"Nutritionally Complete" assurances for our pet food?

carolina

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
14,759
Purraise
215
Location
Corinth, TX
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. 
Nutritionally complete gives the idea of just that. That's all they need- period.
Plus, When you feed kibbles, the majority of people, you feed for months, and months, if not for years.
Do you eat chef salad, and nothing else, at all every meal, for that long? As long as a pet owner feeds ONE brand of kibbles to their pets? If you did, what would happen to you? That is my point here - that would not be a nutritionally balanced and complete diet, even though it might be a nutritionally balanced meal.

My point is, if you can't make that claim, don't - it is misleading and not a true claim - therefore, it should not be made IMHO.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #42

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
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. 
And cats don't need that variety in ingredients - they need the variety in meat-based proteins and, as cooked, then proper supplementation (to the best of our current nutritional knowledge). But rotating foods across types and brands is certainly better than not! And if the claim "balanced and complete" wasn't made... people might be more inclined to add variety to their cats' diet than they are otherwise predisposed to do.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #43

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
And changing the labeling requirements and ingredient definitions won't help.

...snip...
I disagree. I think changign labeling requirements could help a great deal. Right now there is one category for "protein." Well - what about requiring companies to distinguish between meat-based - or at least meat-related (if by-products) proteins and non-meat-based proteins? I think that in and of itself would make a HUGE difference. The AAFCO doesn't allow carbs to be listed - we have to use our own calculators to figure the carb content out. What's the logic in this?

No, there are a host of problems apart from the "balanced and complete" claims, and SOME of them could be addressed with just labeling changes.
 

carolina

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
14,759
Purraise
215
Location
Corinth, TX
I disagree. I think changign labeling requirements could help a great deal. Right now there is one category for "protein." Well - what about requiring companies to distinguish between meat-based - or at least meat-related (if by-products) proteins and non-meat-based proteins? I think that in and of itself would make a HUGE difference. The AAFCO doesn't allow carbs to be listed - we have to use our own calculators to figure the carb content out. What's the logic in this?
No, there are a host of problems apart from the "balanced and complete" claims, and SOME of them could be addressed with just labeling changes.
:yeah:
Great point!
And just to add to that, the example of Chicken cat food, Chicken Formula and With Chicken - which contains 95% of chicken, 25 and 3% respectively..... well, that is NOT listed, and I guarantee most people don't know that.... especially when the cans are sold side by side on the store. What about listing percentages of the meat right in front? That would push the consumers to read the ingredients on the back, which would be specially important for cats and dogs with food sensitivities, for example.
 
Last edited:

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Nutritionally complete gives the idea of just that. That's all they need- period.
Plus, When you feed kibbles, the majority of people, you feed for months, and months, if not for years.
Do you eat chef salad, and nothing else, at all every meal, for that long? As long as a pet owner feeds ONE brand of kibbles to their pets? If you did, what would happen to you? That is my point here - that would not be a nutritionally balanced and complete diet, even though it might be a nutritionally balanced meal.
My point is, if you can't make that claim, don't - it is misleading and not a true claim - therefore, it should not be made IMHO.
I agree the "balanced and complete" claim doesn't make sense. I just don't see how rotating among a group of cat foods that have all been formulated in the same manner is going to help. I guess I don't have the confidence you have that the ingredients differ enough even across brands that any kind of nutritional variation can be achieved by rotating among them. 
 
Last edited:

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
And cats don't need that variety in ingredients - they need the variety in meat-based proteins and, as cooked, then proper supplementation (to the best of our current nutritional knowledge). But rotating foods across types and brands is certainly better than not! And if the claim "balanced and complete" wasn't made... people might be more inclined to add variety to their cats' diet than they are otherwise predisposed to do.
I'm pretty sure there are several pet food manufacturers that would say that is exactly the product they are producing today.

I agree that if the "balanced and complete" claim were removed from labels that pet owner would at least be motivated to think more about what they feed their pets.  
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
I disagree. I think changign labeling requirements could help a great deal. Right now there is one category for "protein." Well - what about requiring companies to distinguish between meat-based - or at least meat-related (if by-products) proteins and non-meat-based proteins? I think that in and of itself would make a HUGE difference. The AAFCO doesn't allow carbs to be listed - we have to use our own calculators to figure the carb content out. What's the logic in this?
No, there are a host of problems apart from the "balanced and complete" claims, and SOME of them could be addressed with just labeling changes.
Those things would help if your average pet owner were aware of the significance of the distinctions. Most aren't. I guess removing the "balanced and complete" label would motivate them to learn about the distinctions though.
 

