is not how it works here hun , if you don't like it , look for another forum.

Yeah obedience has never been my strong point. That's what happens when you let an American in your forum! What do you expect from someone from a country whose president thinks health care is a Scandinavian Airline he'd like his daddy to buy.
__________________
The average dog is a nicer person than the average person.
We all know Canadians are much nicer than Americans. I'm probably less nice than the average person, certainly than any dogs and definitely than Canadians. I think it's because it's so cold up there you don't have energy to be mean. I lived in Quebec for 6 years and I'm sure I got nicer while I was there so I figured I better move back down south. :evil:

I am of the impression that right now cats suffer less from cancer than dogs do.

My stats are 2 dogs, 2 cats and a chicken to cancer. I think cats are prone to lymphoma, that's what my precious kid died of.

I voted, but now I wish I hadn't. That was very rude.


Yes it was but don't blame my pup for my being an ass. Something useful might come of this poll and the more people that vote the more relevant the information is.

It's an interesting poll, but there are a finite number of factors being broadly excluded from this that make it anything but accurate.

Statistics aren't accurate, they detect trends. The more people that participate in this poll, the more valid any apparent trends will be. As many people as could possibly vote on this.. it could be thousands--the sky's the limit.. it could detect a couple very important, very general trends about what we're feeding our kids.

So snarly as I am, the cancer website has depressed the daylights out of me, they're all bewildered as I am so I'll try to behave with more reverence and hang out for a bit. :angel:

jiorji
March 2nd, 2008, 10:49 PM
I have to wonder if you've had a pet die of cancer. I give my pets the best life I can, they have many acres to run on, I feed them the best food I can find. I love and enjoy the daylights out of them and I will tell you that there's not much worse in life then watching their lives end wasting away from cancer.

how dare you judge?? a death of a pet is a death just like any other. It doesn't matter the size of the pet or the cause of death. I've had a pet die in my hands as i watched it gasp for its last breath of air. He died of natural causes....is that less significant because it wasn't cancer!??!
He had a good life and he was spoiled!!
to me that's all that matters!

tiOurs
March 2nd, 2008, 11:45 PM
I'm not judging you, I'm simply addressing what you said. I've lost too many beloved pets to cancer to not want to fight tooth and nail to understand why. My HSA dog is six. before her my boy died of cancer at 11. My cat was 4 when he died of lymphoma, his brother died a couple years later, had a tumor probably caused from a shot. They all died too young. They had great lives while they were alive but I'm sorry, they didn't live long enough. Cancer cut their lives too short. If there's something we're doing wrong that we can easily fix, like stop feeding them kibble.. I'd like to find out. I can't say to my little girl you've had a good life and it's OK for you to die of cancer now. I'm just not that good a person. I have to fight it.

tiOurs
March 3rd, 2008, 08:17 AM
let me restate my thinking on this poll. I'm not pretending to be looking for a cure for cancer. I used cancer because that's the illness I've dealt with the most in my pets, I don't remember having any other illnesses. I'm mostly looking for what's the best/worst of what we're currently feeding them. It might be better to state it more generally: have you been feeding raw or kibble and has your pet gotten sick? I think most, maybe all diseases are a result of immune system failure to one degree or another. Sure there are plenty of other factors but immune system is definitely a big one. In a dream world the immune system will deal with whatever is thrown at it. If what we're feeding is having an effect on the immune system, it's also likely going to have an effect on the rate of disease/illness. I've read here (and I'm starting to observe in my girl) that raw-fed pets thrive, have better quality of life. I think that healthy appearance is directly related to immunity so also to the probability of getting sick/cancer (indirectly related to illness if you want to get technical). And it would be nice if we could actually see some numbers to support our feeling that raw is better.

