Like dogs, humans are fundamentally social animals for whom “pack life” is critical to survival. Unlike dogs, however, we navigate social structures and secure belonging by carefully cultivating and performing identities that signal our rank and value to the group.
These performed identities, which are cobbled together from our political views, dietary choices, professional lives, and even how we feed our dogs, serve important psychological functions. They help us find belonging, establish credibility and build self-esteem within our chosen communities. While these constructed identities may reflect our genuine core values, they’re really just curated glimpses of our naturally complex, dynamic selves that shift and evolve throughout our lives, or hell, even throughout the day, depending on with whom we’re interacting.
This process of establishing and presenting our cultivated identities is a natural aspect of being a human living in relationship with other humans. However, we humans can run into trouble when we become so invested in performing these identities that we start making decisions based on what’s consistent with our persona rather than what the reality in front of us actually dictates. This tendency is particularly evident in the world of canine nutrition.
Divisiveness and Emotional Intensity Surrounding Feeding Strategies
Have you ever noticed how discussions about feeding approaches can trigger surprisingly intense emotional reactions? Or how quickly tribes coalesce around feeding strategies like raw versus WSAVA kibble diets, or how divisive the question can become as to whether domestic dogs are carnivores, or omnivores? Such eruptions of emotion can seem weirdly disconnected from the goal of canine nutrition: determining strategies to optimally meet our dogs’ nutritional needs.
This intensity starts to make sense when we understand that feeding choices have become powerful markers of identity. These choices are visible to others, performed daily, morally coded around concepts of care and responsibility and create easy pathways to like-minded communities. Moreover, the way we feed our dogs signals our values about “natural” versus “processed,” our relationship with corporate versus artisanal products and our identity as conscientious pet owners.
This same phenomenon is baked into human nutrition: consider, for example, the tribal dynamics around veganism, paleo or carnivore diets. These aren’t just dietary choices for many of the people involved, but instead represent statements of identity and can function like keys to group membership.
BK Pets' experience of ideological feeding
I was struck by a recent example from the canine nutrition industry that illustrates how feeding philosophies can become identity performances that can complicate the effort to “feed the dog in front of you.” Last June, canine nutrition influencers Bryce and Kenzie of BK Pets made a dramatic aboutface in regards to their feeding philosophy, publicly denouncing their previous promotion of raw diets and “holistic” feeding strategies in favour of commercial processed diets formulated by board certified veterinary nutritionists. After building a brand and a sizeable social media following by disparaging ultra-processed conventional diets, here was a reel of Bryce feeding his own dog Purina Pro Plan.
I clearly wasn’t the only person confused by the 180 degree turn and Bryce and Kenzie hosted an extremely personal 2.5-hour podcast to discuss this dramatic aboutface, during which they opened up about how their feeding approach had become more ideological-based than dictated by the nutritional needs of their own dogs. Their story goes full circle: from feeding their dogs kibble, to entering the “holistic movement” of dog feeding, right back to feeding their dogs kibble.
Bryce compares discovering and becoming connected within the raw and gently cooked feeding community to his experience of protesting George Floyd’s death: both provided a sense of fighting against “evil” and belonging to a righteous community. In this framing, feeding approaches become moral positions of “good” versus “evil” rather than practical strategies for meeting dogs’ nutritional needs. However, despite ‘fighting the good fight’ by feeding raw, Bryce shared his personal devastation when his own dog Harper refused to touch, let alone eat, the raw meal he’d spent hours researching, sourcing and meticulously preparing.
It wasn’t just the dogs’ nutrition that was put on the line during the couple’s foray into the “holistic” realm. Bryce also describes becoming the “Raw Milk Guy” to the point that for some time he drank large quantities of raw milk and almost no solid food. Switching to pasteurised milk based on the safety recommendations of numerous medical professionals, was another outcome of the couple’s philosophical aboutface. For her part, Kenzie revealed through her sharings that fear drove many of her choices and motivated her feeding philosophy: she was terrified her dogs would die and also describes projecting her own struggles with (human) food onto feeding decisions for her dogs.
Both acknowledged that once they’d built their business and life around these beliefs, changing course meant dismantling not just their brand but their individual identities. The final part of the podcast deals precisely with the issue of identity and the importance of decoupling feeding decisions from emotionally driven attempts to find belonging or build credibility within social groups or movements. Bryce and Kenzie’s willingness to acknowledge and correct their admittedly emotionally-driven approach offers valuable insights into how feeding choices can become identity performances that satisfy human psychological needs rather than our dogs’ nutritional requirements.
