"Nutritionally Complete" assurances for our pet food?

[Willowy]

Actually nothing you posted said there was any problem with meat or bone meal did it? If there is a problem with bone meal then whole bone should be avoided also, right?

But usually whole bone fed to cats would be poultry bones, or maybe rabbit. And bone meal is usually made with cow bones (and maybe pig bones?). Which means the levels would be different.

 

[mschauer]

But usually whole bone fed to cats would be poultry bones, or maybe rabbit. And bone meal is usually made with cow bones (and maybe pig bones?). Which means the levels would be different.

There is nothing to suggest that the heavy metal concentrations in the study (assuming that is the post AC was referring to) are the result of the inclusion of bone meal. We don't even know if any of the foods contained bone meal. I also haven't seen anything to suggest that one animal source  of bone is to be avoided over any other.

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by mschauer

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy


Meat and bone meal was already on the list of ingredients to avoid, so the info I posted was just added weight for staying away from it. 

Actually nothing you posted said there was any problem with meat or bone meal did it? If there is a problem with bone meal then whole bone should be avoided also, right?

Eh? Everything in this thread is about the AAFCO definitions and what those definitions allow in pet foods. Anything with the term "meal" in it refers to the rendering process, which has the worst of the ingredients in it.

Here's my original post again, which includes the link to the article from which I pulled the list. That article contains additional links for every ingredient on the list that further discusses that particular ingredient, and why it should be avoided, in great detail.

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.

And here is additional info about the rendering process, from another post...

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.

You've said before you're ok with dehydrated garbage being in pet food, so this info may not be pertinent to you. As I've already stated, such a "food" item for my cats is objectionable to me, and I know many others who feel the same way. For them - and for the many who aren't even aware this stuff is IN pet foods, this information is very pertinent.

Regards.

AC

 

[mschauer]

You've said before you're ok with dehydrated garbage being in pet food, so this info may not be pertinent to you. As I've already stated, such a "food" item for my cats is objectionable to me, and I know many others who feel the same way. For them - and for the many who aren't even aware this stuff is IN pet foods, this information is very pertinent.

Regards.

AC

 No need to get testy!

I was just asking for clarification of this statement ..

[color= rgb(24, 24, 24)]Meat and bone meal was already on the list of ingredients to avoid, so the info I posted was just added weight for staying away from it[/color]

.. which implies that some new information had been posted with regards to meat and bone meal. I didn't see where any additional information had been provided and was asking to be pointed to it.

 

[ldg]

Oh that. I didn't pay much attention to that since it wasn't about federally regulated max or  mins.

Well, it's quite instructive information, actually, whether or not it has to do with federally regulated maximums or minimums (for which there aren't any in pet food, which is part of the point).

In 1968, the average daily intake of arsenic for people in the food they ate was 130 mcg/day. That was of concern, and post-regulation, that number fell to 20 mcg/day by 1974.

Now, today, according to the Spectroscopy study conclusions (as already posted by AC):

Conclusions published in the abstract...
"Toxic Element Exposure for Cats"
"A 10-lb cat eating 1 cup a day (100 g) of dry food or 1 small can of wet food (175 g) with the maximum contamination would be consuming about:
29 mcg (micrograms) Arsenic (greater than 20 times Reference Dosage limit)
13 mcg Cadmium (greater than 3 times the Reference Dosage limit)
17 mcg Mercury (greater than 30 times the Reference Dosage limit)
42 mcg Uranium (greater than 3 times the Reference Dosage limit)"
"Dry cat food contained more contamination which exceeded human Reference Dosage guidelines than wet cat food."

So a cat in its normal eating amount could be getting 29 mcg/daily intake of arsenic.

The 1968 human daily intake of arsenic equivalent for a cat, assuming an average person weighs 140 pounds (I have no idea what the number is, but including adult men and women, this probably is a low-estimate guesstimate) would be 9 mcg/day. The improved 1974 daily intake of arsenic in people of 20 mcg/day, would be in a 10-pound cat just 1 mcg/day. And this compares to the 29 mcg/day intake (maximum) in the measured cat food, now, not 1968 or 1974.

So it is pertinent information, IMO.

:lol3:  No need to get testy!

I was just asking for clarification of this statement ..

"Meat and bone meal was already on the list of ingredients to avoid, so the info I posted was just added weight for staying away from it."

.. which implies that some new information had been posted with regards to meat and bone meal. I didn't see where any additional information had been provided and was asking to be pointed to it.

And the new information is the Spectroscopy study about the amounts of heavy metal toxins that are potentially in the food we feed our pets. The speculation is that part of the problem is in the rendered products, e.g. the meat and bone meal: which is an ingredient recommended to avoid anyway because of its lose definition.

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by LDG

...

