"Nutritionally Complete" assurances for our pet food?

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
If you want to read more detail on the limitations of AAFCO nutrient allowances, an article, "Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle," by members of the Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, published in the Journal of Nutrition is available here: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/124/12_Suppl/2520S.full.pdf
Like I said. I, for one, believe that having definitions, guidelines, and consumer protection via labeling regulations is better than nothing. But it is certainly no end-all / be-all guarantee that the food we purchase for our pets is actually good for them.
I think this paper sums up the problem the best. The idea of a single food being known to be "nutritionally compete" is simply a flawed concept. We just don't know enough about nutrition to be able to  make that kind of statement with any kind of credibility.
 
Last edited:

ducman69

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
3,232
Purraise
47
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by mschauer  
 

"Is this frightening scenario even remotely possible? No way, at least not in the United states. Although the accusation holds a grain of truth, it is only a tiny grain."

The last sentence sums up how I feel about a lot of what I read with regards to pet nutrition online: It isn't helpful.
The primary reason for the spread of misinformation and intentionally misleading statements is simply that they aren't typically attempting to just revise AAFCO standards to be more strict, but to attempt to dismiss them all together so that it doesn't appear as condemning when an alternative they are attempting to sell is so nutritionally off the mark that it doesn't even meet the AAFCO's bare minimum nutrition profiles due to various deficiencies or excesses, or as part of a fear mongering campaign to attract attention to their latest diet fad book... available now for the low-low price of $25 on Amazon.

Dr Atkins' book after all grossed over $100 million in 2003 before his accident, so clearly there is a huge financial incentive to advocate against conventional wisdom.  

Otherwise, it is akin to arguing that because American vehicle crash testing standards may not be strict enough, that untested vehicles or worse vehicles that failed the crash test would somehow be a reasonable alternative.  
 
Last edited:

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Now - I know there are differences in quality, but I just never considered the fact that the AAFCO would allow something like feces to be considered acceptable as an ingredient in our pets' food.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I can only recall seeing feces considered as "acceptable" with the caveat that it only be in quantities that are unavoidable during factory processing.

Did you know the FDA also allows a small amount of feces in human foods? 

The amounts allowed in pet foods might be quite different from what is allowed in human foods though.
 

auntie crazy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,435
Purraise
60
Originally Posted by Carolina

In regards to this:
And, sadly, that trend of animals living longer reversed back in the late 90s. I don't have any international info, but here in the US, feline longevity has been declining for the last decade (Banfield’s “State of Pet Health 2011” report). Among other issues noted, diabetes is up 16% in cats, and ear infections and dental disease have both increased. :-{
It might have to be due to this - I am pretty sure, in fact, it does....:
The rise in the use of grain and carbohydrate products over the last decade further contributes to the nutritional imbalance in commercial pet foods.[195] .... This news is even more disturbing where two of the top three ingredients in dry pet foods is almost always some form of a grain product.[201] The result of ingredients with low nutritional value is a pet that is slowing starving to death and at the same time consuming more and more food. Also, since cats are true carnivores, one must wonder how pet food manufacturers justify feeding them substantial quantities of corn as part of their “balanced” diet. http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html
Good find, Carolina! That Harvard Law student conducted a very thorough analysis and his paper should be a must-read for all pet owners. The aspect that amazes me the most is that this information has been freely available and, in fact, well-known in many circles, for many years.... but NOT by the pet-owning public.
Originally Posted by mschauer
...
The AAFCO nutrient guidelines are based on the NRC (National Research Council) recommendations found in their publication "Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats". The recommendations in this publication include summaries of and references to all peer reviewed literature used as the basis of the recommendations.
...
Slight correction, if I may.... AAFCO stopped using the NRC guidelines back in the early 1990s, ostensibly due to "practical considerations", as indicated by this article on PetFoodIndustry.com: The new NRC is here!
"Presently in the United States, the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) does not recognize NRC as the authority for label substantiation of nutritional adequacy for dog and cat foods. Because of concerns related to the practical applicability of the NRC recommendations in the 1985 and 1986 editions, AAFCO replaced "meets or exceeds NRC recommendations" with reference to the AAFCO Dog and Cat Food Nutrient Profiles in the early 1990s."
I've read in multiple locations, including the Harvard paper (quoted below) found by Carolina, that the "practical considerations" were actually related, at least in part, to the length of studies the NRC considers adequate... and AAFCO considers onerous. So instead of following study protocols that took too much time (i.e. cost too much money), AAFCO decided to form its own requirements.
3. Feeding Trial and Nutrient Requirement Regulations