Someone suggested that this isn't a good poll because there's not a good cross section of people voting. It's hard for me to imagine finding a better cross section. Literally anyone in the world with access to a computer can vote in this poll. It's certainly not doing any harm to vote. I doubt that Purina is going to go out of business if kibble shows badly in the polls, they'll just buy up the green tripe market. Given that there are a lot fewer raw feeders than kibble feeders it will be hard to get enough data on feeding raw, but I guess this is the best place to try. Once again my long-winded :2cents:

luckypenny
March 3rd, 2008, 01:29 PM
I didn't vote because my dogs are young yet and I don't know if they will ever get cancer :shrug:. Our switch to raw was was only about 8 months ago; prior to that they were fed kibble. I don't know if it's just my experience but, growing up, when a pet was ill, we didn't spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to have them diagnosed and/or treated. I guess I'll come back to this thread in 10 years or so and be able to give more definative answers.

"I think that healthy appearance is directly related to immunity..."

I don't know about that...my Dad's Cocker Spaniel is fed Purina and looks absolutely gorgeous. Beautiful coat and teeth, normal poops. Hard to imagine with this as a list of ingredients :yuck: :

GROUND YELLOW CORN, MEAT AND BONE MEAL, CORN GLUTEN MEAL, CHICKEN BY-PRODUCT MEAL, ANIMAL FAT (PRESERVED WITH BHA/BHT), WHEAT MILL RUN, NATURAL POULTRY FLAVOR, RICE, WHEAT FLOUR, SALT, POTASSIUM CHLORIDE, CARAMEL COLOR, VEGETABLE OIL (SOURCE OF LINOLEIC ACID), VITAMINS (CHOLINE CHLORIDE, dl-ALPHA TOCOPHEROL ACETATE [SOURCE OF VITAMIN E], L-ASCORBYL-2- POLYPHOSPHATE [SOURCE OF VITAMIN C*], VITAMIN A SUPPLEMENT, THIAMINE MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], BIOTIN, d-CALCIUM PANTOTHENATE, RIBOFLAVIN SUPPLEMENT [VITAMIN B2], VITAMIN D3 SUPPLEMENT, VITAMIN B12 SUPPLEMENT), TRACE MINERALS (ZINC SULPHATE, COPPER SULPHATE, POTASSIUM IODIDE).

Genetics plays a crucial role when it comes to cancer as well. My grandfather smoked 3 packs a day and drank at least 3 litres of wine daily :rolleyes: and lived to the ripe old age of 87 :shrug:. All the members of my DH's family (his mother's generation) didn't smoke nor drink, led very healthy lifestyles...all died by the age of 50 due to cancer :sad: .

That said, we may not have control over genetic predispositions to cancer...yet...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to control environmental factors that may increase our, or our pets', risks of getting it either. My :2cents: for what it's worth.

MerlinsHope
March 4th, 2008, 06:03 AM
I'm not pretending to be looking for a cure for cancer. I used cancer because that's the illness I've dealt with the most in my pets,

TiOurs;
In another post I mentioned that raw does not claim to make dogs live longer. Raw is a healthy food choice which allows dogs to spend less time at the vet due to illnesses caused by chemical additives in kibbles, most of them being overall wellness, diabetes, heart /liver or kidney conditions, and even though totally un-substantiated, "some" cancers. (perhaps). Your poll won't hold much water, because more importantly than food, are demographics, environment and general health practices.

For example, Maine and Florida have the highest incidents of cancer in the USA, so right there, demographically, your dog, be far more more likely to get cancer anyways, no matter what it would eat. Many suggest it's because of the high chlorination of water in those areas.

Secondly, genetics plays a major key role in the development of cancer.
There are plenty of humans who can eat every single day a junk or fast food restaurants, never develop hypertension, liver disease or obesity as would the rest of world, just like there are plenty of people do who not smoke, yet develop lung cancer.

I don't know about that...my Dad's Cocker Spaniel is fed Purina and looks absolutely gorgeous. Beautiful coat and teeth, normal poops. Hard to imagine with this as a list of ingredients

GENETICS!!!!
GENETICS!!!!
GENETICS!!!!

Food is really at the bottom of the cancer chain, simply because pollution and other environment factors AND genetics are much higher and perhaps play a more forefull role in the outcome of our health.

tiOurs
March 6th, 2008, 07:26 PM
In another post I mentioned that raw does not claim to make dogs live longer. Raw is a healthy food choice which allows dogs to spend less time at the vet due to illnesses caused by chemical additives in kibbles, most of them being overall wellness, diabetes, heart /liver or kidney conditions, and even though totally un-substantiated, "some" cancers. (perhaps).

