If she ends up being right, I'd say it has more to do with the degradation of human food than anything else...but saying "pet food" is also, like the article briefly, vaguely, points out is describing a wiiiiide range of things. If she really is going to eat very select pet foods, she'll probably be fine for a month, although her body will miss a lot of stuff that's fit the human metabolism and not the dog or cat's (assuming she was any kind of healthy eater before)... Her advice to "read the labels" is pretty weak. Pet food nutrition labeling is a pretty laissez-faire operation. Sure, they have to list foods in order by relative weight, but that's easy enough to get around by labeling anything that comes form a chicken as "chicken" and split the filler crap into 10 categories, so they're all listed at the bottom. Pet food nutrition labels are just advertising, but then again, so is she. I don't expect honest results from her study-of-one either.