... Because the pet food industry found the feeding trials too expensive and restrictive, AAFCO adopted Regulation PF7.[77] Regulation PF7 states that if the manufacturer intends to represent that its food is nutritionally complete (“complete and balanced,” “100% nutritious,” “perfect,” etc.) they need comply with only one of the following: establish that the product’s formula meets the nutrient requirements of the applicable nutrient profile, complete an AAFCO recognized animal feeding protocol, or establish that the product is nutritionally similar to the lead product in the same product family. ...Thus, the options provided under PF7 allows a manufacturer to make nutritional adequacy claims by performing something as simple as a standard chemical analysis proving that its product formulation meets the AAFCO nutrient profiles.[79]
Originally Posted by mschauer
Originally Posted by LDG
One critic of this method of feed formulation designed a "food" that met all the AAFCO nutrient profile requirements - even though the food was primarily formulated from old shoe leather, sawdust, and motor oil with a multi-vitamin-mineral supplement.
From Feed Your Pet Right:
...

    Is this frightening scenario even remotely possible? No way, at least not in the United states. Although the accusation holds a grain of truth, it is only a tiny grain: AAFCO does have an approved definition for leather as an ingredient in pet food <definition snipped>

....

Journalism like this sows further confusion and is not helpful to owners and their pets.
The last sentence sums up how I feel about a lot of what I read with regards to pet nutrition online: It isn't helpful.
The point the documentary makes, and one I think is completely valid, is that the AAFCO stamp of approval can be obtained via a simple chemical analysis, and that as long as the chemical analysis of the food fell within the ranges AAFCO considers acceptable, it would be allowed to carry AAFCO's stamp of "complete and balanced" - regardless of its true nutritional quality. (The ingredients fall under other rules and have no bearing on the chemical analysis or the approval / denial of the AAFCO "complete and balanced" seal.)

Rather similar to the 2007 melamine poisoning, in fact - the US manufacturing companies tested for the presence of nitrogen and paid for it, assuming that it indicated a certain level of protein. We know now, of course, how profoundly inaccurate / inefficient a measurement is such test.
Originally Posted by mschauer

Originally Posted by LDG  

Because of the nondescript nature of the mush and nuggets in pet food cans and bags, pet owners must extend a lot of trust to manufacturers. But the balm of blind trust and faith never turns out to be a solution for anything. For example, consider the following approved ingredients from the official AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) regulatory publications:

dehydrated garbage (you read that right)
...
he AAFCO definition for "dehydrated garbage" :

Dehydrated Garbage – is composed of artificially dried animal and vegetable waste collected sufficiently often that harmful decomposition has not set in, and from which have been separated crockery, glass, metal, string, and similar materials.  It must be processed at a temperature sufficient to destroy all organisms capable of producing animal diseases.  If part of the grease and fat is removed, it must be designated as “Degreased Dehydrated Garbage.” 
Doesn't sound so bad to me. It's inclusion in that list seems to me to be solely for inflammatory purposes due to the unfortunate name. This makes me question the authors true motive in providing the list. I would certainly want to see the AAFCO definitions for the other items on the list before forming an opinion on how awful they really are.
This is the waste from restaurants, grocery stores, etc.; no way would I feed any of this to my cats. I think - absolutely, pet owners should know this is in their furry little friend's foods.

