"Nutritionally Complete" assurances for our pet food?

[auntie crazy]

Susan Thixton has been to AAFCO meetings (will be at one next week, in fact) and has a copy of the 2011 AAFCO Official Publication. Do you? (The new version is available for preorder at $105 if you're interested.)

Ms. Thixton has been diligently striving toward mandating improvements to pet food manufacturing processes and regulations, and has been researching the industry and educating the public for several years about these same practices and regulations, not to mention routinely sounding the alert about recalls - sometimes long before the FDA gets around to it.

For free.

What have you done for pet owners?

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.

Nice try.

Of course there is no grade of pet food meat ingredients. That's precisely the issue. Pet food can be made using the same quality and cuts of meats we eat (as all US manufactured raw pet foods are), or they can be made using diseased, rejected animals and worse. Currently, regulations for non-raw pet food products do not allow any distinction between the two in either labeling or ingredient listing. Pet owners have the right to know if they're feeding their beloved pets the kind of meats pictured on the cans.... or diseased animals and rendered restaurant waste.

Here is a clear synopsis of FDA's policies as regards pet food. And, yes, of course, as disgusting as it is, 4-D animals are allowed in pet foods - this has long been known and admitted by the all the industries involved (bold highlighting from article).

CPG Sec. 675.400 Rendered Animal Feed Ingredients

POLICY:  No regulatory action will be considered for animal feed ingredients resulting from the ordinary rendering process of industry, including those using animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter, provided they are not otherwise in violation of the law.
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/UCM074717

CPG Sec. 690.500 Uncooked Meat for Animal Food
BACKGROUND:
*CVM is aware of the sale of dead, dying, disabled, or diseased (4-D) animals to salvagers for use as animal food. Meat from these carcasses is boned and the meat is packaged or frozen without heat processing. The raw, frozen meat is shipped for use by several industries, including pet food manufacturers, zoos, greyhound kennels, and mink ranches. This meat may present a potential health hazard to the animals that consume it and to the people who handle it.*
POLICY
*Uncooked meat derived from 4-D animals is adulterated under Section 402(a)(5) of the Act, and its shipment in interstate commerce for animal food use is subject to appropriate regulatory action.*
REGULATORY ACTION GUIDANCE
*Districts should conduct preliminary investigations only as follow-up to complaints or reports of injuries and should contact CVM before expending substantial resources. Before the districts recommend regulatory action, they should contact Case Guidance Branch, HFV-236, for advice and assistance with case development.*
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074712.htm

CPG Sec. 675.200 Diversion of Adulterated Food to Acceptable Animal Feed Use
 BACKGROUND:
In the past, FDA has authorized the salvage of human or animal food considered to be adulterated for its intended use by diverting that food to an acceptable animal feed use. Most of these instances have involved, but have not been limited to, the interpretation of section 402(a)(3) and (4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow different standards for foods intended for human use vs. food intended for animal use, e.g., defect action levels for filth in a food intended for human use but not for the same food intended for animal feed use. Diversion requests, however, have also included USDA detained meat and poultry products contaminated with drug or other chemical residues, as well as food and feed under voluntary industry recall or quarantine that may be considered adulterated for their intended use(s). To assist in handling certain specific types of diversion requests, the Agency has developed Compliance Policy Guide 7126.05. [Diversion (after heat treatment) of rodent, roach, or bird contaminated food for animal use.] No single set of criteria, however, can be prepared to cover diversion requests in all possible situations. This guide provides procedures for submitting requests to the agency for authorization to divert adulterated foods for which no criteria have been established.

And so on.

All of this has been covered already and is nothing new. Rather than coming after me again, Ducman, why don't you go through this thread and actually read some of the material? It's clear from your post that you haven't done so.... and I would strongly urge you to take the time.

You are so sure the multi-billion dollar pet food industry's got your back, and has the best interests of Wesley and Buttercup in mind... but what if they don't?

What if the information and analysis LDG has posted is correct? What if the paper Carolina found is spot-on accurate? What if (heaven forbid, I know) any of the info I've posted is even close to the reality? Wouldn't you want to know?