In search of the silver bullet.

I just can't believe that all those things, less time at the vet, etc. overall improved wellness doesn't make a pet live longer.. it doesn't make sense to me that a dog that never gets sick won't live longer than a dog that is sick all the time. I'm just not convinced. However I agree that genetics is probably the primary factor and I hope I inherited my mother's immune system. She's eighty something, smoked for sixty plus years, eaten meat, potatoes and junk, she hates veggies and for the most part she's been extremely healthy. They did a newspaper article on her and a couple others who have defied the health rules. and she produced a daughter who'll drive a hundred miles to buy her dog organic beef tongue.

I hadn't heard that Florida has a higher rate of cancer than other states. I'm born and raised Florida but I haven't had city water in many years. I'm on a well.. and tiOurs hasn't been on city water since I've had her. If you look hemangiosarcoma up in Wikipedia is says it's known to be caused by toxic exposure to vinyl chloride, in humans anyway. PVC, the stuff all our pipes are made of is polyvinyl chloride. Hopefully enough slime has grown on the interior of the pipes to keep the plastic from leaching into the water. It's ridiculous all the crap we expose ourselves to. But I'll keep fighting and trying to figure out if there's something I can change. Regardless, I like the raw diet. tiOurs looks great.

I tired and not thinking real clearly. and I've had a beer so am thinking even less clearly than that. but back to the stupid poll. I don't disagree with you that genetics and environment are very important. And this poll could potentially show just how important! If enough people voted in this thing, which is unlikely--and that's the main issue with this is not enough people will vote, but anyway assuming they did, let's say ten thousand raw feeder voted and ten thousand kibble feeders voted and raw feeders showed just as much cancer as kibble feeders.. that's pretty clear evidence of what you're saying.. that diet isn't a big factor. But if out of that many voters raw feeders show only 2 percent cancer occurance and kibble feeders show 97 percent cancer occurance.. that ain't genetics, that's food. If what all of you are saying is true, that food isn't going to make a big difference, it will show in the poll. Just vote. please. vote you raw feeders. thousands of you.

I don't know how to spell occurance.

tiOurs
March 6th, 2008, 07:37 PM
I'll probably learn that dogs get cancer from their owners being stressed out about their condition. In that case we're all doomed.

MerlinsHope
March 7th, 2008, 05:45 AM
I hadn't heard that Florida has a higher rate of cancer than other states.

This is exceedingly easy information to find out
http://www.cancer.gov/statistics/



If you look hemangiosarcoma up in Wikipedia is says it's known to be caused by toxic exposure to vinyl chloride, in humans anyway. PVC, the stuff all our pipes are made of is polyvinyl chloride.

Thank you for that. I think you've just answered your own question. The bulk and thrust of Cancer is environmental. In area like Florida , the water is SO chlorinated that cancer is extremely high, expecially in women. A usual sign is the numbers of cervical or breast cancer in women which is now a proven fact that it is caused by chlorine - this is no secret. I agree that PVC is also a strong contender to the contribution of cancer. .. but so is air quality, exposure to pesticides, etc.

It is true that many other types of cancers are caused by consuming foods containing additives. Yes. absolutely, but, the incidents according to the study by the US goverment seem to be much less than cancers caused by environment factors and tobacco.


ut if out of that many voters raw feeders show only 2 percent cancer occurance and kibble feeders show 97 percent cancer occurance.. that ain't genetics, that's food. If what all of you are saying is true, that food isn't going to make a big difference, it will show in the poll. Just vote. please. vote you raw feeders

I think you may be dissappointed.

- Firstly, there aren't enough raw feeders here to contribute to the questionnaire perhaps, and even if thre were, most of the raw feeders out there end up feeding raw due to a pre-existing health problem and come to a raw regime as a last resort, so the illness is already, 'set'.