Any level of decomposition is too much to use the garbage as cat food! Just how bad does the decomp have to be before AAFCO considers it "harmful"?
Originally Posted by mschauer
...
Also, if a food is considered part of a "family" of foods they can be labelled as "balanced and complete" even if they have undergone no testing at all. I haven't been able to find what it takes for a food to be part of a "family" of foods.

Maybe the AAFCO label should read "balanced and complete, as far as we know". 
It would certainly be more truthful!
  

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure to get any deeper into AAFCO's definition of "family of foods" than such things as the Harvard paper quote above, you have to purchase the regulation handbook.
Originally Posted by mschauer


Originally Posted by LDG

If you want to read more detail on the limitations of AAFCO nutrient allowances, an article, "Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle," by members of the Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, published in the Journal of Nutrition is available here: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/124/12_Suppl/2520S.full.pdf

Like I said. I, for one, believe that having definitions, guidelines, and consumer protection via labeling regulations is better than nothing. But it is certainly no end-all / be-all guarantee that the food we purchase for our pets is actually good for them.

I think this paper sums up the problem the best. The idea of a single food being known to be "nutritionally compete" is simply a flawed concept. We just don't know enough about nutrition to be able to  make that kind of statement with any kind of credibility.
I think we all agree with both of these statements!

AC
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Slight correction, if I may.... AAFCO stopped using the NRC guidelines back in the early 1990s, ostensibly due to "practical considerations", as indicated by this article on PetFoodIndustry.com: The new NRC is here!
I think you are misinterpreting what that article says. Note this in the article (my added bold):
The expert panels that developed the Profiles did largely base its nutrient requirement values on NRC recommendations, though, albeit with additional considerations for practical petfood formulation with commonly-used ingredients.
This is what is referred to when I quoted this from Feed Your Pet Right:
    Although the NRC's recommended allowances represent the gold standard for the nutrient needs of cats and dogs based on research, they are not recipes for making commercial foods. For one thing, they are based largely on experiments using purified nutrients, not foods. But pet foods are typically made from foods or food ingredients (except for supplementary vitamins and minerals). For another, the NRC's recommended allowances in the mid-1980s were set a levels designed to meet minimum nutrient requirements for dogs and cats, levels that did not account for variations in bioavailability-how well food ingredients are digested, absorbed, and metabolized-or losses of nutrients that occur when pet foods are cooked.   

    AAFCO set about developing nutrient profiles that take such factors into consideration.It began with the NRC minimum nutrient requirements based on purified diets. It then

converted the requirements to practical minumum and maximum nutrient standards (profiles) for dog and cat foods made from "nonpurified ingredients", meaning real foods.
The article is just saying that the AAFCO realizes the NRC recommendations can't be taken as is because the nutrient amounts are based on purified diets.  The article also states that while the new NRC publication is meant to address that issue it is not meant to supercede the AAFCO profiles. They are just saying that although the new NRC is based on newer information it isn't meant to take the place of the AAFCO profiles.
The point the documentary makes, and one I think is completely valid, is that the AAFCO stamp of approval can be obtained via a simple chemical analysis, and that as long as the chemical analysis of the food fell within the ranges AAFCO considers acceptable, it would be allowed to carry AAFCO's stamp of "complete and balanced"
That is not true; a simple chemical analysis is not all that is required. The ingredients used must also be one of the ingredients as defined by the AAFCO. That this "Old Boot" recipe is constantly being repeated without making this clarification is what makes it inflammatory rather than helpful.
This is the waste from restaurants, grocery stores, etc.; no way would I feed any of this to my cats. I think - absolutely, pet owners should know this is in their furry little friend's foods.
We'll have to agree to disagree about this. I don't see anything objectionable about [color= rgb(24, 24, 24)]dried animal and vegetable waste.[/color]
 
Last edited:

feralvr

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
18,474
Purraise
689
Location
Northwest Indiana
Laurie, just saw this thread :anon: Thank you for bringing this to the surface. I am in :shocked: at what is listed as acceptable ingredient's. I have to say - I am REALLY rethinking what I feed my pet's.... who can you really trust to make your cat's food other than yourself..... Very important information to have and thank you for this thread :hugs::bigthumb:
 