You spend a great deal of energy chasing me around - why not put it to good use and learn something that just may pay off down the line? For that matter, someone with your time, energy and passion would likely be a huge help to any one of the many organizations attempting to make pet foods safer for our furry friends... why not contact one of them? The Feline Nutrition Education Society is the first one that comes to mind, but there is also the Pet Food Products Safety Alliance. Heck, you could even reach out to Ms. Thixton. She is attending AAFCO's meeting on 16 January along with industry leaders from several different organizations, including the FDA.... why not see if she could use your passion as a follow up to the meeting?

- - - - - - - - - -

And rather than derail this thread with any more personal vendettas, I invite you to pm me directly.

Best regards.

AC

 

[jcat]

 

[auntie crazy]

In fact, all of us can get involved in the efforts to improve pet food manufacturing processes and ingredients sourcing! As evidenced by the explosive growth in raw food options since 2007 - when pet owners first became aware of the mess behind the curtain and started educating themselves - the pet food industry does listen to us.

Here are a couple of articles from PetFoodIndustry.com:

Bright future for refrigerated, frozen and raw petfood - "And manufacturers of these appealing products are offering consumers a plethora of products with simplified ingredient lists, a significantly shorter shelf-life that is touted as a "less-processed" alternative, and stories of sick, overweight, elderly or simply finicky dogs and cats benefiting from their formulas."

New petfood products: What comes after humanization? - "Where do we see the concept of humanization in petfood going in the future? Look for a continued focus on natural formulations, on communicating specific, understandable ingredients and on products that balance the concept of “just like what we eat” with what is most important for pets to consume."

Clearly, when consumer pressure builds, the industry hears and responds.

If you haven't already, join the Feline Nutrition Education Society. Among other tasks, their mission includes "...facilitating new research, sponsoring nutritional analysis and gathering data on feline diet studies that have already been done." They also intend to become active within the government, pushing for better transparency and regulations for the pet food industry.

And start following Susan Thixton at TruthAboutPetFood.com. She's only one person, but she's extraordinarily active. Her monthly "Petsumer Reports" include information on each month's highlighted foods gleaned through a variety of sources, including one on one discussions with pet food manufacturing company executives, as well as officials from AAFCO, FDA and numerous other regulatory organizations. If nothing else, her detailed reviews of different foods are worth the reading, and, as I mentioned before, she's often one of the first to alert the public of recalls.

In fact, Thixton has created a program called "Pet Food Recall First Alert" in which participating companies create a voice and email alert system that pet owners can sign up for to receive instant notification in the event of a recall of their products. No more searching for half-hidden recall notices - they get sent to you directly!! The TAPF site lists all the companies who have chosen to participate; it may be your company is already on that list and you can sign up to receive recall notices today. If not, you can call them and ask them to join. ;-}

And, of course, let your wishes be known by where you shop and what you purchase!

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

Speaking of which, after gaining a better understanding of what really goes into pet foods, what can we buy to feed our kitties?

There is, course, the many raw options being explored on other currently active threads (here and here), and this is what I recommend. By law, the meats used to prepare these foods are exactly the same as those we purchase for our own families. Right from the get-go, then, these foods are fresher, more complete and healthier for our kitties.

What if you're not ready for raw?

Not all pet food manufacturers are big-time conglomerates focused only on the bottom line. There is at least one that uses USDA approved meat, I think, and many that avoid some of the most notorious ingredients.

So look for foods that don't contain (pulled from Pet Food Ingredients to Question):

Animal Fat (preserved with BHA/BHT) - Produced through the rendering process; the fat that rises to the top of the pot becomes Animal Fat.  FDA testing of pet food linked this ingredient to the discovery of the euthanizing drug pentobarbital (used to end the life of dogs, cats, and horses) in pet food.  Any animal including euthanized animals, road kill, diseased animals (per FDA associations) can be the source of this fat.

Canola Oil - A controversial ingredient not tested for safety with pets.

Carrageenan - A seaweed extract used as a thickener; linked to serious illness.

Ethoxyquin - A chemical preservative linked to serious illness. Often used to preserve fish meal pet food ingredients.

BHA/BHT - Chemical preservatives linked to serious illnesses.

TBHQ - A chemical preservative related to BHA. Studies have shown that prolonged use has links to cancer.

Corn, Soy, and Wheat - Allergens. Mycotoxins. The majority of grain products are genetically modified; recent science has linked GM corn to liver and kidney disease in animals. Not needed in a cat's diet!!!

