﻿ Consumer Reports on pet food...a preview | petMD

petMD Blogs


  • The Daily Vet
  • Dog Nutrition Nuggets
  • Cat Nutrition Nuggets
  • Fully Vetted
  • Purely Puppy
Fullyvetted by petMD


Consumer Reports on pet food...a preview

Ever thought you’d look to the pages of a mass-market magazine for advice on feeding your pets?

The crotchety, consumer-advocate periodical you know as Consumer Reports claims millions of readers who turn its pages in search of “best buy,” “smartest sale” and “look-out-you’re-getting-hosed” kind of fare. On the whole, this mag is real close--if not right on the money--when it comes to telling you what you may need to know if you care about where your cash goes.

But when it comes to pets I’m not so sure I’d trust CR. Here’s some background:

For starters--and by way of full disclosure--you should know that Consumer Reports and veterinarians don’t see eye to eye. In 2003 it ran with a story on how to get the least expensive vet care...then another in 2006...by shopping around...essentially taking quality out of the criteria. It’s not exactly the kind of advice I’d want when finding the right service provider for my anything--much less my pet. Here's the AVMA's response.

Then in 2007 they clobbered the pet health insurance industry with genius advice explaining that you’re likely to lose money if you gamble on pet insurance. OK so tell me again what insurance is for and how the industry turns a profit?

I don’t know who signs their paychecks but if I had anything to do with CR I’d suggest they stick to cars and Cuisinarts. It’s clear that consumer electronics and automobiles lend themselves to evaluation, whereas services prove infinitely more tricky, it would seem. 

Yet here comes Consumer Reports yet again to try its hand at another pet industry faux pas...this time on pet foods. More their style? You judge.


Here’s hoping Dr. Wakshlag’s comment was taken out of context. After all, we all know some “foods” are “better” than others for ourselves as for our pets. No one’s seriously trying to say that Old Roy trumps Solid Gold, or that a microwaved frozen burrito beats a home-cooked meal, right?

Though I think that sentiment is clear from the second to the last sentence, this lead-in to the actual report (which is due out this month) strikes me as disparaging of consumers who seek better care for their pets through diet. If that wasn’t abundantly clear already, here’s another snippet:

If you insist on making your own pet food, consider enlisting an animal nutritionist certified by the American College of Veterinary Nutrition (www.acvn.org) or get help from www.balanceit.com or www.petdiets.com, which the ACVN lists as resources on its site.

First the kudos: The distribution of pet nutrition resources is brilliant. Thank you CR! Nonetheless it’s clear the editors at Consumer Reports consider you a silly human for "insisting" on making your own pet food in the face of scientific evidence that says no foods are “better” than others.

Yes, the implication is that you might as well feed Pedigree unless you have a bizarre bugaboo about quality of ingredients and safety. Nonetheless, I have to ask: If there’s no scientific evidence that any food is “better” than another, is it a negative finding born of careful research?...or is it simply the veterinary nutritionists' default claim based on slim-pickings science.

Yet interestingly, Consumer Reports urges you to keep in mind that the pet food industry may have bought and paid for their results. 


Not that it’s easy for any veterinary nutritionist to survive in the US without pet food industry funding. After all, consider that many veterinary schools receive pet food funding by way of basic survival (nothing so sinister in that, as I’ve previously explained). But CR certainly opens the door for your suspicions with this prominent statement. 

Despite my misgivings, this article appears to be headed in a far more productive direction than CR’s past two pet industry reports. Sure, that’s not saying much given its track record, but we’ll see what picture the whole piece paints when I stop by my local Barnes & Noble’s later today. I reserve any real judgment until then. 

Comments  35

Leave Comment
  • 03/28/2009 01:06am




  • 03/27/2009 11:12am

    I just read something that stated there are dead zoo/farm animals, euthanized animals, road kill and feces mixed into a lot of commercial dog foods, along with ingredients that aren't fit for human consumption.  It also stated that it's shortening the life span of our dogs.  Have any of you heard of something like that? 

    It's a book sale that's supposed to be based on facts, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'm wondering if there's any truth to it?  The site is:  http://www.thedogfoodconspiracy.com/dog-food-secrets.php.  The information was quite ghastly, and I'm thinking I should look more into it...not buy the book, but look further into the accusation.  Not sure how to do that though.  I was originally looking for pet food comparisons for a friend and happened upon that site.