Willowy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
31,886
Purraise
28,287
Location
South Dakota
Another thing to note is that the AAFCO definitions, etc. apply to ALL animal feeds. Garbage and chicken litter are commonly used in feed for cows and hogs, the animals YOU (and your pets) eat. But not commonly used in pet foods.
 

sweetpea24

TCS Member
Alpha Cat
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
568
Purraise
24
Location
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Mschauer, response to your reply to Auntie Crazy's comment about the boot recipe requiring a "simple. chemical analysis", didn't the.book, "Feed Your.Pet right" quote a definition by the AAFCO of dehydrated leather? I don't have my copy with me right now but I seem to recall a definition of some sort. Just clarifying.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Mschauer, response to your reply to Auntie Crazy's comment about the boot recipe requiring a "simple. chemical analysis", didn't the.book, "Feed Your.Pet right" quote a definition by the AAFCO of dehydrated leather? I don't have my copy with me right now but I seem to recall a definition of some sort. Just clarifying.
  1.  
  2.  
  3.  
The definition is for hydrolyzed leather meal:
Hydrolyzed leather meal is produced from leather scrap that is treated with steam for not less them 33 minutes at a pressure not less than 125 pounds per square inch and further processed to contain not more than percent moisture, not less than 60 percent crude protein, not more than 6 percent crude fiber, not more than 2.75 percent chromium and with not less than 80 percent of its crude protein digestible by the pepsin digestibility method. 
As the authors point out this definition excludes indigestible leather processed into boots.

BTW, everyone does know that leather is made from animal skin, right?
 

Willowy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
31,886
Purraise
28,287
Location
South Dakota
During famines, people used to boil and eat their boots. I wouldn't say that tanned leather would be good for you (the tanning process is icky) but there was evidently some nutritional benefit in the leather. And people still eat animal skins. . .chicharonnes, anyone? :D

But, again, I bet that "leather meal" is used in livestock feed, not pet foods. Which is still scary, because I wonder about the quality of the meat from an animal that eats that kind of thing, but I don't know how to avoid it, short of moving to a farm and raising my own meat. Even "organic" and "grassfed" aren't as meaningful as I would like.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
During famines, people used to boil and eat their boots. I wouldn't say that tanned leather would be good for you (the tanning process is icky) but there was evidently some nutritional benefit in the leather. And people still eat animal skins. . .chicharonnes, anyone?

But, again, I bet that "leather meal" is used in livestock feed, not pet foods. Which is still scary, because I wonder about the quality of the meat from an animal that eats that kind of thing, but I don't know how to avoid it, short of moving to a farm and raising my own meat. Even "organic" and "grassfed" aren't as meaningful as I would like.
I don't think the issue should be what the ingredient is but rather how nutritious it is. Lots of things we human think of as icky and would not eat, at least not in Western cultures, is highly nutritious. I wish I could get a reliable supply of animal eyes for my homemade pet food. They are high in a nutrient that I can't think at the moment that is only found in much lower quantities in other, more available, animal parts. Brains are highly nutritious also.
 

Willowy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
31,886
Purraise
28,287
Location
South Dakota
I don't think the issue should be what the ingredient is but rather how nutritious it is. Lots of things we human think of as icky and would not eat, at least not in Western cultures, is highly nutritious. I wish I could get a reliable supply of animal eyes for my homemade pet food. They are high in a nutrient that I can't think at the moment that is only found in much lower quantities in other, more available, animal parts. Brains are highly nutritious also.
True. . .for carnivores/omnivores. Meat animals are supposed to be herbivorous, so when they're made to eat animal-sourced ingredients in their food, it just causes problems (like BSE and increased levels of e. coli in their droppings). All comes back to feeding animals what's natural for that kind of animal. But if our meat animals aren't fed naturally, then is their meat a natural food for meat eaters? I think we as humans have really gotten ourselves into trouble.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
True. . .for carnivores/omnivores. Meat animals are supposed to be herbivorous, so when they're made to eat animal-sourced ingredients in their food, it just causes problems (like BSE and increased levels of e. coli in their droppings). All comes back to feeding animals what's natural for that kind of animal. But if our meat animals aren't fed naturally, then is their meat a natural food for meat eaters? I think we as humans have really gotten ourselves into trouble.
Perhaps. But isn't that straying quite a bit away from the "nutritionally complete" issue this thread is about?
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #35