Food Dyes - Linked to everything from tumors to hyperactivity.

All by-product meals (chicken by-product meal, turkey by-product meal, poultry by-product meal, meat by-products) - Could be sourced from healthy internal organs of slaughtered animals OR the from diseased tissues rejected as human grade.

Meat and bone meal - The rendered product from mammal tissues, including bone, exclusive of any added blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents…  FDA testing of pet food linked this ingredient to the discovery of the euthanizing drug pentobarbital (used to end the life of dogs, cats, and horses) in pet food. Any animal including euthanized animals, road kill, diseased animals (per FDA associations) can be the source of this ingredient.

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

Maybe we can start pulling together a list of pet foods that don't contain these ingredients? Anybody have something in their cupboard right now that could start the list off?

AC

 

[poisonedpets]

You go girl! Excellent post! It's obvious, you've done your research. You will be happy to know that on Susan's List of recommended manufacturers (there were only five companies) she listed a RAW pet food: Answers pet food. I've researched their company and from all appearances they seem to be the real thing. What I like is that they only use animals that were raised humanely, no CAFO's or feed-lot raised animals. I'm glad I finally got around to checking out this forum! Keep up the fabulous work. Mollie

 

[feralvr]

So look for foods that don't contain (pulled from Pet Food Ingredients to Question):

Animal Fat (preserved with BHA/BHT) - Produced through the rendering process; the fat that rises to the top of the pot becomes Animal Fat.  FDA testing of pet food linked this ingredient to the discovery of the euthanizing drug pentobarbital (used to end the life of dogs, cats, and horses) in pet food.  Any animal including euthanized animals, road kill, diseased animals (per FDA associations) can be the source of this fat.

Canola Oil - A controversial ingredient not tested for safety with pets.

Carrageenan - A seaweed extract used as a thickener; linked to serious illness.

Ethoxyquin - A chemical preservative linked to serious illness. Often used to preserve fish meal pet food ingredients.



BHA/BHT - Chemical preservatives linked to serious illnesses.



TBHQ - A chemical preservative related to BHA. Studies have shown that prolonged use has links to cancer.

Corn, Soy, and Wheat - Allergens. Mycotoxins. The majority of grain products are genetically modified; recent science has linked GM corn to liver and kidney disease in animals. Not needed in a cat's diet!!!

Food Dyes - Linked to everything from tumors to hyperactivity.

All by-product meals (chicken by-product meal, turkey by-product meal, poultry by-product meal, meat by-products) - Could be sourced from healthy internal organs of slaughtered animals OR the from diseased tissues rejected as human grade.



Meat and bone meal - The rendered product from mammal
tissues, including bone, exclusive of any added blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents…  FDA testing of pet food linked this ingredient to the discovery of the euthanizing drug pentobarbital (used to end the life of dogs, cats, and horses) in pet food. Any animal including euthanized animals, road kill, diseased animals (per FDA associations) can be the source of this ingredient.



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



Maybe we can start pulling together a list of pet foods that don't contain these ingredients? Anybody have something in their cupboard right now that could start the list off?



AC

Excellent idea, Auntie This would be very helpful . I am going to copy this list and start looking, very curious now to see how many brands I can find exclusive of those ingredients

 

[meuzettesmom]

Maybe things are a little shaky when it comes to honesty in the labels of cat food and what really in there. But our food isn't much better. Commersally speaking.

I have known many people who went into the farm life to better their food. To get away from the toxins the people in charge put in our food. But then when you buy the commersal food for the stock it is the same. The animal by product thingy. What is that? Themselves. Mad cow desease,right? Mad chickens. Geese are the worse. 

Well anyway, there isn't no way around all that shady nutrition stuff in the market today.

Maybe catching your own to feed your cat is best. But what have they been eating....

 

[ducman69]

Susan Thixton has been to AAFCO meetings and has a copy of the 2011 AAFCO Official Publication. Do you? 

All of this has been covered already and is nothing new. Rather than coming after me again, Ducman, why don't you go through this thread and actually read some of the material? It's clear from your post that you haven't done so.... and I would strongly urge you to take the time.

You are so sure the multi-billion dollar pet food industry's got your back, and has the best interests of Wesley and Buttercup in mind... but what if they don't?

