[Leaving in 3 parts to make it easier to refer to individual parts.  BIG]
 
To understand WHY many Americans consider bones bad for their pet while
they were perfectly acceptable for millennia, you only have to study
the history of the pet food industry and the close association they have
with veterinarians (a parallel exists between the pharmaceutical industry
and medical doctors).  This is NOT implying veterinarians are in some
sort of collusion with the pet food industry; THAT is the stuff of
paranoid imagination.  Still, there is more influence than anyone,
including veterinarians, would admit, especially in the general
acceptance of blanket claims made by pet food industry nutritionists (we
are NOT talking about unbiased claims made by independent scientists,
folks.  If you think pet food nutritionists don't spin their claims to
better present their product while at the same time "forgetting" to
mention the negative aspects, well, shame on you!).  This influence
can be insidious and unrecognized, such as the only funds available
for research are those offered by the pet food industry, awarded to
scientists looking into questions the industry wants answered.
Consequently, there is a tremendous amount of research into marginal
(cheap) foods, especially in how to modify them to make them more
palatable, improve nutrient availability, how to formulate them better,
or extrude them more efficiently; that sort of thing.  Yet, the number
of studies on the effect of kibble on teeth, if an unrestricted diet
of kibble shortens ferret lifespan, the influence of kibble on dental
disease, the association of kibble to ferret insulinoma, or even
something as innocuous as the risk of ferrets eating bones, is extremely
limited.  If an animal nutritionist REALLY wanted to show they were
concerned with providing a better food for ferrets, they would look into
such issues as the impact of a dry, extruded food on a ferret's teeth,
oral health, gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and long term health.  In
a similar fashion, if a veterinarian REALLY wanted to know if eating
bones is harmful to ferrets, they would quantify the data by observing
how many animals had problems, how many were seen in the practice and
compare that to the local pet population, how many problems resulted in
minor, moderate, or major harm, how many resulted in death, what species,
breeds, sex, age, physical impairment, etc., where involved, what were
the outcomes and costs, and THEN compare those data to the health and
enrichment benefits of eating bone.  If all they say is, "I've seen the
problem, and bones hurt ferrets," then they are blowing smoky opinion,
not actual facts.  Facts are testable, the results can be duplicated,
and ANYONE with a cheap calculator can perform a Student's T-Test to
check if the results are statistically significant.
 
Additionally, there is a phenomenon (rather more of a concentration or
distilling effect) experienced by medical workers that comes into play.
Health care professionals only see those people sick enough to seek help,
so rare events take on the appearance of commonality.  You see a similar
phenomenon on the FML where people with ferret health problems make
highly visible pleas, making the actual risk of a problem seem far more
significant than it actually is.  Consequently, the PERCEPTION of risk
cloaks the real, or ABSOLUTE risk.  For example, a vet may see a single
pet a week having one or more problems from consuming bone, so it carries
the illusion of being a frequent predicament when it may actually be
quite uncommon if compared to the TOTAL number of pets consuming bone
within the community (or even the vet's practice).  The veterinarian is
seeing a distillation of pet problems, which, depending on the species
and the client's perception of value, may be skewed towards more valuable
pets, those having owners with close emotional bonds, or those suffering
problems no more significant than a person cutting their gums on a corn
chip, or having a coughing fit when the beer "goes down the wrong hole."
It is this lack of strong scientific foundation that makes anecdotal
stories so misleading and dangerous -- they ignore absolute risk, greatly
exaggerating the perception of risk.
 
Finally, look how the problem is addressed.  Primary, obligate carnivores
like ferrets are designed to eat animal carcasses.  Ferrets evolved doing
so, they have a unique physiology adapted to do so, and they ENJOY doing
so.  Kibble is an unnatural product designed to make a profit for pet
food manufacturers, providing a product to people brainwashed into
thinking pouring a dry, hard low-odor carbohydrate-rich biscuit lacking
appreciable bulk or non-botanical fiber into a bowl satisfies a ferret's
true biomechanical, sensory, physiological, nutritional, or psychological
requirements.  How do you get people to abandon traditional diets that
have worked for thousands of years and start buying your product?  you
can insist only ANIMAL NUTRITIONISTS can formulate a safe diet; after
all, they have the degrees behind their name (and HOW did ferrets EVER
survive millions of years of non-animal nutritionist recommended
carnivory as polecats, thousands of years of non-animal nutritionist
supervision under domestication, and hundreds of years of non-animal
nutritionist sanctioned feeding in the Americas?  Suggesting ferrets were
only "marginally" surviving?  What condescending and conceited arrogance!
If so, then don't make the claim, PROVE the friggin' remark, or get off
the pot and flush!).  ANYONE who can serve food to their children and
prevent them from becoming malnourished, can feed a ferret safely.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 4162]