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Perhaps. But isn't that straying quite a bit away from the "nutritionally complete" issue this thread is about?
Well, yes and no. The AAFCO regulates what defines nutritionally complete, meaning how it is defined, and the ingredients that can be used to make it "nutritionally complete." And, ultimately, the question is, is the food we purchase for our pets good for them? I know the issue you're questioning is related to animal feed, but still... it speaks to the meat going into the food. :nod:

But one of the problems IS that species-inappropriate sources of nutrition are allowed in the feed/food - which again, gets back to the point of the bioavailability of the "nutrition."

Feral cats can live quite successfully off the garbage dumps of people. In one study done in Australia, feral cats obtained 80% of their daily caloric intake from the garbage dump rather than hunt for their food, even though rodents and birds utilized the dump. But they get to choose what garbage they're eating, and how decomposed it is or isn't. They also did not study how long the cats live, or what health issues they may face as a result of that diet.

And, of course, hunting domestic cats eat hair, hide, manure (well, partially digested food/almost-manure if it's in the colon) of a prey animal, etc. And they NEED those "by-products," that most of us consider disgusting.

But it seems to me there are further issues with the definitions... for instance, the definition of Animal By-Product Meal, in the Ruminant Feed Prohibitions guide to which you provided the link. http://agr.wa.gov/foodanimal/animalfeed/Publications/ProhibMatDefs.pdf

Animal By-Product Meal - the rendered product from animal tissues, exclusive of any added hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices...."
Or the dehydrated garbage definition: "...composed of artificially dried animal and vegetable waste collected sufficiently often that harmful decomposition has not set in..."

Or the dehydrated food waste: "Any and all animal and vegetable produce picked up from basic food processing sources or institutions where food is processed. The produce shall be picked up daily or sufficiently often so that no decomposition is evident...."

There are no definitions for "good manufacturing practices." So just what level of hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, etc. are acceptable? And what does it mean that "no decomposition is evident?" And what level is "harmful decomposition?"

Obviously not everything can be defined in infinite detail. But it's the "tolerances" or "allowances" that I think need to be questioned. It gets back to the point about distinguishing between the quality of ingredients. Quote from before:

Such a requirement might seem logical, but consider Dr. Wysong’s account of trying to include organic ingredients in his pet food. Because AAFCO’s list of approved ingredients excludes “organic,” attempting to label a pet food product organic requires “third party confirmations, affidavits, and proofs like those needed in some kind of criminal case.”[96] Costly and time-consuming requirements such as these necessitate Dr. Wysong’s listing of his organic ingredients as simply “meat.” These organic products are then sold on the same shelf as a mass market pet food containing inferior ingredients such as chicken beaks and cow intestines, yet also labeled “meat.”[97] AAFCO allows no distinction.
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html


Yes, our pets are living longer lives than they used to. But with the M&A within the now ENORMOUS pet food industry, and the focus on the corporate bottom-line, many of our pets are not thriving, despite the fact that they're living longer since the advent of widely distributed commercially available pet food.

The thing is, commercial cat (and dog) food can be better than table scraps/homemade, because it wasn't available in Warsaw Pact countries, and pets' lifespans increased quite a bit after the Iron Curtain fell and people began feeding commercial food. Cats' average life expectancy almost doubled (from 8 to 14, according to one study). Obviously, a lot of people weren't feeding nutritionally balanced food.

Good point, Jcat. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the foods originally sold for cats and dog were healthier, in at least some respects, than their counterparts are today. As time has passed, the system has found more and more ways to dump agricultural waste into the pet food market, hiding the waste and making a profit on it at the same time.