Originally Posted by mschauer

 No need to get testy!

I was just asking for clarification of this statement ..

"Meat and bone meal was already on the list of ingredients to avoid, so the info I posted was just added weight for staying away from it."

.. which implies that some new information had been posted with regards to meat and bone meal. I didn't see where any additional information had been provided and was asking to be pointed to it.

And the new information is the Spectroscopy study about the amounts of heavy metal toxins that are potentially in the food we feed our pets. The speculation is that part of the problem is in the rendered products, e.g. the meat and bone meal: which is an ingredient recommended to avoid anyway because of its lose definition.

Yes, precisely. Thank you, Laurie.

AC

 

[mschauer]

And the new information is the Spectroscopy study about the amounts of heavy metal toxins that are potentially in the food we feed our pets. The speculation is that part of the problem is in the rendered products, e.g. the meat and bone meal: which is an ingredient recommended to avoid anyway because of its lose definition.

Oh I understand it is *speculation*. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is acknowledged as *speculation*. 

I'll say yet again, although it seems hopeless, that all *I* am trying to get at is whether the contents of that study are a justifiable reason to criticism pet food regulation. If the criticism is based solely on speculation then I think any reasonable person has the answer to that question.

I would *really* like to see some effort to understand whether the heavy metal levels in those pet foods is because of something unique to pet food manufacturing or whether it is just because of the levels of those metals that are found in our general food system. *That* would tell me whether that study is anything to get excited about. But I'm not one to just take someone else's opinion on such matters. I want to be given the information so that I can decide for myself. If the information given can't stand up to scrutiny then how valid can it be? And if it can't hold up to scrutiny, those who present it leave themselves open to a justifible charge of fearmongering.

 

[ldg]

Oh I understand it is *speculation*. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is acknowledged as *speculation*. 

I'll say yet again, although it seems hopeless, that all *I* am trying to get at is whether the contents of that study are a justifiable reason to criticism pet food regulation. If the criticism is based solely on speculation then I think any reasonable person has the answer to that question.

You're linking two separate things with this statement though:

The speculation is that a source of the heavy metal toxins in pet food is from meat or bone meal;

The FACT is that the study indicated there are heavy metal toxins in pet food, and in amounts that in some instances far exceed human food controls measured. And humans are typically 14x larger than their cats on a bodyweight basis.

I would *really* like to see some effort to understand whether the heavy metal levels in those pet foods is because of something unique to pet food manufacturing or whether it is just because of the levels of those metals that are found in our general food system. *That* would tell me whether that study is anything to get excited about. But I'm not one to just take someone else's opinion on such matters. I want to be given the information so that I can decide for myself. If the information given can't stand up to scrutiny then how valid can it be? And if it can't hold up to scrutiny, those who present it leave themselves open to a justifible charge of fearmongering.

I think being provided the information that there is heavy metal toxins in our pet food, and that it can far exceed the level of controls (human food equivalent) is hardly fear-mongering. It is simply a fact, results of a study.

How it relates to pet foods is that there are no maximum allowable quantities, whatever regulatory authority is responsible, whether that is the AAFCO, the PFI as a self-regulating measure, the USDA, or the FDA.

As we saw in the USDA brochure about some of the limits in feed supplies, "The blending of a food or feed containing a substance in excess of an action level or tolerance with another food or feed is not permitted, and the final product resulting from blending is unlawful, regardless of the level of the contaminant." Now - why this wouldn't be pertinent to PET FOOD is not clear to me.

The problem is knowing what the levels of contaminant are in the supplies going into the pet food that are resulting in the maximum amounts in pet food daily intakes that are far above the controls measured.

But because you dismissed the "controls" used in the study, we dug a little deeper, and found that the reason why controls were used is that the regulation is on allowable levels in terms of mcg parts-per-million or mcg parts-per-billion in individual INPUTS. This does not translate into daily INTAKES.

So to get a feel for the potential daily intake levels of the maximums found in the cat food, we found one regulated toxin, arsenic, and we were able to compare human daily intakes before and after regulations on arsenic levels allowed in food input supplies. They went from an average of 130 mcg daily intake to 20 mcg daily intake (1968 to 1974). Those comparable numbers in cats would be 9 mcg daily intake to 1 mcg daily intake. Yet here, now, in 2012 (well, the study was likely conducted in 2010 as it was published in 2011), cats are potentially subject to 29 mcg daily intake.

Whether it's specific to the pet food manufacturing process, or "whether it is just because of the levels of those metals that are found in our general food system," if those levels found in our general food system are being "concentrated" in our pets' food - how is this not an issue that should be addressed? Why does it make a difference HOW it gets there? Levels that are potentially harmful to our pets... are OK if it's because it's from the human food chain - but not if it's a result of the manufacturing process?

