Tamarillo posted:

I'm glad people are being more discerning reading about this stuff. I can only speak for my institution but Hills and Royal Canin had little meaningful input beyond a couple of optional lunch-time lectures, the nutritional curriculum was spearheaded by a brand-agnostic boarded nutritionist and WSAVA member. We're not told to hawk the big brands and they're not funding secret junkets or kick-backs. I just want to put sick animals on food which has actually had trials, which boutique brands tend to not do. I also find that the vast majority of people who ask me what to feed their new pet just want to be told a brand and dislike being given a variety of options - so yes in that instance I'm probably going to default to recommending a brand that runs trials. I should also add that part of vet training involves spotting bullshit in published papers but I'm not going to pretend I'm fully up to date on all published literature and don't have any particular insight into the veracity of recent trials.