  • 03/04/2009 03:55am

    I wonder if CR rated took into consideration the tainted food that killed so many pets in 2007 or the recent recall due to food containing melamine. Do they really believe that all pet food is created equal?T hey are mainly concerned with the cost of the food and nothing else. Pets have a better chance to good health eating natural food made with simple ingredients than packaged pet food that contains preservatives, colorants and artificial flavors.

  • 02/22/2009 05:38pm

    In response to Patrick: (love your blog, BTW)I really want to do a study comparing long-term dental outcomes in two groups of dogs: those fed primarily raw and bones, and those fed strictly kibble. To my knowledge, this study has not been done but differences have been observed. I'm looking for funding, and need to have a chat with the vet who inspired my desire to do this research.

  • 02/22/2009 01:04am

    I don't buy the "nutrients not ingredients" line, with a cat with food allergies.  She's supposed to be allergic to beef and lamb, so foods that say "kidney", not otherwise specified (n.o.s.), or meat n.o.s, aren't on the list.  Right now she's on a prescription duck and green pea kibble (NOT Hill's), EVO Ancestral Diet Chicken and Turkey or Avoderm Chicken Chunks (cat and kitten) for wet food.  She only eats about an ounce or ounce and a quarter of wet food twice a day and ALWAYS has kibbles available.  I've been trying to stick to mainly poultry for a while to see if that helps, and she's been pretty consistent about accepting the poultry-based canned foods.  She also seems to be a fairly picky eater, so if it's rejected,  it's wasted .  Common sense says that I won't save big money by trying to feed the cheap stuff to one tiny animal (6.75 pounds) that doesn't eat very much.  (It just takes a long time to go through a whole bag of kibbles.)

    On the other hand, if I'm feeding the humans in the house more vegetables, say lentil and rice stew instead of steak, having them take lunches from home instead of buying lunches, and feeding them at home instead of a restaurants, I'm probably saving more money faster.

  • 02/20/2009 09:12am

    I'm in a nutrition course right now, and while our professors use the typical "Dogs need nutrients, not ingredients" line, even they were taken aback by the idea that no food is any better than the next. I still don't understand why the human nutrition world is aiming for less processed, more variety, while the animal nutrition world is going in the complete opposite direction. I can't wait until the day that the myth of "people food is bad for dogs" dies!

  • 02/20/2009 08:51am

    How did people ever feed themselves without scientists to tell them what's what? Doritos and an apple are clearly equal, science hasn't said otherwise?

    If you want to believe that what you eat doesn't matter and what your dogs eat doesn't matter and what the "products" of industrial farming eat doesn't matter then fantastic for you.

    I believe that a fresh species appropriate diet is better for me, dogs and horses and cows and everything else on the planet and I make no apologies for it. Don't need anything but common sense to figure that out.

  • 02/20/2009 06:20am

    PBurns: I was thinking of you as I wrote this. Should've credited you for my thoughts. ;-)

    Yes, I get that there's no evidence. That's why I dislike the spin...no evidence=evidence that there's no difference. How have we proved the negative?

    Nutritious is one thing, I agree. Safety and quality ingredients, another.

    I know you feed your terriers what we here might call "low-end" kibble. For me, that's equivalent to a life of TV dinners. Would I live a long, long, healthy life on TV dinners? If I'm careful about portion control I'm sure I would. Does that mean it's the ideal diet? Let's face it, the reason your dogs do great is primarily because they're well-bred, well-exercised and well cared for...not because they eat X Dog Chow.

    And how about those of us who don't want to support industrial agriculture? Is there no room for social consciousness when choosing foods? 

    If the best nutritional bang for your buck is what this article is about, I agree that the [lack of] evidence supports its findings. As I said, it's a better article than I expected. Nonetheless, I find that it trivializes the human-animal bond by denying that there are significant reasons to choose foods on the basis of more than just its price tag.

  • 02/19/2009 11:01pm

    Now that vaccine protocols are finally coming around to reflect what many vets have suspected for years, I really think nutrition is going to be the next big area to be challenged in veterinary medicine.

    I've worked with about 15 vets in my career, and as far as I know I am the only one who doesn't feed one of the big name brands. Of the two I work with now, one feeds Hills and one feeds Pedigree. It makes me sad, but I understand why, when a new client comes in and tells me warily how they feed their dog Evo or Solid Gold, as if they are expecting to be scoffed at.