For instance, renderers include waste and expired foods from retail outlets such as Walmart in animal feed, and at this year's annual AAFCO meeting, conversation took place at the request of the rendering industry to provide a animal feed/pet food name for grocery store waste, and the example provided at the meeting was left over pizzas and expired Hot Pockets from Walmart. Hot Pockets and related processed foods for people weren't even around when commercial pet foods first became popular.

See Day Three of AAFCO Meetings for more on what went on during that meeting, including this little gem dropped by one of the AAFCO members, "We'll have to come up with a term that the consumer will buy or a renderer won't be able to sell it." 

And, sadly, that trend of animals living longer reversed back in the late 90s. I don't have any international info, but here in the US, feline longevity has been declining for the last decade (Banfield’s “State of Pet Health 2011” report). Among other issues noted, diabetes is up 16% in cats, and ear infections and dental disease have both increased.  :-{

AC
:yeah:
It is said that the pet food industry is a gigantic and absolutely necessary recycling "powerhouse" for the human food industry - without it, we simply would not have the capability of getting rid of all the carcasses, organs, bones, and all the left overs generated after the production of food for human consumption.... Think about McDonalds alone and how many cows they need to dispose of in producing their burgers..... The pet food industry is "nice", "convenient" and lucrative way to make all that trash disappear..... You can't simply toss millions and millions of dead animals in landfills and not expect a public health problem.....

In regards to this:

And, sadly, that trend of animals living longer reversed back in the late 90s. I don't have any international info, but here in the US, feline longevity has been declining for the last decade (Banfield’s “State of Pet Health 2011” report). Among other issues noted, diabetes is up 16% in cats, and ear infections and dental disease have both increased. :-{
It might have to be due to this - I am pretty sure, in fact, it does....:

The rise in the use of grain and carbohydrate products over the last decade further contributes to the nutritional imbalance in commercial pet foods.[195] “Once considered a filler by the pet food industry, cereal and grain products now replace a considerable proportion of the meat that was used in the first commercial pet foods.”[196] Why the change? Cost. Corn is a much cheaper energy source than meat.[197] But the change in pet food formulas has a real impact on a pet’s health. “Dogs have little evolved need for carbohydrates and cats have no need for this source of energy.”[198] Moreover, although dogs and cats can almost completely absorb the carbohydrates from some grains such as rice, the nutrient availability of wheat, beans, and oats is poor. [199] Other ingredients, such as peanut hulls, have absolutely no significant nutritional value and are used strictly as filler.[200] This news is even more disturbing where two of the top three ingredients in dry pet foods is almost always some form of a grain product.[201] The result of ingredients with low nutritional value is a pet that is slowing starving to death and at the same time consuming more and more food. Also, since cats are true carnivores, one must wonder how pet food manufacturers justify feeding them substantial quantities of corn as part of their “balanced” diet. http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html
So while we should question the claim of "nutritionally balanced and complete," at the same time, we can't just look at the list of ingredients on a pet food label and have any real idea about the nutritional value of many of those ingredients listed.

A simple example is carrots. The quality of a carrot vs a garbage carrot is basically moot, because cats do not possess the ability to process beta carotene into vitamin A. Now - maybe carrot as a filler does less harm than hydrolized leather meal... but what person looking at a list of pet food ingredients standing in a supermarket or pet store isle has any idea that cats derive no nutritional value from a carrot?

Of course, this is not a "definition of ingredient problem" ... just a marketing problem. :lol3:

As consumers, it is certainly up to us to be responsible for certain knowledge and understanding of what we're eating - or what we're feeding our pets. For instance, we're responsible for understanding that the highly processed generic white-flour pasta mac-n-cheese with "cheese food," additives, colors, and flavoring is not nearly as healthy for us, may be harmful, and does not have the same nutritional value as the mac and cheese made with organic whole-wheat pasta and real cheese sold at the health food store.

But when labeling requirements and ingredient definitions don't enable us to truly tell the difference....

