In this free market society we live in, there continues to be a sleeping cartel that seemingly gets passed over, is generally accepted by the public, and it is an absolute atrocity. I'm talking about what I will now call, the 'Vet Cartel'.
Backstory. I have two lovely pets: a cat named Finn, and pug named Zyla (or more lovingly nicknamed Squiggles). Like all living things, they have ailments and require medical help from time to time. I enjoy the vet clinic I go to. It has a good vibe, and the staff are all friendly and knowledgeable. They've helped both animals in some serious times of need, and without them, at least 1 animal wouldn't be with me. Vets do great work.
However, vets have somehow monopolized the pet healthcare market, and we have just let it happen. I find it somewhat ridiculous that I cannot go to the market, and pick out over-the-counter cough medicine for my pug, and that I must go get a vet's opinion on the matter before getting a prescription for it. Seasonal coughing is normal for dogs, especially pugs. I know the symptoms, how to help, and what precautions should be taken, and I can often recite to the vet tech what was prescribed last time, for how long, dosage, and effectiveness. Yet I have no other options to get medicine other than going to the vet's office. Imagine if every time you got a sore throat you had to go to the clinic to get prescribed what would basically be Ricolas or Halls lozenges.
Not only are these vets prescribing the drugs, but they are often the ones filling the quoted prescriptions. Yes, this is convenient, but when I go to a drugstore, like Lawton's or CVS, I can get a second, equally valid opinion on whether theses drugs are safe, if there are side effects I wasn't told about in the original consultation, or if there are other generics available.
We have somehow had blinders on and have accepted that we, the laypeople, cannot possibly know what is exactly wrong with our pets because we didn't get the chest x-ray, ultrasound, blood sample, urine analysis, and tests-that-need-to-be-sent-away that the vet has recommended. And if to add insult to injury, we are often questioned if we want to buy health insurance for said pets, only to find that even pets are not excluded from the lamented two-word phrase "pre-existing conditions", which in themselves have shown prejudices. For example, pugs are born with pre-existing conditions relating to breathing issues, so they aren't even covered if/when issues even arise.
Even options that are available over-the-counter (certain specialized foods), vets are often dismissive of these brands, and encourage buying the 'vet quality' foods. Finn now requires wet food that helps with urinary tract problems. After shelling out more than I'd ever expect to on a 'free' cat, I now had to face the exorbitant costs of $2.50 per can foods (which he requires 1.5 cans per day). Naively, I fell under the spell and bought the brands the vet had. I asked if other options were available, to which an uncertain 'yes' was what I received. A few weeks later I found at a chain pet store that an equivalent wet food, with essentially the same ingredients and proportions, was for sale anywhere between $1.50-$1.99. Extrapolated over Finn's projected lifetime (because I'm morbid), this could lead to a potential of $3,000 saved. Three. Thousand. Dollars. Saved. That's nearly 3-months rent.
Even more concerning for these perceived savings is that the total command of the market by pet food & vet clinic/hospital gargantuan Mars. Mars owns 41 of the major pet food brands (5 of which are valued at over $1billion), and in 2017 had a total company sales in excess of $17billion. Nestle Petcare comes in at second with $12billion in sales. In a distant third, Hills recorded $2billion. Mars owns brands that encompass all price ranges, from the cheaper Iams food, to the more expensive Nutro brands. Not only does this give Mars complete control of the pet-ownership demographic, but they have the power to manipulate price points for all consumers, making the price gaps wider or narrower depending on consumer patterns. A loss in one brand will roughly equal a gain in another, ultimately giving Mars full control of the rubber band effect that is consumer consumption trends. In what could be seen as a conflict of interests situation, Mars also owns one of the largest pet-hospital chains in North America: Banfield Pet Hospitals. I'm not going to cause conjecture that these Banfield hospitals will only supply products under the Mars umbrella, but it is hard not to assume that is the case.
So in conclusion, I hope that you recognize that we have fallen prey to one of the largest monopolies in business, and that we need to find ways to make more affordable to be pet owners. Owning pets should not be the luxury of the wealthy, and keeping them healthy should not be decided upon whether or not the owner can afford the exclusivity of the vet cartel's products.
Sources:
-Pet food revenues: https://www.statista.com/statistics/627850/leading-pet-food-companies-worldwide-based-on-revenue/
Write a comment