Q: While I am aware of the nutritional values of milk, it is because it is so intended to feed the mother's child. Since it is from mother to child, it is not natural to consume dairy after infancy, much less consume dairy from another mammal (regardless of life stage). This should be applied to the consideration of natural diets for all animals (human or otherwise). That is why my question is: why does Dr. Wysong (and those supporting this concept) consider dairy a natural food source?

W: The criterion Dr. Wysong advocates in deciding if a substance is or is not a natural food for a creature is whether or not the food is digestible and not toxic in its raw state. Milk qualifies. It is, in fact, about the only substance in nature specifically purposed as a food. Not only babies consume it, but people have since at least the advent of agriculture some
10,000 years ago. Therefore, any food that requires cooking (which milk does not) to be digestible and non-toxic is not a natural food.

We would argue that fire is not natural with regard to food. Fire destroys food elements and creates toxins. Fire applied to food is an artificial invention. No other creature in existence uses it, and humans do so only as a matter of commerce in creating shelf stable products and converting inedible to edible (at a nutritional and toxic price).

Q: While you specify that humans are the only creatures who utilize fire, you neglect that humans are the only creatures that consume milk outside of infancy (unless, of course, we are speaking of domesticated animals relying on humans in food choices), or consume milk as a food intended for another species even.

W: The point is that it is a natural digestible food in its raw state for billions of people. If a person chooses not to consume it that is fine too.

Q: You also suggest that because we have been farming for dairy for the last 10,000 years or so that it must be appropriate, yet you do not consider how long the "artificial invention" of fire has been in use.

W: That is not the meaning of what was said. We did not say fire was an artificial invention, we said it is artificial to demolish food with it.

Q: I also wonder, if you believe fire to be an artificial invention, what you think of when fire emerges from lightning storms, or how you might consider lava from a volcano or hot springs to somehow be artificial. As far as whether milk is digestible, perhaps you are not aware that the majority of human population on the planet does not consume milk, and that there are many more humans who do not have the enzyme lactase responsible for breaking down the milk sugar lactose. This should become more apparent that milk is not truly digestible; therefore it does not meet such "criterion." Furthermore, for those humans whose bodies do produce lactase, it is when they have continued to consume milk after they would naturally have been weaned from it, and so not allowing their body natural development.

W: Billions of people can digest milk at any age. People can, of course, become intolerant of any food.

Q: In the instance of nonhuman animals, they have not been farming animals for the dairy they can offer. Domestication is recent enough that dairy is most certainly not a part of their natural diet (after having been weaned from their mothers) and should not be considered as such.

W: The issue is what are the natural foods for creatures. That is determined by what they can consume and digest in its raw state. That, not our imposed "intent," defines food. Most carnivores can consume and benefit from raw milk. Also, the amount of milk products in some of the Wysong diets would be less than the amount of milk in the udders and mammary glands of the prey they naturally would consume.

Q: In reference to your assumption that milk is the only substance in nature specifically purposed as a food, once more, milk from the mother is intended as food only for its child, and only until it is developed enough to consume solid foods. Milk is also species specific in that each species will have different nutrient ratios suitable to its young. It is not intended, by nature, for a human to be consuming milk from another species.

W:The idea of "intended" is a fuzzy area and subject to a wide range of interpretations.such as yours. That is why the best definition of food is that food that could be found in nature and digested in its raw state. Milk is one such food.

Q: I do not feel as though you have been really paying my examples and inquiries any attention, though you've spent considerable time arguing against them.

W: That is hardly fair looking back at the chain of our letters.

Q: Since Dr. Wysong admits that his formulations are constantly changing as he becomes aware of more things, I was hoping someone might listen and consider what I (and the planet) have to say when something seems inappropriate in his suggestions.

W: You are in error here for all the reasons stated in this and previous letters. Additionally, milk is not really even a significant ingredient in any Wysong pet diet. In some there is none at all. People can choose.

Q: Since this is not the situation, I cannot recommend Wysong to my clients and friends any longer.

W: It would be good for you to share with your friends the exchange of letters (as we will do if others inquire) and let them make their decision.