Willowy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
31,886
Purraise
28,287
Location
South Dakota
Doubt it. I don't think most pet owners even know there's a "complete and balanced" spiel on the label.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Doubt it. I don't think most pet owners even know there's a "complete and balanced" spiel on the label.
Probably true. I think it is conditioned behavior at this point that most pet owners believe that which ever pet food they choose to buy is "complete" even if they don't really think about it that way.

That conditioned behavior would have to be changed if changing the label requirements is going to have any affect. But the labels have to be changed first.
 

carolina

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
14,759
Purraise
215
Location
Corinth, TX
Doubt it. I don't think most pet owners even know there's a "complete and balanced" spiel on the label.
Sure..... The1/2 inch heart seal right by fancy feast logo that says that is completely invisible...... Go it. Just and example how manufacturers use that. They sure let consumers know it. (and that is in the 3oz can, BTW) That seal takes about 1/3 of the height of the label, if not more.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #51

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Yeah, and most cat owners don't read the labels to see what's in there to begin with. But it doesn't stop the AAFCO from requiring a guaranteed analysis and the list of ingredients, such as they are. But consumers are becoming more educated about their pets needs.

Simply because "pet owners aren't conditioned to think about it" is no reason not to do it. In fact, the growing number of higher end foods, marketing strategies, and commercially available raw diets speaks volumes about the change in consumer thinking about the food they feed their pets.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Yeah, and most cat owners don't read the labels to see what's in there to begin with. But it doesn't stop the AAFCO from requiring a guaranteed analysis and the list of ingredients, such as they are. But consumers are becoming more educated about their pets needs.
Simply because "pet owners aren't conditioned to think about it" is no reason not to do it. In fact, the growing number of higher end foods, marketing strategies, and commercially available raw diets speaks volumes about the change in consumer thinking about the food they feed their pets.
I didn't say that because "pet owners aren't conditioned to think about it" was a reason to not change the labels. In fact I said that the labels have to be changed before the reconditioning could happen.
 

Willowy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
31,886
Purraise
28,287
Location
South Dakota
Sure..... The1/2 inch heart seal right by fancy feast logo that says that is completely invisible...... Go it. Just and example how manufacturers use that. They sure let consumers know it. (and that is in the 3oz can, BTW) That seal takes about 1/3 of the height of the label, if not more.
Yeah. . .is there any requirement for having a little heart saying "100% complete and balanced" on the front? Seems to me that could be considered advertising, and the requirements for advertising are different. I don't know. I'm actually pretty sure that dollar store foods say "complete and balanced" on the label and they don't have the AAFCO spiel on the back (which I have pointed out to people). I also know people who feed their cat nothing but Sheba, which clearly says on the label "not a complete diet; for supplemental feeding only". I don't think the label has much to do with peoples' decision to buy that food. I think most Americans just assume that if it says "cat food" that it's fine to feed to your cat.

I do think that labels should be made clearer for the people who do care to look. I'd definitely like to see calorie counts required.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #54

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
I didn't say that because "pet owners aren't conditioned to think about it" was a reason to not change the labels. In fact I said that the labels have to be changed before the reconditioning could happen.
Sorry, misunderstood!

And yes, it'd be great to see calorie count, carbs, and percent of protein from MEAT (or at least meat-related products). In fact - as long as we're discussing labeling, why not require them to put the analysis on a dry matter basis?
 