- Secondly, very few people wake up in the morning and decide to feed raw because of good health practices. I know this is changing, but it isn't the case at the moment.

- Thirdly , important demographic questions and other relevant questions (age, sex, breeding, location), are missing from your poll to substantiate food as a potential missing link to non cancer.

Wolves who live exclusively on raw food, away from society, with little or no human intervention, STILL get cancer, and that is because of environmental factors.

Whales who never set one flipper ashore get cancer.

Raw food is not going to stop your dog from getting cancer, not in today's society. Just the fact that your dog walks the pavement then goes home and licks his paws, is reason enough to assume that he/she will ultimately ingest carcinogenic material. (polluted dirt/engine oils/glycols/)


Yes, a raw regime contributes to wellness and good health, meaning that throughout the course of your dog's life, it will LIVE healthier and yes, as a result of that healthy living, you'll spend less time and money at the vet. Sure. . Does it make your dog live longer? not necessarily, ESPECIALLY if the raw food served is in-organic, contains hormones/steroids/pesticides / mercury etc.

The prime reason that dogs are dying now is not because of cancer, but because we are systemically poisioning them with foods laden with toxic chemicals.

Secondly is over innocculation. Say what you want, but the standard practice of innoculating our pets with vaccines, and in many cases, the push sell techniques used, leading to over innoculation, has taken it's toll on our pets. We sit there and wonder WHY they develope kidney disease or develope diabetes, or allergies or all of a sudden their immune system seems to be gone.

Thirdly, the art of pathetic breeding practices have created, 'Frankendogs", who are are literally born to become ill because of poor genetics.

Those three factors combined are the prime culprits of why dogs and cats are dying. So in fact, it's not food persay, but money or the desire to make money that is killing our pets. The commercial dog food industry has now surpassed clothing and shoes on the consumer index. The sales of vaccines is the bread and butter of all pharmaceutical companies. and breeding... well let's now even go there... it is a sad fact that most breeders are in business to line their pockets and churn out dogs and cats like smarties.

While RAW is better and safer than chemical laden kibbles, and is definitely more appropriate food than any kibble, it certainlycan contain toxic by-products and substances, which may, or may not effect your dog in the final tally.... and while we are too new in the raw game to gather accurate statistics, I think it's realistic to say that most, if not a very high, high, percentage of the raw feeders are out there are feeding vegetables/fruits and meats containing the above mentioned items. They are not feeding organic meats, most likely due to costs, so while an attempt is indeed made to increase the quality of nutrition in their dogs, it still isn't without ramification or consequence - a solid period of time would be required to understand the true meaning of feeding non organic raw, versus ultra premium commercial foods..now is the time to do it. I would love to see a study like this take place because we finally have commercial foods which can finally rank as a decent source of nutrition, and we do have an abundance of available organic and non organic meats.




Sorry to burst your bubble- but raw isn't going to stop cancer in dogs anytime soon. (And I'm a devout raw feeder by the way)

CyberKitten
March 8th, 2008, 10:15 PM
Actually, chlorine is one of the least causes of cancer - it is NOT a good substance, is highly toxic (has been known to cause asthma) and I once took a company that made it to court but it is not a carcinogen. You could never prove that in court. I had to use sect 33(3) of the federal Fisheries Act to sue the chemical company that tried to cover up a leak of chlorine in my community but that's another story. (Other than my own work as a biochemist and oncologist, I know more about this element than I really care to, :sad:)

Florida has a higher than usual rate of melanoma for one thing - and that almost seems common sense when you think about it. People who have lived there and been in the sun though that applies to many other jurisdictions as well. Cancer is caused by so many factors and I know this is offtrack but I just wanted to clarify this as a cancer researcher!

There are so many carcinogens we encounter every day - not just the ones we think of either like smoking and second hand smoke, eating well, (preferably organic foods that we know were not treated with pesticides), pollution with organophosphates and digoxin and DDT- which stil is around. Recall the strontium 90 tests that were done in the 50's with baby boomers. They asked moms to send in baby teeth and almost every one of those children- from places in Canada and the contiguous USA had strontium 90- a byproduct of the a bomb tests done around the world in them. So if were were born in the mid 50's to early 60's, we ALL have that whether we want it or not. The jury on electromegnetic fields is out but I rather think it does happen because I once had four children from the same community and they all lived near a sub station! Hardly scientific and noting I would use as research or cite ina journal but it gives one pause.