Q: I am not interested in what might be considered natural by those criteria, but rather I am interested in what is a natural, species appropriate diet by consideration of evolution and wild animal/hunter-gatherer diets.

W: Then the best option, as Dr. Wysong teaches, is to feed pets their natural raw prey. Are you doing that? If not, why not if the goal is the perfect diet?

See optional health program link: Optimal Health Program . In these exchanges you have not stated what your ideal diet is. If it is cooked and includes grains (which you have previously intimated), then we are miles apart in our logic.

It appears this is going to be rather difficult to respond to, and literature will not answer these questions. I have saved all of our discussions and can refer to your statements readily. I have also shared our discussions with several of my peers. I will send what we have said until now at the end of this letter so that you may conveniently see what has passed between us, and hopefully obtain a greater understanding of my perception of the conversation.

You state that what I understood from your letter was not what was meant, but you do not clarify. Would you explain why you would say, "It is, in fact, about the only substance in nature specifically purposed as a food. Not only babies consume it, but people have since at least the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago," but I am incorrect in responding with

You also suggest that because we have been farming for dairy for the last 10,000 years or so that it must be appropriate,.? Still, I wonder why you would address the history of dairy consumption to counter my concerns, but not discuss the history of fire in use of heating food, which is presumably longer.

"ALSO, THE AMOUNT OF MILK PRODUCTS IN SOME OF THE WYSONG DIETS WOULD BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF MILK IN THE UDDERS AND MAMMARY GLANDS OF THE PREY THEY NATURALLY WOULD CONSUME."

However, it would not be as common to eat lactating prey to equate it with the amount consumed from Wysong diets.

"THAT IS HARDLY FAIR LOOKING BACK AT THE CHAIN OF OUR LETTERS. I INVITE YOU TO TRY TO ENGAGE A DVM/PHD FROM ANY OTHER COMPANY IN SUCH AN EXCHANGE."

I did not say that you have not taken time with me. Actually, I said you spent "considerable time" telling me about the general "benefits" of milk and how it applies to being consumed and digested (if you aren't intolerant like billions of people are) in its raw form. I really do appreciate the time you have taken out of your schedule to try and help me understand. I was trying to express that I did not think what I was saying was truly being listened to.

"YOU ARE IN ERROR HERE FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED IN THIS AND PREVIOUS LETTERS."

Exactly how am I in error?

For nonhuman animals, I do think that raw, natural prey animals are appropriate for them since that is what they would thrive on in "the wild". My concern was whether dairy was truly an appropriate food item for them. Dr. Wysong offers many valid points about how the diets imposed on animals by humans have caused disease, and I worry that dairy is actually inclusive of that. My basis has been as discussed previously, that dairy would infrequently be consumed by animals in the wild. While Dr. Wysong recommends raw prey first and foremost, dairy is also among his recommendations in his Optimal Health Program. Even though I can understand the very occasional raw dairy in the diet, it is suggested in the section you would envision commonly feeding, dairy is in the majority of the "Healthy Alternative Products," and part of the supplements that are typically given in addition to the other foods containing dairy.

As far as human diets, I am still investigating as to what I would consider appropriate. We have been altering (heating) our foods far too long for me to dismiss it as natural/unhealthy/inappropriate. I would love to find good books on the history of dietary evolution. Do you know of any?

I do believe Wysong foods are far more "natural" than many of the diets offered, but I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to refer others when I am concerned that my inquiries are considered only "in error" while I was trying to grasp an understanding of something I thought amiss. Does that make sense?

I will not be able to offer more than I have already stated and to refer you to Dr. Wysong's books, and to others you may be able to find by plugging "raw foods" into the Internet search bar.  I cannot seem to convey Dr. Wysong's philosophical basis, and if you are still thinking that milk is as unnatural as heat we are too far apart in our reasoning.

If you are concerned about what to feed your pet, please get a copy of "How to Apologize to Your Pet" from us.  Many ideas on recipes there.  You can construct diets that are dairy-free using those guidelines, and Wysong offers many milk-free options as well.