    I guess I'm not that surprised at the CR article, given their history and the fact that I think their reader sensibility is skewed a bit towards the medicore to begin with. How can they be expected to champion the cause for better nutrition when our own colleagues are so reluctant to do the same?

  • 02/19/2009 10:29pm

    I enjoy your blog and the wide range of responses. So much so, that there is a Kreativ Blogger award waiting for you to pick up (if you put those on your blog) and if you don't, just wanted you to know how much you're appreciated!

    Teri and the cats of Furrydance

  • 02/19/2009 10:19pm

    Dr K yes you disclaimed sufficiently :-)

  • 02/19/2009 09:51pm


    Yeah, I actually yelped when I read that in the issue.  Like CreatureofHabit, I'll stick to Whole Dog Journal's advice.

  • 02/19/2009 09:12pm

    Stefani, go to Orijen's website for the answer to your question (championpetfoods.com)... the issue was with food sold in Australia, because... well, go to the website to read about it if you want to know. :)

  • 02/19/2009 08:10pm

    Natalie re:

    "such as Orijen (dry) and Weruva or Merick's (canned). Also, what about those foods that are almost all pure meets?"

    Natalie, I don't know what's up with this, but my vet (one I like) recently asked me if I fed dry orijen. I said "no" and she told me they are uncovering some kind of muscle weakness in cats fed that because it's deficient in something. Does anyone know anything about this? (I have fed some but only as a treat -- my cats only get grain free dry as a treat.)

    LOL we feed lots of the same stuff, but I have a cat that pukes Merrick, so I do a little Weruva and more Natures Variety (rabbit and chicken canned -- moderate protein at 30% and reasonable low phosphorous around 200) and also the Nature's Variety nuggets. I do occasional home cooking to with a recipe from Dr. Lisa Pierson. Her site is really interesting. The recipe I have isn't

  • 02/19/2009 06:46pm

    Needless to say life hasn't been the same since the March 2007.

  • 02/19/2009 06:42pm

    Putting on weight isn't the panacea for everything just as increasing appetitie doesn't neccesarily translate into good nutrition.

    Otherwise regarding "may have bought and paid for their results" as long as certain twisted souls feel the need to lie, cheat and steal to achieve their ends some of us are going to keep pointing it out.

  • 02/19/2009 06:07pm

    Dr. K, is that reference to credit cards in a different article or have they changed the CR archive or is the on-line version different from the print version?  I ask because I don't see any reference to credit cards or financing in the linked article, just an analysis that one might save money over time without insurance by banking up front for expenses and to budget for regular/recurring costs rather than use insurance for them.  (Other than that, sorry, I grew up incredibly poor; tired of the advice out there that makes a small segment of society wealthy but is actually lowering the standard of living for the vast majority and I think over insuring is certainly in there because it builds in paying the insurance company a profit which is an expense most of us need not incur.  Yep, there risk and/or delayed gratification - should you get a pet [or have 8 babies] until you've banked enough to cover their expenses to start with? - but I see that as better than "I want it now" and will end up with less syndrome.  Maybe you can't bank the totality but you should certainly bank a reasonable amount with reasonable expectations for the future rather than expecting some miracle.)

  • 02/19/2009 05:35pm

    Challenge Patty:

    Pet Food is a multi-billion dollar business and highly competitive.

    There are scores of scientists in this country, millions of dogs, hundreds and hundreds of labs, hundreds of peer-reviewed journals.

    Find ONE study, anywhere, that says one dog good is better than another and bases that evidence on live-dog feed trial.

    Fine ONE study which says corn is bad.

    I cannot, and I have looked.

    Consumer Reports is right, whether you want to admit it or not. The folks who want to throw rocks, are free to do so, but they can only throw rocks because they have no evidence.

    And, let's face it, it's not like the for-profit pet food industry is not heavily incentivized to find a study that says one pet food is better than another.


  • 02/19/2009 04:31pm

    Not to get too off topic here but CR's main point is that insurance is a bad deal for pets based primarily on the fact that insurance is a bad product. Their arguments suggest people should save or use low-interest rate credit cards instead. No s---! Of course it's better to be self-insured...if you can afford it.