The lack of chlorine in water is actually worse even though I am no fan of that chemical. I have seen the reports of rural folk who depend on wells and their water is not good and if they lived near areas where spraying was done by govts (whether it was DDT, matacil, organophosphates or 2-4D which with another compound is agent orange). I even had one child with =canbcer who had their well water tested and it was full of what we now cal agent organge. They lived near a pulp and paper company that spayed its woodlots. There was alwas supposed to be a one mile buffer zone but how many pilots observed that and don't forget the wind, sigh! I could go on - the causes are endless, endless- genetic plays a part but it seems to me we spend way too much time blaming the person with cancer (she smoked, she did not eat properly). I treat children, come infants and pls tell me how what they DID. No, it is not chlorine but it IS forms of pollution and our waterways, air and sediment are all way over the accepted govt limit and those limits are usually set too high to start with. And don't forget asll those products (hair dyes for examples) that we use that are not required to list all the ingredients, many of them carcinogens.

I have a colleague who calls what we live in now as world war 3 (This was before Iraq and Afghanistan which are seen as that by some - I am not there yet). She believe world war 3 is the cancer that is killing us all slowly thx mainly to these bomb tests done in the 50's and 60's and all these other pollution problems which need to be resolved. There are days I know I feel like the little dike boy in Holland - putting my finger in the dike to save the water from coming through. (You know that story I assume). We need to be clamping done on polluters. We have come a long way in cancer treatment but certainly NOT in its prevention! Just think about it. We run for the cure for breast cancer but the rates go up , not down - the money foes for treatment and NOT prevention. And yes, I am glad there is a vaccine for cervical cancer but we do not yet know the long term outcomes of that vaccine yet and as someone who had cervical cancer , I swear by the pap test. It certainly saved my life! It is inconvenient yes - as are mammograms but this is out lives we are talking about! There are women in the US who have to pay a $200 up front deductible for mammograms and we have patients here who we call on a regular basis (every woman after 50 is automatically sent info in the mail and can come in any time for free yet not all of them do and some of them die.) That, I can't explain!

I would not hang around chlorine but it is not high on the list of carcinogens. It might - combined with other chemicals - to someone susceptible- be a cause of possibly aplastic anemia which is on the fringe of being cancer and is debated by some as cancer and some as a form of anemia. As a hematologist and oncologist, I treat it as cancer since in advanced stages, it can turn into an aggressive form of leukemia. Benzene is has been proven to be carcinogenic in some several studies as are many many chemicals - but there are products out there, like 2-4-T that you may have sprayed your lawn with that can kill you yrs later. Or aspartame in Equal that turns into formaldehyde in your body when it combines with other chemicals - also a known carcinogen. I could go on .... and on but I won't. I just wanted to say I wholeheartedly approve of anyone being careful around any of these products, reading labels and not using anything that is a carcinogen.

Dracko
March 8th, 2008, 10:27 PM
While I do think you should endeavor to feed your pets the best quality food you can afford to, I'm with those that think there is a large genetic aspect to it.

The cat we had while I was growing up lived to be 21. He never once went to the vets for a health problem other than teeth cleaning. He was fed crap his entire life. You remember that Garfield canned food from way back? Yeap, he ate lots of that. After he had some teeth fall out he got those Meow Mix (think that was the brand) packets of soft kibble instead of the hard stuff. Now that stuff is loaded with food dyes and such. If a cat pukes it up you are guaranteed a stain on your carpet.

MerlinsHope
March 9th, 2008, 05:42 AM
chlorine is NOT one of the least causes of cancer
You're absolutely wrong about that one.

Just because the EPA has not classified chlorine as to its human carcinogenicity, does not mean there are no links to cancer -

In the chlorination process itself, chlorine naturally combines with natural available organic matter decaying vegetation to form potent cancer causing trihalomethanes (THM’s) and/or haloforms. This is a well known dangerous process and the EPA has been cautioned of this since 1920.