What if the information and analysis LDG has posted is correct? What if the paper Carolina found is spot-on accurate? What if (heaven forbid, I know) any of the info I've posted is even close to the reality? Wouldn't you want to know?

You spend a great deal of energy chasing me around - why not put it to good use and learn something that just may pay off down the line? For that matter, someone with your time, energy and passion would likely be a huge help to any one of the many organizations attempting to make pet foods safer for our furry friends... why not contact one of them? 

Yes, I have read the thread and MSchauer's contributions are excellent and exactly to the point I am getting at, and I hope my contribution is simply to help dispel misleading and sometimes outright false statements and FUD I see posted.   I mean no offense and it is nothing personal, but I do believe it is confusing and does a great disservice to the community, and can potentially hurt cats.

The point is that you are frequently linking to sources that are just random people that at best are similar to excited evangelical "meat kills" vegans, and I see these outlandish unsubstantiated claims and no answers about how these claims are even remotely substantiated.  

What if the people you are quoting, who aren't field experts, who aren't scientists, who haven't conducted any studies or trials, who don't have degrees in nutrition, and sometimes by their own admission don't really know anything about nutrition (see below) are wrong?   What if the Universities, Scientific trials, government safety regulators, industry leaders, and animal medical organizations like the American, Canadian, and British Veterinary Medical Associations actually know what they are talking about?    These are the people that I refer to and that I prefer to consult. 

For example, as you've seen before, there are studies that showed that the untested raw commercial and popular home made recipe diets found online by the Canadian and American Veterinarian Medial Associations were not only contaminated with potentially unsafe levels of bacteria, but had nutritional deficiencies and excesses that didn't even meet the AAFCOs "bare minimum" nutrient profiles, and thus currently holds a "not recommended" status.   

Dr Lisa Pierson, the most frequently quoted home-made untested raw advocate on the forum, even finally acknowledged the FDAs strong recommendation against consuming raw commercial poultry found at the grocery store, since this food is not intended nor considered fresh or hygienic enough for raw consumption.    She advises AGAINST  buying any meat in grocery stores, and only the absolute freshest and highest quality meat directly from a butcher, and even then still recommends cooking it now:

Dr Lisa Pierson - Raw Advocate

I buy only whole  meats from the market... knowing that the above precautions were no guarantee that I would be feeding a safe diet, I now bake the chicken/turkey thighs to the point where they are ~25-50% cooked on the outside and 50-75% raw on the inside.

I definitely suggest doing this for any animal that may be immunocompromised due to illness, advanced age, or if they are receiving any immunosuppressive medications, or antacids.

Unfortunately, we know that: 

1) Cooking meat destroys some taurine, as does the act of grinding which she also recommends, which drastically increases the surface area of the meat and thus exposure to the air causing rapid oxidation of the taurine as well.

2) Per the FDA, merely cooking meat to an external temperature does NOT make it safe, as it is the INTERNAL temperature that matters.   The FDA has thus published a document which highlights the minimum INTERNAL temperatures required for various forms of meat, to ensure all bacteria and pathogens are destroyed.

One might ask if Dr Lisa Pierson is aware of how cooking affects taurine levels in meat, but by her own admission she doesn't even know how cooking affects the meat nutritionally (which begs the question how one can support a raw diet if one doesn't even know how raw is nutritionally different from cooked:

Dr Lisa Pierson - Raw Advocate

I don't know exactly what nutrients  and in what amounts  and in what form  are destroyed/damaged with the cooking process.

Dr Pierson also demonstrates an inherent danger of home cooked meals, is that while not aknowledging that her own diet hasn't been tested to be nutritionally complete even to any bare minimum level, she knows that some following her advice on raw diets are doing even worse and clearly harming their pets:

Dr Lisa Pierson - Raw Advocate

I recently came across a post on an internet group stating how "wonderful" myMaking Cat Food  page is - including the recipe provided below.  However, the poster then went on to outline what she was feeding to her cat which was not even close to the recipe discussed on this webpage!  This poor cat was being fed a terribly UNbalanced diet because his owner was using her own 'creation' based very loosely  on the recipe below.

She had completely missed the boat on this very critical issue and was harming her cat  - plain and simple.   Do it and do it right, or don't do it at all.