Last edited:

carolina

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
14,759
Purraise
215
Location
Corinth, TX
Yeah. . .is there any requirement for having a little heart saying "100% complete and balanced" on the front? Seems to me that could be considered advertising, and the requirements for advertising are different. I don't know. I'm actually pretty sure that dollar store foods say "complete and balanced" on the label and they don't have the AAFCO spiel on the back (which I have pointed out to people). I also know people who feed their cat nothing but Sheba, which clearly says on the label "not a complete diet; for supplemental feeding only". I don't think the label has much to do with peoples' decision to buy that food. I think most Americans just assume that if it says "cat food" that it's fine to feed to your cat.
I do think that labels should be made clearer for the people who do care to look. I'd definitely like to see calorie counts required.
Not for the little heart - But Yes for the Claim - the Claim is exactly the AAFCO Claims "100% Complete & Balanced"

The point made was that the consumers didn't see that..... The point I made is that yes, they see it. Because Manufacturers know very very well how to display this claim very visibly. Being with a heart, being by making it larger, bold, red, whatever - it is the same claim - That it is Balanced and Complete.
IMHO has everything to do with consumers buying their food..... Put a beautiful bag on the shelf, with a gorgeous picture of meat and chicken legs, and a huge seal saying 100% Balanced and Complete next to another bag - this time Brown, plain, that only says Cat food, and see which one that will sell. I guarantee you not the brown one.
 
Last edited:

auntie crazy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,435
Purraise
60
In addition to all of the ingredient concerns already mentioned, here are two more: GRAS foods (or "Generally Recognized As Safe" foods) and unregulated additives.

Here's an article from PetFoodIndustry.com on GRAS regulations: AFIA files comments on FDA-proposed GRAS petfood rule - "CVM (Center for Veterinarian Medicine) stated during several public forums that proof of utility of an ingredient must be published. However, AFIA (American Feed Industry Association) said it believes that an absolute requirement for proof and publication of utility is inappropriate and unnecessary, claiming the pivotal issue is whether the ingredient is safe to feed to animals at the intended level. AFIA also said CVM should accept safety data extrapolated from other species, instead of requiring separate tests for each species."

And another: FDA issues letter clarifying GRAS labels on animal food substances - "A substance marketed as GRAS is not subject to premarket review or approval by FDA, the letter explains. This marketing is done at the company's own risk, however the substance and firm are subject to FDA enforcement action if the agency determines a substance is not GRAS."

And one more: The GRAS is always greener - "Technically, the GRAS notification process is voluntary. An interested party may conduct a self-determination of GRAS and market that ingredient without informing the FDA."

Both guar gum and glycerin are GRAS additives.

Here's an article on a couple of the unregulated additives: How do you solve a problem like glucosamine in petfood? - "Glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate have been ingredients in petfoods for most of the last 20 years. However, neither ingredient ever has been formally approved or otherwise sanctioned for that purpose."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just thought I'd throw out these two avenues for untested, unregulated and possibly harmful ingredients.

In my opinion, it seems that everything from the basic premise for the pet food industry's very existence (to dispose of human agricultural waste), to the types, quality and condition of ingredients, to the bioavailability (or actual nutrition) and appropriateness of ingredients, to the ever-increasing numbers of sick, unhealthy, and dying kitties, there is room for true concern and rethinking of the whole "food in a can/bag" concept.

Best regards.

AC
 

ducman69

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
3,232
Purraise
47
Location
Texas
Yes, it is completely absurd and IMO quite intentionally misleading, and the guaranteed analysis as well as nutrition profiles for complete and balanced meals is also not divorced from an ingredient list with very specific definitions for that ingredient.  

Take the nutrition info off a some Blue food:
95% of the protein comes from real chicken

Formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Cat Food Nutrient Profiles for maintenance.

Chicken, Chicken Broth, Potatoes, Guar Gum, Dicalcium Phosphate, Choline Chloride, Flaxseed Meal (Natural Source of Omega 3 Fatty Acids), Salt, Carageenan, Cassia Gum, Potassium Chloride, Taurine, Vitamin A Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Niacin (Vitamin B3), d-Calcium Pantothenate (Vitamin B5), Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Biotin (Vitamin B7), Folic Acid (Vitamin B9), Vitamin B12 Supplement, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Vitamin E Supplement, Iron Amino Acid Chelate, Zinc Amino Acid Chelate, Copper Amino Acid Chelate, Manganese Amino Acid Chelate, Sodium Selenite, Calcium Iodate .