    Pet insurance buys peace of mind that you can pay for the unthinkable. You really don't want to be so "lucky."

  • 02/19/2009 02:26pm

    "9 out of 10 dentists..."  Oops, wrong topic.

    I wish the doc had said: There's no way for a consumer to know if one commercial pet food is better than another.  "For pet food, there's no official definition of organic, human-grade, premium, no fillers, or gourmet." http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/march-2009/money/pet-food/overview/pet-food-ov.htm?resultPageIndex=1&resultIndex=6&searchTerm=pet%20food and http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/march-2009/money/pet-food/pet-food-labels-what-they-really-mean/pet-food-labels.htm  The biggest problem is I can't tell what's in the can/bag TODAY, let alone what will be there tomorrow.  Inherent in CR is a presumption of a well informed consumer so the focus is on getting the product/service for less dollars.  I'm often disappointed at their bullet point style because they should really spell out more than they do sometimes.  On the other hand, it's designed for quick reading, not a scientific journal.

    "Dogs and cats each require about 40 different nutrients in very specific proportions. If you insist on making your own pet food...".  I didn't see that as seeing us as silly just as less than qualified to ensure our pets were getting proper nutrition along with a pointer towards becoming better informed.  Not sure they're wrong on that generally.

    A consumer IS likely to "lose" money on insurance.  THAT is how the insurance company makes a profit.  You lose money when you finance your home, put something on your VISA, essentially any time you live on credit which is what all these things are.  Wealth is built by living within and below one's means so one can save and grow but we've become addicted to the idea we can finance everything and become wealthy.  It's a delusion because financing costs money rather than saving it.  I understand financing/spreading the risk/gambling on catastrophic illness/injury insurance but any thing more is financing life instead of proper forethought and budgeting.  CR's analysis on this one seems right on the money to me.

  • 02/19/2009 02:18pm

    I don't know of a good source for cat diet info, but in terms of dogs - Whole Dog Journal does an excellent job of explaining nutrition requirements in dog food. They are subscription-only, so there's no ads and no conflict of interest.

    They are enthusiastic about RAW, but they don't push it and have annual reports for Dry Foods, Wet Foods and a new report on dehyrated food mixes. What I like is they arm you with the knowledge to make your own decisions and discuss it with your Vet. I had my dog's diet designed by a food nutritionist/homeopath ($75) and so far she is thriving. I don't know if it is cost-effective to make food from scratch for a big breed, but it's very cost effective for an 8# Chi. (Oh - Dr. Patty, the "she'll only eat chicken breast" people.... I feel like I know so many. It's not that hard or expensive to get a tiny breed on a balanced diet!!!)

    As for "Human Grade" pet food, I *think* that means that the facilities are inspected regularly by the FDA. Therefore, human food production must happen under the same roof (as the FDA doesn't inspect animal production). I could be mistaken though....

  • 02/19/2009 01:47pm

    Cait: Why put more meat on his bones if that's indeed the true expression of his metabolism? If we were talking the reverse, obesity, you'd have plenty of reasons to trim him down. But a naturally skinny boy? I'm not aware of any downside, save cosmesis.

  • 02/19/2009 01:21pm

    I wish there were more studies about how to get dogs to GAIN weight. :P My poor collieboy has a metabolism supermodels would die for.

  • 02/19/2009 12:50pm

    I was under the impression that for a pet food to say human grade, or something similar, it had to be manufactured in a facility that followed regulations for producing "human food."

  • 02/19/2009 12:29pm

    I meant "meat." I am sorry.

  • 02/19/2009 12:26pm

    Dr. Khuly, it is probably safe to say that the topic of nutrition is of utmost concern to all of us, pet people, not only for reasons of food dangers (poisonings, recalls, etc.) but also for reasons of less than a perfect consensus on what it is that represents the most optimal and balanced nutrition for our pets. I understand that you cannot give recommendations as to the brands of food, but can you state your opinion on what commercial foods should contain? Alternatively, can you point to a set of guidelines that you find most appropriate? By that I mean a set of guidelines that would address the issues such as whether grain-free is the best, and if not what are the cases when grain-free diets should not be fed. For example, I have a dog, who was on the Waltham urinary S/O for over a year, and now his crystal counts are normal, so we were advised to switch to "any" food. I find conflicting information, however, on whether dogs prone to forming urinary crystals should be fed high-protein, grain-free diets. Some suggest that any diet is fine as long as the dog consumes lots of water. I do feed my healthy dogs grain-free foods. I feed my cats grain-free foods as well, such as Orijen (dry) and Weruva or Merick's (canned). Also, what about those foods that are almost all pure meets? Of the ones I know, Evo, BG, and Wysong, but how would feeding theses foods be different from the chicken breast disasters you were describing? Some of them contain nothing but meet and a little water (no supplements). Thank you for your input.