So the fact remains that while one could argue that the government's/AAFCOs feeding trials and nutrition profiles are not strict enough, home made raw diets can be FAR WORSE as they are completely unregulated, and virtually all raw diets tested to date were so off the mark for nutritional completeness that they didn't even meet the AAFCO's bare minimums and maximums.   I am not under the impression that you are seeking specific changes to testing protocol or nutrition labels, but to portray commercial food as being made from boots and motor oil to promote completely unregulated home made meals in a fashion that is in fact recommended against by authorities.

In essence, that is like arguing that the Automobile crash safety tested in the United States are not safe enough, and yet in the same breath recommend vehicles that performed so poorly that they didn't even meet those BARE MINIMUM safety levels established.    Some protection and testing is better than no protection and testing IMO, especially when universities, medical communities, governments, and food industry leaders are showing us various studies demonstrating the need to be extra cautious with grocery store raw meat due to limitations in large scale industrial meat farming and processing.

This highlights the necessity of ensuring that meats are cooked to safe internal minimum temperatures, especially for cats that aren't "spring chickens" themselves anymore.   Some of the children you see in the video were killed by secondary cases of infection, meaning someone else was a carrier and because of the infectous nature caught it and died.    Studies have shown that almost all greyhounds tested eating raw diets if not themselves affected by "Alabama rot" were subclinical carriers, meaning the infection is fought but carried by their systems.  

We owe it for the safety of not only our pets but our human families to be educated on these matters.

 

[mschauer]

Ducman: So your only defense of the AAFCO guidelines, which after all *IS* the topic of this thread, is that in your opinion there could be worst???

Not much of a defense... 

 

[ducman69]

Ducman: So your only defense of the AAFCO guidelines, which after all *IS* the topic of this thread, is that in your opinion there could be worst???

My defense is that the AAFCO guidelines and FDA regulation are what we have available, to dispel misleading or outright false statements made about commercial food by fear mongers trying to sell books online or merely unobjectively evangelizing the latest fad diet, and to highlight the dangers of the alternative of forgoing any safety regulation whatsoever, or worse feeding recipes that have been tested by major recognized medical organizations like the American and Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and found to be unsafe due to contamination and nutritional deficiencies and excesses.

To use a simple analogy again, the NHTSA and IIHS' Vehicle Research Center are not ideal, they can't really test on real people and there are limitations to their car testing capabilities, and areas that can be improved upon.   However, I would describe it as outright dangerous to suggest that homemade experimental vehicles that have undergone no testing and have no safety regulation or oversight whatsoever are a superior alternative, and would likewise try to dispel any misinformation or misleading statements posted about their crash testing protocols.  

In short, an imperfect safety net is better than advocating no safety net.

 

[mschauer]

My defense is that the AAFCO guidelines and FDA regulation are what we have available, to dispel misleading or outright false statements made about commercial food by fear mongers trying to sell books online or merely unobjectively evangelizing the latest fad diet, and to highlight the dangers of the alternative of forgoing any safety regulation whatsoever, or worse feeding recipes that have been tested by major recognized medical organizations like the American and Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and found to be unsafe due to contamination and nutritional deficiencies and excesses.

To use a simple analogy again, the NHTSA and IIHS' Vehicle Research Center are not ideal, they can't really test on real people and there are limitations to their car testing capabilities, and areas that can be improved upon.   However, I would describe it as outright dangerous to suggest that homemade experimental vehicles that have undergone no testing and have no safety regulation or oversight whatsoever are a superior alternative, and would likewise try to dispel any misinformation or misleading statements posted about their crash testing protocols.  

In short, an imperfect safety net is better than advocating no safety net.

No one has suggested that no regulation would be better than flawed regulation. This thread has progressed from discussing the failings people believe exist in current regulations and then moved on to on how the regulations can be improved. 

Again, no one has suggested abolishing all regulation of the pet food industry.

 

[ducman69]

Again, no one has suggested abolishing all regulation of the pet food industry.

1) This thread was created based on a quote of mine discussing how commercial food is safer than unregulated home diets because of the expert oversight and safety regulation of the pet food industry.

2) Auntie Crazy as one example has advocated for ages now for unregulated home-made raw diets, which lack AAFCO/FDA oversight, and has done so again in this thread (read up a few posts).

