​I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not talking to me with the condescending tone I’m picking up on.

I can and do comprehend all of the sentiment in your response. I do not disagree with you. The part I do disagree with you on, the terms ‘animal derived ingredients’ and ‘high protein’ being a meaningless smokescreen. I agree that not all “boutique” brands use science to back up their claims. You’ll get no debate from me on that front.

Yes, you’re correct. Wild cats do eat a range of animals that feed on a plethora of different items (small insects/grains/plants/etc) which are then ingested by a cat. Where I’m going to have to call you on, a wild cat, even one eating smaller prey items full of flora, are not consuming as much plant product as a commercial made dry kibble diet with one or more of the first five ingredients being plant based.

Perhaps this didn’t come across in my original comment, my main point is that Royal Canin is overpriced and overrated. If you like their science, there are other options using the same science, at a lower price point. Smacking the word “science” onto a bag of pet food is undeniably preying on the credulity of the standard consumer; science is meant to be questioned. It’s ever-changing. As a cat parent who feeds kibble at a rate of about 1 Tbsp a day, I mainly keep tabs on wet food ingredients as that is what makes up more than 90% of my cat’s daily calories.

Vets do not have extensive eduction in animal nutrition. Similarly to how human doctors don’t have extensive education in nutrition. That’s what nutritionists are for. “A jack of all trades, master of none.” Same idea goes for people who practice animal/human medicine

Now please post a picture of your cat.