Crude Protein 10.0% min

Crude Fat 9.0% min

Crude Fiber 1.5% max

Moisture 78.0% max

Ash 2.5% max
What is "Chicken"?  The AAFCO can tell you exactly what that definition is:
Chicken is the clean combination of flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts or whole carcasses of chicken- exclusive of feathers, heads, feet, and entrails.
This product does not contain "Chicken Meal", but if you are curious it too has a AAFCO definition:
Chicken which has been ground or otherwise reduced in particle size.
This product does not contain "Chicken By-Product Meal", but if it did you could again refer to the AAFCO for a definition of what that means:
Chicken by-product meal consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice.
Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

In my opinion, it seems that everything from the basic premise for the pet food industry's very existence (to dispose of human agricultural waste), to the types, quality and condition of ingredients, to the bioavailability (or actual nutrition) and appropriateness of ingredients, to the ever-increasing numbers of sick, unhealthy, and dying kitties, there is room for true concern and rethinking of the whole "food in a can/bag" concept.
1) The premise of the pet food industry, and to lump them all under one umbrella, is unsubstantiated and by its broad scope can not be anything more than your personal opinion.

2) Likewise, you can say nothing to the bioavailability, type, quality, or condition of ingredients over an entire industry.  In fact, I'd like you to list your figures for the bioavailability of even just one popular brand of cat food.  What is the protein bioavailability of the chicken in Nutro Complete Care for example, and how exactly did you come across this information?  If its merely regarding being cooked, note that bioavailability can be drastically increased by cooking and is not always decreased.     Raw eggs have only roughly 50% of their protein bioavailable, compared to 95% for cooked eggs, and raw eggs interfere with the absorption of various vitamins.  

3) Regarding the ever-increasing numbers of sick, unhealthy, and dying kitties, where are you getting your numbers from, and what recognized medical organization has linked this to the pet food industry, which has over all consistently become healthier every year?   

Then if you are rethining the whole "food in a can/bag" concept because of sensationalized and misleading statements about testing, analysis, and statements by the FDA/AAFCO, what is the alternative?   Where are you going to source non-commercial meat, and what do you say to the studies from Universities and feline medical organizations like the American, Canadian, and British Veterinary Medical Associations regarding the dangers of nutritional excesses and deficiencies they have found actually scientifically testing home prepared meals using popular online recipes that unfortunately are created with NO testing, NO regulation, and NO expert oversight whatsoever?  

So while it is great to applaud advancing regulatory efforts to improve the safety of pet food, my opinion is that it is outright dangerous to propose that no safety regulation or foods that have in fact failed existing safety regulations are somehow a superior alternative, and to disseminate half-truths to mislead consumers such as the bogus shoe leather comment.  
 
Last edited:

auntie crazy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,435
Purraise
60
What great timing! Susan Thixton over at TruthAboutPetFood.com just wrote about that very thing - AAFCO's definition of chicken: Is there Chicken in Chicken Pet Foods?

An excerpt ('though I encourage everyone to go read the whole article):
Here is the AAFCO definition of poultry (quoting the 2011 AAFCO Official Publication): "Poultry is the clean combination of flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts or whole carcasses of poultry or a combination thereof, exclusive of feathers, heads, feet and entrails.  It shall be suitable for use in animal food.  If it bears a name descriptive of its kind, it must correspond thereto.

Problems with this pet food ingredient definition...

#1  This ingredient (which includes all types of poultry including chicken) can be "a combination thereof" of any part of poultry.  This means that a pet food, proudly claiming Chicken as the #1 ingredient, can include ONLY chicken bones and/or skin (left over from the human food industry).

#2  "It shall be suitable for use in animal food" means that animals rejected for use in human food for reasons including (but not limited to) disease and drug residues are approved for use in pet food.  This we can thank the FDA for.  Federal Food Safety Laws should make it illegal for pet food to include whole or parts of diseased or rejected animals, but FDA Compliance Policies tell pet food it is acceptable to use diseased and drugged animals in pet food ("it shall be suitable for use in animal food").
And here, she sums up the crux of the issue quite nicely:
Other pet food meat ingredient definitions are a bit more descriptive, however all meat pet food ingredient definitions include the "it shall be suitable for use in animal food" disclaimer.  Thus any pet food meat ingredient - thanks to FDA Compliance Policies and AAFCO ingredient definitions - can be the same quality as human meats or can be sourced from diseased, rejected animals.  But, regulations do NOT provide petsumers with a means to determine which is which.
Transparency. A wee bit of honesty. Some concern for the final consumers of these products. That's not too much to ask for.