  • 02/19/2009 12:10pm

    As many people here I tend to spend a lot of time studying dog foods. There's so many things to consider that I find it hard to believe that CR could develope a well rounded story. Humm...seems this happens a lot. Publicity sells, we see it every day where someone might be "uppity" about a food issue, a medical issue or what-have-you that we only see the glorifying side of it to get people talking/watching/purchasing the news story.

    As most of us know, there is a difference between foods, we see it everyday. Like my friend who took on a year old Doge De Bordeaux that had been eating Old Roy and switched it to Eukanuba large breed kibble. All her hair fell out and regrew into a beautiful coat. Her skin cleared up and her growth stablized. Hummm...a freak of nature? I think not.

    CR should stay in something that is standardized, can be solidly tested and backed by a proper study. Cars, electronics etc, stay away from something like this which is just too huge to manage in such a small article.

  • 02/19/2009 11:44am

    KateH: Here in Miami we see lots of homecooked diet disaster cases. Chihuahuas living on chicken breast, "because she refuses to eat anything else," etc. So yes, home cooking can be disastrous. I also understand why veterinarians prefer to "safely" recommend commercial foods. There's no veterinary accountability if things go wrong with commercial pet foods, whereas a recipe or a specific dietary recommendation is perceived to have its drawbacks when it comes to food safety or long-term health.

    Regenia: i try to stay out of the specific diet recommending business if your pet is not my patient. Perhaps others here can direct you. Having said that, I tend to go with Evo/Innova, but that depends on so many individual cat factors that you shouldn't consider that "veterinary advice." Did I disclaim enough?

  • 02/19/2009 11:39am

    "And their answer: "Most experts said they haven't seen that happen, with the exception of a zinc deficiency in the 1980s that was traced to a generic dog food. But half had seen pets become ill from eating homemade pet food..."

    This is a good example of how statistics can be twisted legally:

    "most experts said" - most experts in what? what constitutes most here? 51%? of all of them? 51% of the however many they asked?

    "half had seen pets become ill" - half of the "most experts"? So that's 50% of what exactly?

    "seen pets become ill from eating homemade pet food" - how many pets? how many were because owners did it incorrectly? what was the illness?


    Regenia: we feed our cats Wellness. There's also Solid Gold, Merrick, and several others out there. We (as in the two of us experts here at this house) stay away from any pet food brand that can be bought at a typical grocery store. Our dogs get Taste of the Wild, a high protein dog food. My Rottie had horrid gas from the wonderful high levels of veggies and fruit in Wellness but the others did just fine with the Wellness. So, statistically, roughly 17% of our dogs could not eat a "premium" food. The growing pup gets Wellness puppy food. He'll be switched to TotW in a month or so. We used to make our own cat food back when we had several with FLV. It was a long time before we could eat turkey burgers..... (adding ground turkey to hot oatmeal makes for a gagging smell)

  • 02/19/2009 11:06am

    So what is a good brand of cat food? I avoid the more obvious poor quality foods but what ones are good quality?

  • 02/19/2009 10:40am

    So what's CR rational for going to all the trouble to research and write this 'rating report' anyway then? If there's no difference in foods, why (and how) could they be rated?

    Since I stopped reading CR back in the 80s (they became so biased about anything that wasn't made in Japan, IMO) I don't know what their standard questions are for articles, but what cash value do they mean when they say "inexpensive" - is there a 1-4 dollar sign ranking with price gradations ($=under 1 buck a meal, $$$$=10 bucks a meal - and what size meal, btw) "Can inexpensive food make a pet sick?"