No, I'm sorry, I disagree. Studies like that are not fear-mongering. They're a call to attention to a potential problem.

 

[mschauer]

The [color= rgb(24, 24, 24)]FACT[/color]  is that the study indicated there are heavy metal toxins in pet food, and in amounts that in some instances far exceed human food controls measured. And humans are typically 14x larger than their cats on a bodyweight basis.

The *3* human foods that were selected as "controls" where tuna (13.9 ppb As), sardines (29.6 ppb As) and chicken (4.42 ppb As). Why those 3 foods? Why not rice?

http://arsenic.tamu.edu/pub/pubpres/DHAKA/dhaka3.pdf

Rice produced in the USA contained an average of 181 ppb, with substantial differences between California and Texas.  One sample from Texas contained 753 ppb As.

753 ppb of As exceeds the amount in tuna by a factor of 58. Which in part explains why what I am after is what is considered a *toxic* level. Just comparing dog food to tuna doesn't tell us much. Also the values in pet food tables and the human food table (Table VIII) are all expressed in ppb so the size of the animal doesn't matter. A smaller animal will consume less.

So first it isn't even clear to me that the heavy metal levels found in the pet food are at a high enough level to be concerned about. You keep saying "The contamination is there and is awful no matter what" but those heavy metals are always present in our environment and we consume them all the time. There is a problem only if we consume them at toxic levels. 

Whether it's specific to the pet food manufacturing process, or "whether it is just because of the levels of those metals that are found in our general food system," if those levels found in our general food system are being "concentrated" in our pets' food -how is this not an issue that should be addressed? 

I don't see how the study results can be interpreted as showing a "concentration" of metals. 

Why does it make a difference HOW it gets there? Levels that are potentially harmful to our pets... are OK if it's because it's from the human food chain - but not if it's a result of the manufacturing process?

No, I'm sorry, I disagree. Studies like that are not fear-mongering. They're a call to attention to a potential problem.

It is fearmongering because the implication is that if there were stricter regulatory control of the pet food industries the pet foods in the study would be prohibited from having the metal levels determined in the study. The study does not show that the metals are present in the pet foods at levels higher than would be allowed if the food were for humans so there is no reason to believe they would be considered too high for pets.

In case you've forgotten you have already agreed that it doesn't make sense to expect pet food regulations to be more strict than human food regulations. This is why I was trying to determine whether the contamination levels would be in violation of regulatory limits (i.e., would be toxic) for human foods. If they do not, there is no reason to expect they would be in violation of pet food regulations even if they currently existed. In which case the study does not show that regulation is needed.

If the levels *are* in violation of human food regulatory limits, perhaps because of the ingredients used, then an argument could be made that the study shows regulation is needed.

But if on other hand the contamination is the result of, for example, poor practices during manufacturing, then again an argument could be made that the study shows regulation is needed.

However one feels about the presence of the contamination whether it is indicative of poor regulatory control *of the pet food industry* is what I am trying to get at.

 

[feralvr]

Found some more products that don't contain any of the offensive ingredients listed above. Unlike the first few products I listed (I forgot to watch for this), all of these foods consist of at least 95% DMB of the named meat protein.



Nature's Logic Pet Food – First Alert Recall Participant!***


Chicken Dinner Cat Food Canned


Rabbit Dinner Cat Food Canned


Raw!! (all raws contain single source proteins)


Rabbit Frozen Cat Food Raw


Chicken Frozen Cat Food Raw


Beef Frozen Cat Food Raw



Nature’s Variety


Instinct Chicken Meal Formula Cat Food Canned


Instinct Beef Meal Formula Cat Food Canned (single source protein)


Instinct Lamb Meal Formula Cat Food Canned (single source protein)


Instinct Duck Meal Formula Cat Food Canned


Instinct Rabbit Meal Formula Cat Food Canned


Instinct Venison Meal Formula Cat Food Canned



Weruva Pet Foods
Paw Lickin' Chicken Canned Cat Food


Grandma's Chicken Soup Canned Cat Food


Steak Frites Canned Cat Food



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



And there you go. I've spent the whole day researching this topic; I'm sure there are more canned foods out there that meet these criteria, but this is my contribution.



Best regards!



AC

I have been looking too. :lol3: You are not alone in the search. Very tedious and I can't believe most of the big names, EVO, Core, Wellness all contain Carrageenan....

I found the Weruva products you listed above too.

Another one I found
Natural Balance Platefull grain free pouches:
Chicken & Giblets
Chicken & Chicken Liver
Turkey, Salmon & Chicken

Halo Spots Stew varieties

I also found the Instinct canned foods as well.