The amount of THM's is apparently 'regulated" by the EPA, although the maximum amount allowed by law is 100 ppb, a 1976 study showed 31 of 112 municipal water systems exceeded this limit. IN 1986 the EPA itself issued a guideline that if one lives in an area with chlorinated water, NOT to drink it.

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Right now one of the leading causes of cancer in women is chlorine.
Anyways, let's agree to disagree on that one. Keep drinking chlorinated water then!

Here's a good read.
Breast Cancer and Chlorine Fact Sheet
http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE&b=84502

want4rain
March 9th, 2008, 09:23 AM
isnt chlorine banned in Germany?? i vaguely recall something about that a few years ago...

there are so many things that we use on a daily basis thats so very harmful to your health. its really a shame how politics has an effect on what we are exposed to.

-ashley

CyberKitten
March 9th, 2008, 02:40 PM
Chlorine in and of itself is not carcinogenic but as I said, it is highly toxic. And yes,it does bind with certain other elements but this is not something that has been documented sufficiently (that may be unfortunate I agree). There are so many carcinogens that chlorine - at least on my list - is way down the list. In small quantities, it actually saves lives and I suppose that is my bias as a hematologist. If not for chlorinated cleaners, many people - esp in the third world -would now be dead - because they did not have clean areas to live in and one of the brightest scientists in the prevention of AIDS tells everyone make sure you use bleach in disinfecting areas. I am not fond of chlorine and I do wish we had better alternatives but it does seem to at least have helped to prevent some deaths while it would seem - depending on the accuracy of those studies (It had not yet really been documented as a carcinogen per ce by the powers that be which as I noted before does not mean it is not the case).

Practically everything we eat or drink or use - if combined with another element can be a carcinogen so we will have to agree to disagree. Greenpeace I know has said it does cause breast cancer and as much as I am an environmentalist (remember I am the one who spent thousands of my own money to take a chlorine producing plant to court. ) their science is unfortunately flawed. Believe me, I wish it was not. The problem is there are so many kinds of ways chlorine is made and distributed- some of it good, most of it bad and we do need some of it.

Lately, I am scared to drink anything. Did I say I drank chlorinated water? I don't actually- but then again, the bottled water I drink I now read may have plastic in the containers that if left for long periods can - I suppose similarly to chlorine- bond with other ions in a way that it becomes a carcinogen. I have not read those studies yet - I only have so much time in the day. The n again, Hfx's water is supposed to be good but oh God, I don;t know. I tend to drink strawberry water made with splenda and I know the person who developed splenda and I just hope ten yrs from now, it is not discovered as a carcinogen- it should not be, since it is sucralose but over time, we learn new trhings all the time.

You are preaching to the converted- I just have to point out that as of yet, no credible medical journal will say that chlorine is a carcinogen and there are studies that have done - but as I say, even trhe studies which use different compounds of cl cannot be compared. It would be like apples and oranges or maybe Macintosh's and Delicious Apples. I don't know.

he EPA has proposed a regulation that "only" eliminates the use of elemental chlorine in pulp and paper manufacture. Chlorine compounds such as chlorine dioxide (ClO) are permitted.

The Society of Toxicology (the same popl who helped us to ban DDT and other horrid substances) declared a few yrs ago that toxicologic principles do not support the banning of chlorine. They also say he most scientifically sound approach is "to assess the toxicity of agents on a chemical-by-chemical basis." (meaning the various types of Cl) Greenpeace often lumops DSDT and digoxins which SHOULD be banned in with chlorine and they do contain it but it is the sum total of their products that make them so dangerous.

Also, the he natural world contains more than 1,500 chlorine-containing chemicals. How do we bamn something naturally occurring? For example, 2,4-dichlorophenol, a type of Cl, is used to make penicillin. Do you want to ban penicillin. I surely do not.

