As promised I have sent an follow up complaint to the BBC’s response to me.
I would like to understand how the BBC monitors that “editors ensure over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.” And further when I can therefore expect to see an alternative view being presented regarding the healthiest way to feed pet carnivores, in particular the feeding of a species appropriate diet.
I also challenge your statement that the BBC tests significant views rigourously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Are you able to support this statement by explaining how you tested (both rigorously and fairly) the view that pet food is “complete and all you need to feed your dog every day”. I am interested to hear this as my own research leads me to conclude that the statement is horribly misleading leading to significant illness and death in our companion animals
Whilst your audience research may indicate widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC’s reporting, I once again draw your attention to Tom Lonsdale’s Raw Meaty Bones book which explains clearly the link between vets and the pet food industry and pet food and disease in our beloved animals, in particular foul-mouth AIDS. To exclude this information from a programme covering pet food suggests to me you are not impartial, rather that you support the pet food companies. I would therefore like to understand how you are able to demonstrate that you are impartial in this area.
(Copied to http://www.tinkerwolf.com)“
As always I leave you with a photo of Ted, not a water dog by any means but he does like the occasional paddle: