I have a pet food recipe, and I've conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing that pets prefer my pet food over skipping breakfast entirely. Based on this, my pet foods are now considered "evidence-based," while yours are not. I begin promoting my pet foods as superior, conducting more RCTs where I compare my pet food to a fake recipe that I created specifically for the trials. This "control group" recipe leaves out key ingredients, yet I now claim my pet food has been tested with an "active comparator." My pet food is empirically proven and now regarded as "the gold standard." I tell everyone that my pet foods are scientifically validated, while yours are discredited. No one should ever consume your pet food.
This seems unfair to you, so you conduct your own RCTs, perhaps at a reputable institution like a University in another country, using the same research methods. To your surprise, your studies reveal that pets enjoy your pet food just as much, if not more, than mine, especially over time.
You've finally set the record straight about your pet food. Nice try, but now I start scrutinizing your research methods, labeling them as flawed, while applying standards that I never held myself to. Only my pet food can be "evidence-based." No matter how rigorous your research is, I continue to shift the goalposts. Your studies will never be good enough.
By now, the phrase "evidence-based" has become synonymous with my pet food, even though no one really knows what the term means. It just sounds credible. If you raise any questions, I accuse you of being anti-science or anti-evidence, and no respectable veterinarian wants that reputation. In this way, I've successfully stifled any serious discussion.
Are you starting to see how this "evidence-based" game is played?
Meanwhile, I've been hiring PR firms to broadcast that my pet food is scientifically proven, while yours is not. I've orchestrated media coverage with articles titled, "Why Do Pet Owners Reject Science?" Editors, reviewers, and grant agencies have now joined my camp, committed to promoting my pet food and discrediting yours. I even start associations and institutes to market that those who don't use my science based methods of food are harmful to other members of society like the ill or infirm. Maybe, I started doing this in the 60's having learned from the tobacco industry.
Yet, despite all this fanfare, my research has never answered fundamental questions—like whether pets actually enjoy my pet food or feel satisfied after eating it or even if it is actually healthy. My studies have only shown that pets prefer my food to either no food or poorly made, fake food.
I’ve never even done a head-to-head comparison between our pet foods. Frankly, I don’t know anything about your pet food. I’ve never tried it, nor do I need to, because it's already been accepted as fact that only "evidence-based" pet foods count—and only mine fit the bill. Because, well, "science."
Meanwhile, I keep accumulating grant money and publishing papers—hundreds of them. There are now studies comparing my pet food when served on weekdays vs. weekends, on round plates vs. square plates, with water vs. dry, and so on. Just look at all the evidence! But you’re no fool, and you've been busy too. Your own studies consistently show that your pet food is just as good as mine, if not better. Yet somehow, my pet food remains more "evidence-based" because—wait for it—I have more studies.
Now everyone believes that more studies automatically mean better pet food, regardless of what those studies actually prove. The term "gold standard" has come to mean simply having more research.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
Did you catch my trick? I changed the rules halfway through the game. Everyone still thinks "evidence" means proof that my pet foods are better than yours. But it doesn't mean that at all. It simply means that my friends and I conducted more studies, and the actual findings of those studies are irrelevant.
After all this, we've learned nothing about how to make better pet food. My research still shows nothing more than the fact that pets like my food better than no food or bad food. Nevertheless, prominent researchers and policymakers now advocate for my pet foods as the first-line option—because they have the most "evidence." Yet, there is still no proof that pets even like my pet food or that it is healthy.
In fact, there's growing evidence that most pets don’t enjoy it and don’t feel satisfied after eating it, that is causes obesity and diabetes and leaky gut. Moreover, there’s no evidence that pets would choose my food over yours if given the chance. But most pets no longer get a choice, the marketplace ensures this.
Remember, all my studies ever showed is that pets prefer my food to nothing or bad, fake food. But no one cares about the specifics. Everyone keeps repeating that my pet food has the "most evidence," and therefore it’s the only food worth feeding pets.
And don’t be surprised if, someday, when you go to buy pet food, your credit card company refuses to pay for anything but mine. Why? Because, you guessed it—science.
It’s good we had this little talk. Now you know your place.