The entire point of raw advocates posting against commercial food in this thread is to demonstrate that regulated pet food industry food is not safer than unregulated food, hence the misleading statements that commercial pet food could be made of old leather boots and motor oil which is nonsense.   Universities, scientists, government safety regulators, and industry leaders have demonstrated how NO regulation (home or unregulated diets) are certainly more dangerous than SOME regulation (AAFCO guaranteed analysis, specific ingredient definitions, nutritional profiles for growth and maintenance, recall protocols, and more). 

 

[mschauer]

1) This thread was created based on a quote of mine discussing how commercial food is safer than unregulated home diets because of the expert oversight and safety regulation of the pet food industry.

2) Auntie Crazy as one example has advocated for ages now for unregulated home-made raw diets, which lack AAFCO/FDA oversight, and has done so again in this thread (read up a few posts).

The entire point of raw advocates posting against commercial food in this thread is to demonstrate that regulated pet food industry food is not safer than unregulated food, hence the misleading statements that commercial pet food could be made of old leather boots and motor oil which is nonsense.   Universities, scientists, government safety regulators, and industry leaders have demonstrated how NO regulation (home or unregulated diets) are certainly more dangerous than SOME regulation (AAFCO guaranteed analysis, specific ingredient definitions, nutritional profiles for growth and maintenance, recall protocols, and more). 

First, this thread was started by Laruie (LDG), NOT you. She gets to set the topic not you and the topic is the AAFCO.

Secondly it is completely irrelevant what other posters believe with regards to alternative diets. They have as much right to post here as you do. Either confine your responses *specifically* to the criticisms of the AAFCO or admit that you can't. Continually trying to deflect the topic of discussion off onto another topic just weakens your case.

Respect the intentions of the thread originator!

 

[ducman69]

First, this thread was started by Laruie (LDG), NOT you. She gets to set the topic not you and the topic is the AAFCO.

Secondly it is completely irrelevant what other posters believe with regards to alternative diets. They have as much right to post here as you do. Either confine your responses *specifically* to the criticisms of the AAFCO or admit that you can't. Continually trying to deflect the topic of discussion off onto another topic just weakens your case.

Respect the intentions of the thread originator!

If the intentions of the originator is to bash commercial food with proven false or at least misleading statements such as the leather boots, motor oil, and vitamins comment, then that has already been demonstrated to be wrong, since AAFCO/FDA protections are multifaceted not just in feed trials to create bare minimum nutrient profiles for all known essential micro and macro nutrients, but a requirement to list all ingredients with specific definitions for those ingredients, along with other safety protocols.

Yes, the topic is the AAFCO, but it is of course on topic and already brought up by other posters in the thread along the same lines to discuss "well, what is the alternative to the AAFCO"... three times in fact.  The alternative is home-made human food which represents  no AAFCO and thus no safety net and no regulation   for feline safety whatsoever.   I believe this is dangerous, and rather than make it a mere statement of opinion have linked to reasons I believe that in a logical fashion I hope was easy to follow.

And by no means by my contribution to the thread am I attempting to prevent anyone else from adding in their 2 cents.... unless you're complaining my posts are simply too long, in which case I'll try to be more concise.  

 

[mschauer]

If the intentions of the originator is to bash commercial food with proven false or at least misleading statements such as the leather boots, motor oil, and vitamins comment, then that has already been demonstrated to be wrong, since AAFCO/FDA protections are multifaceted not just in feed trials to create bare minimum nutrient profiles for all known essential micro and macro nutrients, but a requirement to list all ingredients with specific definitions for those ingredients, along with other safety protocols.

You have given examples of *specific* criticisms of the AAFCO which were properly responded to when the response was confined to the actual criticism.

Please confine *ALL* of your responses to the thread topic, the AAFCO, not just some of them. To do otherwise is disrespectful to the thread originator.

 

[sarahp]

Let's just all take a deep breath - this is a heated topic. If you wish to address someone personally, please do it via PM.

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by Feralvr

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

So look for foods that don't contain (pulled from Pet Food Ingredients to Question):

.....

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

Maybe we can start pulling together a list of pet foods that don't contain these ingredients? Anybody have something in their cupboard right now that could start the list off?

