Q: "have you been reading the current debate on carbohydrates [on the FML]? Would you tell me if carbohydrates cause disease or not?" A: Only if you send me a valium... <sigh> I haven't really been following it because I've been out of town and because I've been in the middle of some nasty (but benign) medical tests. In response to this question, I briefly glanced through a FEW of them, enough to make a few comments (and possibly enemies). First, you simply cannot compare a human infant, dog or cat gastrointestinal tract to that of a ferret without first taking into account the differences in structure, enzyme production, histology, food transit time, and dozens of other factors too numerous and complicated to explain in 126 lines (not even in 126 pages). But I will tell you this. Digestive processes are biochemical reactions, which minimally require energy for reaction activation and at least two reactants. Since mammal bodies are heat sensitive, most chemical reactions would never take place without some sort of catalyst; in animals, we call them enzymes. They reduce the amount of energy required to produce a particular reaction, which means you can digest food without spontaneous combustion ruining your day. Talk about getting hot under the collar. Now, here is the bottom line. If you do not have the enzymes for specific biochemical reactions, then they simply will not take place. In digestive terms, that means digestion will NOT occur. The presence or absence of these enzymes is directly related to the particular animals evolutionary diet. Animals which eat certain foods produce the proper enzymes to digest that food; feed a cow ferret food and you will shortly have a very sick animal. No bull. The same is true for strict carnivores. In omnivores, such as bears, raccoons and humans (and to a lesser extent, dogs), the digestive enzymes are not really specialized. Like a jack-of-all-trades, they can get by on anything, but are an expert for nothing. Ferrets are experts at digesting ANIMAL foods. Strict carnivores like the ferret simply cannot digest complex carbohydrates or plant proteins which is why pet food makers process plant ingredients so much. The goal of the extended processing is to render the complex stuff down to a form which CAN be digested by a carnivore. Regardless of what might be bandied about by PR people, there are only two real goals of including plant materials in strict carnivore diets; 1) to create a carbohydrate binder so kibbles or pelleted shapes can be made, and 2) because plant proteins are cheaper. That's the bottom line. It isn't better, it is simply cheaper. The important question is, is it good for the ferret? In the case of proteins, the body has little interest if a particular amino acid came from corn or a pig. An amino acid is an amino acid is an amino acid...period. If the plant proteins are processed to the point where the intestinal tract of a ferret see no difference between it and those from meat, then it makes NO difference. Carbohydrates are a different story. Carbohydrates are simply nothing more than one or more carbon atoms bonded to several hydrogen atoms. See? Hydrated carbons? Carbohydrates? The simplest carbohydrate is CH4; that is, 1 carbon bonded to 4 hydrogens. Both starches and fats are complex carbohydrates, but they have different structures and require different enzymes, even though they ultimately become nothing more than simple sugars. The problem for ferrets is that they are experts at digesting fats, but are really bad at digesting starches. They need help, so the pet food people cook the starches down to make them more digestible. And that, my friend, is the problem; I'm not going to sugar-coat it. The difference between fats and starches is that all starches end up as sugars, but that is not necessarily true for fats. Fats can be converted into cellular lipids, they can be stored as fat, they can be made into steroids, they can be incorporated into a bone or cartilage matrix, and on and on and on. So, in the ferret, fat may not be converted totally into sugar, but starch always will be. Also, the digestion of fat is a complex and slow process compared to the digestion of carbohydrates. That means eating starches dumps a lot of sugar into your blood stream a lot faster than if you ate the energy equivalent in fat, which is why athletes eat so much pasta. Now, sugars in the blood stream stimulate the production of insulin; the more sugar, the more insulin. Are you starting to see the connections? Ferrets evolved eating a diet LOW in carbohydrates which means they have a digestive system reflecting that fact. It makes NO difference where the sugar comes from (corn or rice); they are simply NOT well adapted to diet with consistently high levels of sugar. I believe there is a statistical correlation between consuming starch filled food and insulinoma in ferrets, but I cannot predict which ferret will or will not contract pancreatic disease. And in all honesty, I might be wrong. As for the rest of the arguments about Iams, I think you are debating minutia. I mean, if it is bad to eat corn because the carbohydrates might cause disease, what's the difference if you are eating rice? You are talking about percentage points, NOT REAL DIFFERENCES. If one causes a problem in 50% of a population and the other in 65%, THEY ARE BOTH STILL BAD! It's like arguing one bullet makes a smaller hole as it rips through your heart. I like the debate, but I think most of the point has been lost in debating minutia. If both sides look at the real issues and debate those, I think we all can benefit from the positive critical thinking and insightful response. Bob C and 16 MO' Critical Biters [Posted in FML issue 3008]