We consumers have years of exposure to “natural”  products, including food. Most of us have a comfortable-enough understanding, ranging from no chemical additives or preservatives to not overly processed to perhaps even organic. We also assume that natural means purposeful, better and more nutritious.

A little science and a lot of emotion first created and have sustained a healthy natural foods market. But the science is growing; hardly a week goes by that we don’t read about this food being an antioxidant, that one promotes heart health, another slows cell damage, and so on.

Ask a veterinarian for his or her opinion of natural food for pets and you’re likely to get the old Bronx cheer. Seems paradoxical, as most veterinarians chose that career based largely on a love of companion animals–pure emotion. However, they’re schooled to make decisions based on scientific, proven and peer-reviewed published knowledge. And there’s the rub. While we may look on our pet companions as children, veterinarians know they’re not small humans with four legs and fur, especially in that their nutritional needs are very different from ours.

Here’s the divide: research has shown that the veterinarian is the most important source of information and influence to pet owners, and our research indicates that nearly one-half of all pet owners are “vet-dependent.”

As the relationship between pet and pet owner has evolved, so have pet products, including a plethora of natural nutritional products. By some reports, the natural pet food category is sustaining very healthy growth. But a rich source of influence to drive even greater growth–the veterinarian’s recommendation–will remain largely untapped until natural pet food manufacturers demonstrate science behind the products.

My friend Jill told this story recently: a friend of a friend of her mother read on the Internet that pet owners shouldn’t clean floors with Swiffer wet products as they purportedly contain the same chemical as antifreeze.  When Jill asked her mom if she believed that, she said, “Jill, honey–it must be true. I Googled it and read for myself on the Internet.”

To paraphrase the cartoon caption: on the Internet, nobody knows you’re sharing a myth, a half-truth or a bold-faced lie. It’s on the Internet; lots of people are reading it as evidenced by its optimization on Google so therefore, it must be true. By the way, the Swiffer story is pure fabrication. What’s amazing is that it’s still out there after five years!

And therein lies the dilemma with relying on the Internet for the definitive word; anyone and everyone can speak with authority. And it seems the louder the voice, the greater the optimization, the more validity is given. Unfortunately, the Internet has created a whole new breed of muckrakers, many of whom seem more ill-informed than purposely untruthful.

In our work for pet clients, we’ve seen on the Internet a fair amount of ignorance if not out-right fabrication. One website in particular–which I won’t name because they’re already too nicely optimized–touts itself as a fair, unbiased source of information for pet owners. It’s far from being either fair or unbiased. It gets a lot of traffic so it’s easy to assume that visitors are reading and accepting what they read. Because the web is so convenient and pervasive, it’s not difficult to make this leap: most pet owners are turning to the Internet for information and advice.

That’s a scary thought, but here’s reassurance. While pet owners might read and research online, we know from Trone Brand Connections consumer studies that the overwhelming majority talk to their veterinarian and take his or her advice. That doesn’t suggest that we and our clients should ignore online information, especially attempting to correct misinformation, but must ensure that we’re engaged and communicating with most pet owners’ preferred source of information and education–the veterinary community.