So you see, it is a complex issue and one must be very cautious in examining it. I have to be careful when I talk to govt agencies and courts and other agencies so I am used to examining everything I say carefully so as not to be taken out of context or to give the those who would disagree with environmentalists anything to ponce on because they will and have done it. I once wrote an article in a column I was writing on environmental issues about chlorine that a certain plant had polluted the sediment at a certain level and a typo was made in the paper and we had to meet with the CEO and apologize. I do not ever want to have to do that again! It was not my fault and the company was prob doing worse (since I find the EPA and even in Canada the limits are not high enough) but I took responsibility since the col was in my name. Thus, I am very cautious about ensuring anything I say can be backed up scientifically. Greenpeace has a good plan but their science I am afraid (sigh!) does not help them in this cause, even tho it's a good one.

Catherine Lane
April 23rd, 2008, 06:18 AM
I'm wondering why the food choices are canned, kibble and raw? I lost my heartdog Luke to hemangiosarcoma in 2006, and he was fed a properly formulated, home made cooked diet all his life. He was vaccinated only once, in puppyhood, and I see (and work with) a highly skilled holistic vet. After speaking with one of the leading reserachers in veterinary oncology, my conclusion was that genetics plus environmental toxins triggered the cancer.

Last year my dear old cat Howard died from lymphoma, and then Lila, my 13 year old Border Collie/Lab, grew a five pound splenic tumour which thankfully was NOT hemangio, and while she is still with us, I have noted three cancers in two years in a holistic household.

The oncologists I spoke with told me that they are seeing hemangio in dogs fed everything from Ol'Roy to raw to premium kibble...this illness has little regard for nutritional status, it would seem.

As a nutritionist, I do NOT find this discouraging, the benefits of a good diet are still important and providing good health overall is never a bad idea. While hemangio is notoriously deadly, I've helped owners to manage many cases of lymphoma, mast cell tumour and other varieties using diet and supplements - along with conventional treatments, of course. I don't know if we can "prevent" cancer with good diet, but I am using as much organic food as I can afford for Daniel, and he is getting curcumin, ellagic acid, shiitake mushrooms, astragalus, fish body oil, some Ester-C, bromelain and chlorella as well as small amounts of ground flax, ginger and garlic. My suspicion for us is that we live in farm country and there is a lot of herbicide and pesticide buildup locally. I'm continuing with their home prepared diets, I never use lawn or household chemicals, I keep Daniel happy and fit, as I feel all of these are cornerstones to good health. I have to think in terms not only of prevention, but of how well an individual will cope if disease does in fact develop. I'm also advocating early screening wherever possible, which again can save lives or at least, extend them. Dr. Modiano has advised me the research team is very close to an early detection bloodtest for hemangio, which is so deadly - killed my boy with no warning whatsoever.

I know this is a thread about cancer and diet, but my personal experience, both with my own dogs and the hundreds of cases I've worked with professionally, has been that diet seems to be only one of many contributing factors, and likely not the greatest risk. It seems to me that environmental toxin is a much larger foe, although I would still encourage home feeders to make sure they are getting adequate nutrition into the dog. A zinc deficiency or unbalanced fatty acid ratio isn't going to help a dog resist disease, that's for sure.

So yes, I've had three cancers in two years, two of them fatal. My dogs eat home made cooked food, and my cat ate a rotated variety of premium foods including Fromm, Felidae, and Orijen, supplemented with fresh foods.

Just a few comments based on a lot of experience. I was struck by the fact the list of options did not include home prepared cooked diet.

Catherine

DoubleRR
April 26th, 2008, 10:23 PM
Genetics plays a crucial role when it comes to cancer as well. My grandfather smoked 3 packs a day and drank at least 3 litres of wine daily and lived to the ripe old age of 87 . All the members of my DH's family (his mother's generation) didn't smoke nor drink, led very healthy lifestyles...all died by the age of 50 due to cancer .

It is obviously the wine. :) The rest should have followed his example, maybe?