“Feed the Dog in Front of You”
What I’m taking away from that podcast is the importance of “feeding the dog in front of you,” a phrase spoken multiple times by Kenzie, which is essentially her hard won lesson: Base all feeding decisions on the nutritional needs of the unique dog under your care, not on the dogma of feeding ideologies, nor your own psychological needs and emotions.
While this lesson might seem deeply personal, I think it’s a universal one, in part because of the way that social media functions, making it so easy to get wrapped up in the allure of creating, performing and consuming identities. Social media is designed to be a “marketplace of selves” where users trade in highly manufactured identities. Whether we’re individuals or companies, we must package ourselves into marketable identities that can be hashtagged, branded and sold to niche communities. Success in this realm is measured in likes, shares, followers and brand deals. Buyer beware!: It’s extremely important to not mistake success in the social media universe for external validation that we are making the appropriate choices for our dogs’ optimal nutrition. We must keep returning to the act of “feeding the dog in front of us.”
Practicing Self-Inquiry
So, how can we avoid getting caught up in these kinds of distortions? Self inquiry. When making feeding decisions, we need to honestly assess whether we’re responding to our individual dog’s needs - “feeding the dog in front of us” - or protecting an identity we’ve built around certain feeding philosophies.
To seek clarity, consider asking yourself the following questions: Am I feeding this way because of what my specific dog requires, or because of what this choice says about me as a pet owner? Would I be comfortable explaining my feeding decisions purely in terms of my dog’s nutritional health, without mentioning my values or beliefs about the pet food industry? Am I open to changing my approach if my dog’s body condition, health status or circumstances change, even if it means abandoning a feeding philosophy I’ve publicly supported?
A Practical Assessment Tool
Here’s a checklist to help evaluate whether you’ve potentially fallen into ideological feeding approaches versus “dog-centered” nutrition:
Warning signs of ideological feeding:
- Your feeding approach claims moral superiority over all alternatives
- You dismiss contrary evidence without genuine consideration
- You use fear-based messaging when discussing other feeding methods
- You believe your approach works universally for all dogs
- You feel strong emotional reactions when your feeding choices are questioned
- You primarily seek information from sources that confirm your existing beliefs
Signs of dog-centered feeding:
- You consider your individual dog’s health history, age, activity level and current condition
- You remain open to adjusting based on observable results
- You focus on measurable outcomes like body condition, energy levels and veterinary health markers
- You acknowledge trade-offs and limitations in any feeding approach
- You welcome input from qualified professionals, even when it challenges your preferences
- You can separate your dog’s needs from your personal values about food and industry
Cutting to the Chase
Still seeking a sure fire way to stress-test your affinity for a particular feeding philosophy? Look no further than the following insight from human behaviour expert and analyst Chase Hughes:
“If you can’t see anything wrong with the side you agree with, and you can’t see anything right with the side that you disagree with, you have been manipulated.”
Note: Hughes’ litmus test can be applied to all issues and is immensely useful for determining whether we’ve become dogmatic in our thinking on any subject.
Looking Beyond the Echo Chamber
Another way of sidestepping the distorting influence of ideological thinking or identity-related-concerns is to consciously step outside our echo chambers and seek diverse expert opinions, even those that challenge our preferences. This means consulting veterinarians, holistic vets, canine nutritionists and veterinary nutritionists, reading peer-reviewed research and learning from independent experts who aren’t financially tied to specific brands or feeding philosophies.
It also means recognizing that what works for one dog may not work for another and that the “best” feeding approach for your dog might change over time based on their age, health status and individual response to different foods.
Ultimately, our dogs deserve feeding decisions based on their individual needs rather than our need to maintain or perform consistent identities. By practicing ongoing self-inquiry and remaining open to evidence that may challenge our own personal preferences, we can ensure that we’re serving our dogs rather than our egos - and living up to our role of guardian for our dogs.
The More You Know
Feeding your dog gently cooked or raw diets doesn’t have to be ideological and evidence-based feeding doesn’t automatically mean commercial kibble. I specialize in creating personalized nutrition plans that prioritize nutrient bioavailability and quality ingredient sourcing — without the tribal politics. If you’re interested in evidence-based feeding strategies for your dog that are high in nutrition and low in dogma, reach out to schedule a free 15-minute consultation.