AC

Excellent idea, Auntie

This would be very helpful

. I am going to copy this list and start looking, very curious now to see how many brands I can find exclusive of those ingredients

I'm still looking (very tedious process!), but here's what I've found so far (all canned, of course):

Company = Fromm

Product(s) = Duck & Chicken Pate

Notes = Participates in "First Recall" program!!***

Company = Halo

Product(s) = Wholesome Chicken Recipe; Wholesome Turkey Recipe; Wholesome Lamb Recipe; Wholesome Chicken & Beef Recipe

Notes = Contains garlic powder, so should probably be fed in rotation and not exclusively.

Company = Life's Abundance

Product(s) = Instinctive Choice

Notes = Website embeds this video, The Truth About Pet Food (part 1), by Dr. John Albrecht from HealthyPetNet.com.

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

I'll add more as I find them, but I hope I'm not the only one looking *hint, hint* (especially since I don't even feed commercial!)!! 

Best regards!

AC

(edited to embed the video and correct the associated information.)

 

[mschauer]

Let's just all take a deep breath - this is a heated topic. If you wish to address someone personally, please do it via PM.

I agree. AC's post is a far more constructive path to follow. Let's hope we can stay on it...

 

[auntie crazy]

Just found a beautiful example of marketing over transparency that I thought I'd share.

The company NutriSource sells two products called "Chicken, Turkey, Lamb & Fish Kitten formula" and "Chicken, Turkey & Lamb Cat and Kitten formula", and here are their ingredients:

Chicken, Turkey, Lamb & Fish Kitten formula

Chicken, Chicken Broth, Turkey, Chicken Liver, Lamb, Ocean Fish, Brown Rice Flour, Dried Egg, Flaxseed Oil, Dicalcium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Dried Kelp, Alfalfa Meal, Calcium Sulfate, Salt, Lecithin, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Taurine, Ascorbic Acid, Choline Chloride, Betaine, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Proteinate, Niacin, Vitamin E Supplement, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Sodium Selenite, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Biotin, Calcium Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B-12 Supplement, Ehtylenediamine Dhydriodide, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid.

Chicken, Turkey & Lamb Cat and Kitten formula

Chicken, Chicken Broth, Turkey, Chicken Liver, Lamb, Ocean Fish, Brown Rice Flour, Dried Egg, Flaxseed Oil, Dicalcium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Dried Kelp, Alfalfa Meal, Calcium Sulfate, Salt, Lecithin, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Taurine, Ascorbic Acid, Choline Chloride, Betaine, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Proteinate, Niacin, Vitamin E Supplement, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Sodium Selenite, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Biotin, Calcium Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B-12 Supplement, Ehtylenediamine Dhydriodide, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid.

Do you see the difference? No? That's because there is none... this is the same formula, one marketed to include the fish and one marketed without it. If you bought both of these cans thinking you were giving your kitties two different flavors, you would be wrong. *facepalm*

Caveat emptor, indeed!!!!  (By the way - this formula doesn't include any of the recommended against ingredients. It does, however - obviously - contain fish.)

AC

 

[mschauer]

Just found a beautiful example of marketing over transparency that I thought I'd share.

The company NutriSource sells two products called "Chicken, Turkey, Lamb & Fish Kitten formula" and "Chicken, Turkey & Lamb Cat and Kitten formula", and here are their ingredients:

Chicken, Turkey, Lamb & Fish Kitten formula

Chicken, Chicken Broth, Turkey, Chicken Liver, Lamb, Ocean Fish, Brown Rice Flour, Dried Egg, Flaxseed Oil, Dicalcium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Dried Kelp, Alfalfa Meal, Calcium Sulfate, Salt, Lecithin, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Taurine, Ascorbic Acid, Choline Chloride, Betaine, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Proteinate, Niacin, Vitamin E Supplement, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Sodium Selenite, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Biotin, Calcium Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B-12 Supplement, Ehtylenediamine Dhydriodide, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid.

Chicken, Turkey & Lamb Cat and Kitten formula

Chicken, Chicken Broth, Turkey, Chicken Liver, Lamb, Ocean Fish, Brown Rice Flour, Dried Egg, Flaxseed Oil, Dicalcium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Dried Kelp, Alfalfa Meal, Calcium Sulfate, Salt, Lecithin, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Taurine, Ascorbic Acid, Choline Chloride, Betaine, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Proteinate, Niacin, Vitamin E Supplement, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Sodium Selenite, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Biotin, Calcium Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B-12 Supplement, Ehtylenediamine Dhydriodide, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid.

