Yup I definitely feel like the fear mongering goes both ways. Before I started researching into raw food, I got the sense from anti-raw people that feeding raw would be downright dangerous, not only to pets but also to humans around them. Only after much more extensive research did I realize that even anti-raw people admit that this danger is more in theory than in evidence - just like only after much more extensive research did I realize that even pro-raw people admit there is no definitive scientific evidence supporting the pro-raw claims. But, once you strip away the mudslinging, I feel like certain reasonable deductions can yield.
For example, let's look at the fundamental thing that Skeptvet and Karen Becker agree on - that all else being equal, fresh food is at least "probably better than" processed food. This is a guess that both sides are willing to accept. So, if we accept this, then there are two ways that freshly prepared raw food can still be worse than kibbles/processed food:
1) If raw food's bacterial risk turns out to be real and high.
2) If the raw food you're feeding is nutritionally imbalanced.
To me, if you're concerned about #1, you can simply cook the raw food, and #1 goes away (Karen Becker herself does not object to cooking raw food). Then you're left with #2 - nutritional imbalance. For this, if you're talking about commercial raw food and commercial processed food companies, the difference is not raw/fresh vs. processed, but whether individual companies are knowledgeable about creating a balanced nutritional diet, whether it's raw/fresh or processed. Any kibble company can be ignorant and create an imbalanced diet, just as any raw/fresh food company can do the same. So, unless one wants to make the argument that raw/fresh food companies, in generally, know less about nutritional balance than processed/kibble food companies, then the concern over nutritional imbalance cannot be categorically held against raw/fresh food companies. One possible argument would be that big companies, like Hill's, simply have researched pet nutrition longer and more extensively and therefore they "know best" what to feed our pets. If this is the case, then one would have to argue that Eukanuba, Hill's and Purina are better than not only all the raw food companies, but better than all the premium kibbles companies as well - because all the raw food and premium kibbles companies are smaller than Hill's/etc., and therefore they must know less, so the argument goes. In other words, using this argument, I would have to pick Hill's not only over Darwin/Primal (prominent raw food companies), but also over Orijen/Taste of the Wild/ZiwiPeak.
So the question then becomes: are these big companies really the only ones that know what constitutes a nutritionally balanced meal for a dog or cat? I find that really hard to believe, especially considering what's typically considered the bible for nutritional balance, AAFCO standards, isn't exactly a secret recipe. Or, let's push the logic one step further - for the sake of argument, let's say that we agree Hill's has created the absolute best nutritional balance. Even if that were true, wouldn't it be a "better" food to simply copy Hill's nutritional contents (written directly on the Hill's pet food bag itself) and create a fresh version of these contents - basically, Hill's but with fresh ingredients? I'm not sure how one could argue that Hill's fresh food would be worse than Hill's processed food, if the contents of the two are exactly the same and the difference is simply that one is processed and one is fresh? To defeat this argument or at least render it irrelevant, one would have to:
1). Reject the original premise that fresh food is probably better than processed food.
2). Accept that fresh food is probably better, but say the difference is so marginal that it will not have any real impact on the health of the animals; therefore, you'd be paying more money and creating more work for no reason.
Does that pretty much sum up where we are?
Kevin