I don't think it is an entirely whimsical demand :)  I am merely disputing that the production of these foods evidences that the need is great or increasing. 

Whimsical demand? You mean there's no need for all the different sorts of chocolate bar? That they're all the same and having a favourite is merely a whim? ;)

>You mean there's no need for all the different sorts of chocolate bar?

even the kind specifically for diabetics for example   Of course there's no NEED to cater for persons so afflicted (probably no such illness after all :rolleyes: )

There's no need for anyone to eat chocolate! ;) :D If marketing people couldn't create a 'need' where none exists there'd be no such varieties as Galaxy, Bourneville, Green & Black's, Milky Bar, Chocolate Orange and Dairy Milk. There'd just be a generic 'chocolate bar'.

It's the same with pet foods. Publicists and marketing men create the market then fill it.

Yeah, that'll be it ...... rolleyes   Why would anyone suddenly come up with a fear of "intolerances" unless of course suggested by their vet having treated the dog and found that to be the most likely cause!

Teri vets are often are OVER cautious. :) I know several vets that have suggested some dogs' problems were due to being allergic to HUMANS. There's even an allergy test that "proved" it. Of course they managed to live fine with humans once the real cause was found. :)

>Teri vets are often are OVER cautious

Would have to be a heck of a lot of them being over cautious world wide Marianne for the major manufacturers world wide to reach the conclusion that certain ingredients were proving problematic .....

And even more so again to have set up investigation of diet related to a number of illnesses by the World Veterinary Federation ......

Fortunately there are always enthusiastic forum discussions to keep these professionals grounded :D

I  believe there are NO bad ingredients -but there are badly bred dogs that are over sensitive due to genetics AND also dogs that work a lot rather than being just pets and only going for walks will be healthier. Now that's judging by my own dogs and the ones I saw when I was a vet nurse (vet specialised in diet related problems) so nothing scientific at all. :) So I still think manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon when they saw an opportunity and it doesn't necessarily follow it is correct -or at least not the ONLY way. It wouldn't be the first time even the entire veterinary profession had got things wrong and that in years to come other ideas will appear. Compare to almost anything -once upon a time the only way to train a dog was with force and choke chains and virtually everyone agreed. Once upon a time the world was flat. Docking tails could protect the dog from worms and rabies. I know of one cat disease which was said to be extremely contagious -and some illinformed vets STILL say so- where it was found to definitely be a case of some individuals having a genetic predisposition to it and it wasn't contagious at all.

>I  believe there are NO bad ingredients

then discussing with me is pointless :)

>Compare to almost anything -once upon a time

Once upon a time "there were NO bad ingredients"  ......

>Why would anyone suddenly come up with a fear of "intolerances" unless of course suggested by their vet having treated the dog and found that to be the most likely cause!

Magazines and even internet fora are full of articles and references to 'intolerances'. If something is repeated often enough, people start to believe it. And when they believe it, you've got your market ... ;)

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make JG! :) Repeat after me: the world is SQUARE, the world is SQUARE! :D :D

Trapezoid, surely?! Or do I have a squint? :D :D

>I reckon an insurance company will have pretty much the same bias as ourselves towards knowing that we have healthy long lived dogs

Interesting slant to take on it considering that most pet insurance policies go through the roof when the covered dog reaches 7 years   They seem to believe that the "healthy population" is rather dodgy by then   Wonder where they get that idea from ;)

There are many more issues to old age unrelated to diet.  However, as I'm sure you will agree, nutrition is very important and if not correct the dog could well be requiring pay outs long before the age of 7.
I'm afraid my limited imagination has failed to see any possible bias an insurance company might have to portray a population in their survey to be healthier than they actually are.

I don't think a healthy dog should be regarded as a risk at 7 :)    Insurance companies would not have that as their cut off point surely without some cause ..... that's if your belief in Morethan et al's abilities to accurately assess the UK canine population carries any genuine weight .....

Why not?  As I say, I am finding it difficult to think of a motive for them not to want accurate information regarding whether we are feeding our dogs in a way likely to ensure long, good health.

>I am finding it difficult to think of a motive

dont lose sleep over it Isabel :)  Always searching for motives is a wasteful use of time. 

Ah! but it is most definately not a wasteful use of time when evaluating data as any study skills course will teach ;)

I can't imagine the Admin of CD ever thought that the evaluation of data on their forum would be of such interest ......  They must be so proud (sniff)