Do you see the difference? No? That's because there is none... this is the same formula, one marketed to include the fish and one marketed without it. If you bought both of these cans thinking you were giving your kitties two different flavors, you would be wrong. *facepalm*

Caveat emptor, indeed!!!!  (By the way - this formula doesn't include any of the recommended against ingredients. It does, however - obviously - contain fish.)

AC

Isn't it possible that the second one doesn't contain enough fish to allow it to be used in the name? I seem to recall that in order for an ingredient to be in the name there has to be a specified minimum quantity of it in the formula.

Edit: Found this:

If the product name reads “Tuna Cat Food” or “Chicken Cat Food,” then it must contain at least 95% of the named ingredient, not including moisture content. But here’s where it gets tricky: If the product name contains two ingredients (for example “Chicken and Fish Cat Food”), the food has to contain more of whichever one is named first, but together they must add up to 95%.

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by mschauer

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy


Just found a beautiful example of marketing over transparency that I thought I'd share.

The company NutriSource sells two products called "Chicken, Turkey, Lamb & Fish Kitten formula" and "Chicken, Turkey & Lamb Cat and Kitten formula", and here are their ingredients:

Chicken, Turkey, Lamb & Fish Kitten formula

Chicken, Chicken Broth, Turkey, Chicken Liver, Lamb, Ocean Fish, Brown Rice Flour, Dried Egg, Flaxseed Oil, Dicalcium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Dried Kelp, Alfalfa Meal, Calcium Sulfate, Salt, Lecithin, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Taurine, Ascorbic Acid, Choline Chloride, Betaine, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Proteinate, Niacin, Vitamin E Supplement, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Sodium Selenite, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Biotin, Calcium Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B-12 Supplement, Ehtylenediamine Dhydriodide, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid.

Chicken, Turkey & Lamb Cat and Kitten formula

Chicken, Chicken Broth, Turkey, Chicken Liver, Lamb, Ocean Fish, Brown Rice Flour, Dried Egg, Flaxseed Oil, Dicalcium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Dried Kelp, Alfalfa Meal, Calcium Sulfate, Salt, Lecithin, Yucca Schidigera Extract, Taurine, Ascorbic Acid, Choline Chloride, Betaine, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Proteinate, Niacin, Vitamin E Supplement, Manganese Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Sodium Selenite, Thiamine Mononitrate, Vitamin A Supplement, Biotin, Calcium Pantothenate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B-12 Supplement, Ehtylenediamine Dhydriodide, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid.

Do you see the difference? No? That's because there is none... this is the same formula, one marketed to include the fish and one marketed without it. If you bought both of these cans thinking you were giving your kitties two different flavors, you would be wrong. *facepalm*

Caveat emptor, indeed!!!!  (By the way - this formula doesn't include any of the recommended against ingredients. It does, however - obviously - contain fish.)

AC

Isn't it possible that the second one doesn't contain enough fish to allow it to be used in the name? I seem to recall that in order for an ingredient to be in the name there has to be a specified minimum quantity of it in the formula.

Edit: Found this:

If the product name reads “Tuna Cat Food” or “Chicken Cat Food,” then it must contain at least 95% of the named ingredient, not including moisture content. But here’s where it gets tricky: If the product name contains two ingredients (for example “Chicken and Fish Cat Food”), the food has to contain more of whichever one is named first, but together they must add up to 95%.

This isn't "food", it's "formula", so all the named ingredients together must exceed 25%, but fall below 95% DMB of the cans contents, FDA "Pet Food Labels - General":

The "25%" or "dinner" rule applies to many canned and dry products. If the named ingredients comprise at least 25% of the product (not counting the water for processing), but less than 95%, the name must include a qualifying descriptive term, such as “Dinner” as in "Beef Dinner for Dogs." Counting the added water, the named ingredients still must comprise 10% of the product. Many descriptors other than "dinner" are used, however, with "Platter," "Entree," "Nuggets" and "Formula" being a few examples.

In any case, if you're interested in an explanation, why not give the company a call? Who knows, it could be something as innocuous as an editing mistake ('though that doesn't speak well for their quality control).  *shrug*

AC