Veterinary Surgeons Act Review
www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/vetsurgeons/index.htm

McDonald’s in its own defence stated: ‘It’s a matter of common knowledge that any processing that its foods undergo serve to make them more harmful than unprocessed foods.’ School boards, medical professionals and TV chefs endeavour to make this common knowledge more widely understood and acted upon.

But things are different for pets. A majority of veterinarians, animal doctors, claim that highly processed food is good for dogs, cats and ferrets. Veterinarians ought to be leading the charge against the death-delivering junk foods; instead they provide a protective cordon around the junk pet food industry.

How does the protective cordon operate?

On money, pet food company money and the revenue derived from dietary-induced ill health of the world’s pets.

Why don’t the authorities do something about the mass cruelty and £multi-billion scam?

Because the veterinary/pet food industry alliance enjoys the consent of national governments, parliaments, law courts, media and so-called animal welfare organisations. The assumption prevails that veterinarians, when left to decide, do the best for their patients. In most countries veterinarians are entrusted with their own regulation.

In the UK The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) presides over regulation and education of veterinarians by delegated authority of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. At the RCVS website www.rcvs.org.uk they claim that they are ‘Promoting and sustaining public confidence in veterinary medicine’ and that their role is:

• To safeguard the health and welfare of animals committed to veterinary care through the regulation of the educational, ethical and clinical standards of the veterinary profession, thereby protecting the interests of those dependent on animals and assuring public health.
  
  
• To act as an impartial source of informed opinion on animal health and welfare issues and their interaction with human health.

Although unaware that the veterinary profession is integral to the massive pet food scam, the British Government Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) nonetheless, for their own reasons, announced a review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/vetsurgeons/index.htm

Unfortunately DEFRA state:

www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/vetsurgeons/index.htm
‘While some individuals and organisations have called for an independent regulatory authority to oversee the profession, the Government's view is that self-regulation should continue to be the preferred option. Accordingly the RCVS will remain the competent authority for the profession with responsibilities for the education, registration and disciplining of veterinary surgeons in the UK.’

DEFRA, it seems, are intent on putting Dracula back in charge of the blood-bank. Something needs to be done for the sake of pets and pet-owners — not only in Britain but the world over. If the British Parliament fully debates the issues, if they commission a committee of enquiry, they are sure to understand the need for an independent regulator — vets have failed and should not be rewarded for their failure.

A new Veterinary Surgeons Act provides the single best chance to improve the health and welfare of pets everywhere. If, under a new Act, vets are made accountable they will not be able to continue their association with the junk pet food manufacturers — with all the ill health, suffering and economic loss that entails.

What can you do?

Please click on the sub-menus (top left) to learn of the unfolding developments.

Please contact your political representatives and tell them of your own experiences and the urgent need to make vets accountable for the serious junk-food-induced ill health of pets. Tell them of the urgent need to ensure independent regulation of vets. (There are links under Parliament for political representatives in several countries.)

Please tell us of your experiences for inclusion in the pet-owner section email UKRMB