The thing is, I think there's a difference between living and living well. A person could eat nothing but McDonalds for the entirity of their life and live to 80, the same age as someone who eats a more healthy and balanced diet. Just because they're showing no outside signs of illness or disease doesn't mean it's actually good for them, it just means it's not bad for them. If I thought that there was a higher chance of Pepsi getting ill on one type of food over another, I wouldn't feed it. It might not definately happen, and there are lots of stories of cats living to ripe old ages and never getting ill from 'bad' food, but it can't be doing her any good either? I'd rather feed something which is as close to a cat's natural diet as possible.
I think it was a very interesting article, I'm surprised they ran it actually. A lot of people do automatically just feed their cat the cheapest most rubbishy food out there, I know that personally I started feeding Pepsi Whiskas pouches because I thought that they were a more expensive well-known brand, therefore better for her, but they're only 4% meat
Considering in the wild a cat's diet would be made up of nearly nothing but meat, it seems quite poor in comparison! Now I've done my research a bit, I'm going to use up what Whiskas I've got left and buy a high-meat wet food. I'm hoping to try and move onto raw, but Pepsi isn't convinced yet
I think it's a bit annoying of them to try and put people off feeding a cat a raw home prepared diet though, by saying it's too difficult. As long as you do a bit of research I think it could be easy, especially with places like food4cats providing mixed packs with all of the components your cat needs.