AC
 
Last edited:

ducman69

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
3,232
Purraise
47
Location
Texas
I noticed you did not address any of the questions directed as to how you came to make the previous statements.
What great timing! Susan Thixton over at TruthAboutPetFood.com just wrote about that very thing - AAFCO's definition of chicken: Is there Chicken in Chicken Pet Foods?
Someone is being dishonest here, as clearly that is NOT the AAFCO definition of chicken.   I already posted the AAFCO definition of chicken, it is right above your post.  Chicken per AAFCO/FDA mandate as an ingredient, cannot be sourced from 4-D animals, again another grossly misleading comment.   Nutrient profiles also demonstrate the amount of fat and protein in the food, and the AAFCO statements make it clear if the recipe meets nutrient minimums and doesn't exceed excesses.   You are not going to achieve this, nor the "95% protein from chicken" if the chicken were all bone and skin.   This is too painfully obvious to escape anyone with a background in nutrition... at least if they are attempting to be honest.  


BTW, Susan Thixton I assume has actually received a professional education in pet nutrition, and isn't just someone selling "scare books" on Amazon.com and attracting traffic to a blog?

Misleading quotes by Susan Thixton:
AAFCO pet food regulations won't allow pet foods to state Grade of Ingredient on a pet food label.
That is not true, what the AAFCO does not allow is for someone to INVENT grades of meat.   You can't call something "human grade chicken" on an ingredient list, because this does not exist.   And you can't call it "Grade A Beef" because the USDA does not grade pet food.    So yes, the AAFCO (well really the FDA) does not allow manufacturers to lie.
It shall be suitable for use in animal food"  means that animals rejected for use in human food for reasons including (but not limited to) disease and drug residues are approved for use in pet food.
Nope, according to the FDA it means that: 
"suitable for use in animal feeds; the ingredients are of an appropriate grade that experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of substances directly or indirectly added to food would agree the ingredients are safe"
That is the danger of these "half-truths".   They may scare some people into buying your book, but they can be quite misleading.
 
Last edited:

carolina

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
14,759
Purraise
215
Location
Corinth, TX
I noticed you did not address any of the questions directed as to how you came to make the previous statements.


Someone is being dishonest here, as clearly that is NOT the AAFCO definition of chicken.   I already posted the AAFCO definition of chicken, it is right above your post.  Chicken per AAFCO/FDA mandate as an ingredient, cannot be sourced from 4-D animals, again another grossly misleading comment.  Where exactly do you see this Ducman? (Bolded - please post source. Nutrient profiles also demonstrate the amount of fat and protein in the food, No, they do not - they do with added water for processing/meat, which means you pretty much have to have a calculator to figure out the TRUE percentages in canned food, for example. By looking on the back of the can, you do not know the true nutritional profile in Dry matter, as it should be listed.and the AAFCO statements make it clear if the recipe meets nutrient minimums and doesn't exceed excesses. Says who?  You are not going to achieve this, nor the "95% protein from chicken" if the chicken were all bone and skin. This information is incorrect - The correct information is: Chicken must be at least 95% of the weight of the product. Nothing to do with protein coming from chicken, and this can include bone and skin, which are clearly not protein - That is, of course if you are lucky, because the great majority of the foods fall into the 25% "chicken" rule.   This is too painfully obvious to escape anyone with a background in nutrition... at least if they are attempting to be honest.  ;) Really? ;)

BTW, Susan Thixton I assume has actually received a professional education in pet nutrition, and isn't just someone selling "scare books" on Amazon.com

and attracting traffic to a blog?

Misleading quotes by Susan Thixton:
That is not true, what the AAFCO does not allow is for someone to INVENT grades of meat.   You can't call something "human grade chicken" on an ingredient list, because this does not exist.   And you can't call it "Grade A Beef" because the USDA does not grade pet food.    So yes, the AAFCO (well really the FDA) does not allow manufacturers to lie.
Nope, according to the FDA it means that: 
That is the danger of these "half-truths".   They may scare some people into buying your book, but they can be quite misleading.
 
Last edited:
Top