:dk:
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
As consumers, it is certainly up to us to be responsible for certain knowledge and understanding of what we're eating - or what we're feeding our pets. For instance, we're responsible for understanding that the highly processed generic white-flour pasta mac-n-cheese with "cheese food," additives, colors, and flavoring is not nearly as healthy for us, may be harmful, and does not have the same nutritional value as the mac and cheese made with organic whole-wheat pasta and real cheese sold at the health food store.
But when labeling requirements and ingredient definitions don't enable us to truly tell the difference....
And changing the labeling requirements and ingredient definitions won't help. In order to manufacture a single food that can legitimately be labelled as "balanced and complete" we would need to know 2 things, the complete nutrient needs of the species the food is intended for and a complete understanding of how nutrients in every ingredient used are utilized by the species.

We don't know either of those things with regards to a cat (or any other species I believe) therefore, as I said earlier, the whole concept of a single manufactured food that is nutritionally balanced and complete is flawed.
 
Last edited:

carolina

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
14,759
Purraise
215
Location
Corinth, TX
And changing the labeling requirements and ingredient definitions won't help. In order to manufacture a single food that can legitimately be labelled as "balanced and complete" we would need to know 2 things, the complete nutrient needs of the species the food is intended for and a complete understanding of how nutrients in every ingredient used are utilized by the species.

We don't know either of those things with regards to a cat (or any other species I believe) therefore, as I said earlier, the whole concept of a single manufactured food that is nutritionally balanced and complete is flawed.
So then the correct thing to do would be removing that claim all together - since it is not possible to achieve, thus a misleading claim.
Consumers need to be educated..... at the very least, a rotation should be done when feeding..... To claim such a thing "Nutritionally balanced and complete" when it is so far from the truth.... well IMHO it is simply not right.
Let's face it - a lot of consumers are mislead by that claim - they buy the foods that contain that statement, and think they are safe, and that's all they need. They can feed that day in and they out to their animals, without a problem. IMHO that is a problem...... When the AAFCO themselves don't know what is balanced and complete for each specie. :dk:
 
Last edited:

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
So then the correct thing to do would be removing that claim all together - since it is not possible to achieve, thus a misleading claim.
Consumers need to be educated..... at the very least, a rotation should be done when feeding..... To claim such a thing "Nutritionally balanced and complete" when it is so far from the truth.... well IMHO it is simply not right.
Let's face it - a lot of consumers are mislead by that claim - they buy the foods that contain that statement, and think they are safe, and that's all they need. They can feed that day in and they out to their animals, without a problem. IMHO that is a problem...... When the AAFCO themselves don't know what is balanced and complete for each species.
I don't think rotating among several foods that make the same claim would help. You would have to know that there is some nutritionally significant difference in the foods and how can we know that?
 

carolina

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
14,759
Purraise
215
Location
Corinth, TX
I don't think rotating among several foods that make the same claim would help. You would have to know that there is some nutritionally significant difference in the foods and how can we know that?
It is not about rotating among several food that have the same claim.... It is about getting different proteins, different nutrients, that are available in different foods. It is not about the claim - it is about variety.
What would happen to you, as a human being, if you ate the exact same food, every single meal for life? You would certainly become nutrient deficient - that's why we eat a variety of things. Why would an animal be any different? Why would the thought of an animal, eating the same food, every meal, for life not bring the question of nutrient deficiency? :dk:
 
Last edited:

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
It is not about rotating among several food that have the same claim.... It is about getting different proteins, different nutrients, that are available in different foods. It is not about the claim - it is about variety.
What would happen to you, as a human being, if you ate the exact same food, every single meal for life? You would certainly become nutrient deficient - that's why we eat a variety of things. Why would an animal be any different? Why would the thought of an animal, eating the same food, every meal, for life not bring the question of nutrient deficiency?
The claim I was referring to is the "balanced and complete" claim. Human foods vary tremendously more than pet foods. A chef salad is nothing like chicken alfredo. That kind of variety doesn't exist in pet foods. They just aren't just that different even across brands. 
 
Top