    And their answer:
    "Most experts said they haven't seen that happen, with the exception of a zinc deficiency in the 1980s that was traced to a generic dog food. But half had seen pets become ill from eating homemade pet food..." what exactly do they consider 'homemade pet food? Even a child knows that some homemade foods are better for you than others, especially if eaten in large quantities or as the only food (Grandma's homemade blackberry pie come to mind -it was full if sugar, fat, and highly refined flour, but it was homemade) versus a lean chicken breast, fresh mashed potatos, and green beans right from the garden. That was homemade too (chicken from a farmer 12 miles away even), but while better than her homemade cabbage and noodles (to me), it wasn't as good as the pie. What zinc defiency, btw? I never heard of it. Was this a local issue and which one(s) of their experts saw this? Also, I find it extremely suspicious that "half" of the experts had seen dogs get sick on homemade foods. Where's the examples? I'm sure CR didn't even ask what kind of sickness, or if the dog was sick beforehand, and from what. That's just sloppy science reporting. Oh, yeah, CR isn't a science magazine! So doing an article that, in order to be a truly objective rating on nutrition (a biological science issue) as opposed to an electrical engineering issue like speaker distortion vs, output levels, for example, is really beyond their expertise. CR needs to confine itself to inanimate objects designed and buildt to perform tasks, like washing machines and vaccumm cleaners.

  • 02/19/2009 10:33am

    Seriously ... last time CR did a piece on dog food (I want to say in the mid-1990s) they DID recommend Old Roy. They later retracted it, but the damage was done.

  • 02/19/2009 10:05am

    I believe this conclusion came from a Walthams's symposium article rating six High Price (HP) foods against six Low Price (LP) foods from the Netherlands.

    It found that in fact, several of the low price foods performed better than several of the high price foods.

    HOWEVER, it should be noted that the HP foods used were foods such as ProPlan, Science Diet and Eukanuba.  Not exactly "premium" by MY standards, anyways.  Where's the Orijen, the Nature's Variety, the Innova, the Merrick, the truly premium brands that contain high meat contents and low-glycemic grains?

    In addition, the glycemic count was not taken into consideration (which I consider to be of utmost importance) and they conveniently ignored several studies also put out by Waltham's nutritional such as the one stating that high-carb low-cal diets in cats caused a slower rate of weight loss and a higher rate of lean muscle mass wasting than a high protein, high-cal diet fed in moderation (which resulted in double the weight loss and a GAIN in lean muscle mass).


    It will never fail to amaze me how so called "scientists" and "experts" can ignore the common sense that's staring them in the face. 

    Honestly, if anyone ever suggested that Kraft Dinner and a multi-vitamin was as good for you as as a balanced diet based on fresh foods you wouldn't be fooled for a second.  And yet people swallow the same line about their pets as if it was sugar-coated...

  • 02/19/2009 10:03am

    You've opened up a can of worms -- or worse; the things that are permitted to be included in dog food under the AAFCO (the pet food equivalent of the FDA, only even less effective!) seal are too disgusting to detail at breakfast time (here in Arizona, anyway). I was appalled by the Consumer Reports study, for some of the reasons you cite but even more by its ignorance of the  complexity of the issues involved. I  would agree with CR that labels like "premium" are essentially meaningless; cheaper food may be as good as higher-priced foods -- if, that is, they're commercially produced by the big agribusiness companies.

    The survey doesn't discuss what goes into such foods, especially kibble -- basically, the dregs of  human food that's unhealthy to begin with -- or rate the really high quality foods, the kind that are including in the annual Whole Dog Journal surveys and whose producers don't spend their money on marketing but on good ingredients.

    When my dog was diagnosed with diabetes, the expensive diabetes formula kibble recommended by my vet didn't have a single ingredient based in nature. My vet is wonderful and I'm hardly a health food nut but  I  began reading up on pet food and discovered some really appalling things about what's permitted in commercial brands. I now feed my dog a combination of Wellness Core kibble (no grain) with a bit of  fresh meat -- which is less expensive and far healther than the brand prescribed by my vet, even if it's not approved by AAFCO.

    I could go on, but all this to say it's a very complicated issue and I think Consumer Reports did pet owners a huge disservice with this survey.

  • 02/19/2009 09:47am

    I guess I'm a silly human... I make my dog's food. I think I'll stick with Whole Dog Journal for nutrition advice and analysis of dog food and CR for cars.

About Fully Vetted

  • Patty Khuly, DVM, MBA
    Patty Khuly, DVM, MBA


  • Lifetime Credits:
  • Today's Credits:
Hurry Before All Seats are Taken!

Top Current Topics