Seriously, cancer is the biggest threat to life on earth--thanks to us humans and the oblivious way we bombard the planet with deadly chemicals the moment we discover they are useful for one thing--as if side effects were a myth or something. Afraid the entire race is my least favorite earth life form, but that is another thread--or forum.
The poll won't find out much except perhaps how many of us feed kibble or raw or canned. The difference in quality of different types of food in each category makes it almost pointless to generalize. I feed kibble, have always fed kibble, have never had a cancerous tumor on or in an animal thus far to my knowledge. All my pets have lived, barring accidental death, until the upper end of their species lifetime, and I have never taken any of them to the vet for any illness--ever. Stitches, neutering, but no illness--and I only vaccinate in puppy hood and kitten hood.
I believe it is a combination of living in cleaner parts of the planet [until recently, but that is again another discussion], keeping animals well exercised, feeding the best quality kibbles I could find, and genetics. Plus a great deal of luck!

anneh
June 19th, 2008, 08:46 PM
I just saw your message. I also cook for my dogs altho they also get some raw meats. Now I have a problem, one of my adopted dogs developed an auto immune disease (IMPA) and in spite of trying everything holistic (we have a holistic vet) the only answer was to put her on steroids. Because her disease is inflammatory I presume I should avoid all grains. Now her liver is slightly enlarged so wondering if I should go on the "Dr Dodds Liver Cleansing Diet" of white fish and potatoes but confused if the potatoes will affect her. We titer for everything except 3 yr rabies but she will get a waiver for rabies in view of her illness. I am very worried about her :pray: anneh QUOTE=Catherine Lane;583836]I'm wondering why the food choices are canned, kibble and raw? I lost my heartdog Luke to hemangiosarcoma in 2006, and he was fed a properly formulated, home made cooked diet all his life. He was vaccinated only once, in puppyhood, and I see (and work with) a highly skilled holistic vet. After speaking with one of the leading reserachers in veterinary oncology, my conclusion was that genetics plus environmental toxins triggered the cancer.

Last year my dear old cat Howard died from lymphoma, and then Lila, my 13 year old Border Collie/Lab, grew a five pound splenic tumour which thankfully was NOT hemangio, and while she is still with us, I have noted three cancers in two years in a holistic household.

The oncologists I spoke with told me that they are seeing hemangio in dogs fed everything from Ol'Roy to raw to premium kibble...this illness has little regard for nutritional status, it would seem.

As a nutritionist, I do NOT find this discouraging, the benefits of a good diet are still important and providing good health overall is never a bad idea. While hemangio is notoriously deadly, I've helped owners to manage many cases of lymphoma, mast cell tumour and other varieties using diet and supplements - along with conventional treatments, of course. I don't know if we can "prevent" cancer with good diet, but I am using as much organic food as I can afford for Daniel, and he is getting curcumin, ellagic acid, shiitake mushrooms, astragalus, fish body oil, some Ester-C, bromelain and chlorella as well as small amounts of ground flax, ginger and garlic. My suspicion for us is that we live in farm country and there is a lot of herbicide and pesticide buildup locally. I'm continuing with their home prepared diets, I never use lawn or household chemicals, I keep Daniel happy and fit, as I feel all of these are cornerstones to good health. I have to think in terms not only of prevention, but of how well an individual will cope if disease does in fact develop. I'm also advocating early screening wherever possible, which again can save lives or at least, extend them. Dr. Modiano has advised me the research team is very close to an early detection bloodtest for hemangio, which is so deadly - killed my boy with no warning whatsoever.

I know this is a thread about cancer and diet, but my personal experience, both with my own dogs and the hundreds of cases I've worked with professionally, has been that diet seems to be only one of many contributing factors, and likely not the greatest risk. It seems to me that environmental toxin is a much larger foe, although I would still encourage home feeders to make sure they are getting adequate nutrition into the dog. A zinc deficiency or unbalanced fatty acid ratio isn't going to help a dog resist disease, that's for sure.

So yes, I've had three cancers in two years, two of them fatal. My dogs eat home made cooked food, and my cat ate a rotated variety of premium foods including Fromm, Felidae, and Orijen, supplemented with fresh foods.

Just a few comments based on a lot of experience. I was struck by the fact the list of options did not include home prepared cooked diet.

Catherine[/QUOTE]