Will keep looking. yes.... Time consuming at best... But worth it :nod:

 

[feralvr]

Auntie..... Can you believe this Fussy Cat has listed in their two urinary canned chicken varieties..... Gelling Agent........ Isn't that Carrageenan ?? I am really appalled to read that in the list of ingredients. How do you really know what Gelling Agent means...... ..... Pretty scary information. I never looked before that closely :anon:

 

[mschauer]

Here is my final attempt at explaining the problem I see with how the Spectroscopy study is being interpreted:

Everyone is assuming that the heavy metal values are at unacceptably high levels. It is not clear to me that this is true.

For me it comes down to this question: If those foods were human foods rather than pet foods, would any US government agency regulation call for action to be taken?

If the answer is no, that study does not support support the case for greater regulatory control of the pet food industry.

If the answer is yes, the study does support the case for greater regulatory control of the pet food industry.

That is how I see it. You can of course disagree. 

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by Feralvr

Auntie..... Can you believe this

Fussy Cat has listed in their two urinary canned chicken varieties..... Gelling Agent........ Isn't that Carrageenan ?? I am really appalled to read that in the list of ingredients. How do you really know what Gelling Agent means......

..... Pretty scary information. I never looked before that closely

A bit frustrating, isn't it? *shakes head sadly* And I'll bet you a dollar if you call them, they'll tell you the actual agent used is "proprietary" information - almost always code for, "We don't want you to know."

Well, the fact is, cat owners are becoming more educated, and we *do* want to know! We are, after all, feeding this day in and day out to our littlest family members!

Hope you find something you can replace the Fussy Cat with, Lauren.

AC

 

[feralvr]

A bit frustrating, isn't it? *shakes head sadly* And I'll bet you a dollar if you call them, they'll tell you the actual agent used is "proprietary" information - almost always code for, "We don't want you to know."

Well, the fact is, cat owners are becoming more educated, and we *do* want to know! We are, after all, feeding this day in and day out to our littlest family members!

Hope you find something you can replace the Fussy Cat with, Lauren.

AC

Oh - I don't use Fussy Cat anymore... I just have a couple cans leftover from last summer that I tried when Pipsqueak was diagnosed with FIC. OMG I will NOT feed that. Can you imagine - Gelling Agent - that could mean ANYTHING...... Rubber Cement anyone...... I am throwing those can's out. I just was looking through ALL of my supply of wet food's and came across those can's and read the ingredient's more closely..... YOU bet I will be calling Fussy Cat - I would like to know what they have to say about "Gelling Agent"..... Will report any finding's

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by Feralvr

Oh - I don't use Fussy Cat anymore... I just have a couple cans leftover from last summer that I tried when Pipsqueak was diagnosed with FIC. OMG I will NOT feed that. Can you imagine - Gelling Agent - that could mean ANYTHING...... Rubber Cement anyone......

I am throwing those can's out. I just was looking through ALL of my supply of wet food's and came across those can's and read the ingredient's more closely..... YOU bet I will be calling Fussy Cat - I would like to know what they have to say about "Gelling Agent"..... Will report any finding's

*whew!*

I look forward to your report!

AC

 

[feralvr]

*whew!*

I look forward to your report!

AC

I found their website and do you know what..... "Gelling Agent" is NOT listed on their website in the Chicken Urinary canned food. AND there is NO phone number. So I sent a comment via email and it wouldn't even go through. :hmm:.. Will try through another browser and see if it will go through. I WOULD NOT recommend anyone using Fussie Cat - The ingredient's are a bit different on the website than on the can's. I would like to know why that is. That is very dishonest to me. I purchased my can's from the natural pet food near me and I am going to ask Stacey, the owner, about Fussie cat and see if she has any answer's too. Will keep trying to get an answer - I AM ON A MISSION

 

[feralvr]

I just answered my own question.... I bought these two can's last summer - 7/2011. The date on the bottom of each of the two varieties of chicken urinary diet is : Produced 10/09/10 Exp. 10/09/13. NOW it is possible that the can's made AFTER that date do not have Gelling Agent anymore and that would explain the difference of ingredient's listed on my older produced can to the newer more up-to-date produced can's on their website :nod: They surely have "upgraded" their ingredients since 10/09/10. When I go to the natural food store I will compare my can with a newer dated can. Then I will have the answer. BUT not the answer about the "gelling agent" ingredient on their earlier produced can's. Sorry - about getting a bit off the topic for this ONE product. :lol3:

 

[ldg]

Actually, that's important Lauren. :nod: A LOT of pet food companies DO change the ingredients from time to time without any kind of notice.

For instance, P&G purchased Natura last year - Natura makes Innova, Evo, California Natural, Healthwise, Mother Nature, and Karma brands of food. I wonder how the ingredients now compare with before the buy-out? Or how they'll look a year from now, if they haven't changed the ingredients (yet)?

It's not directly related to the AAFCO topic, but it is something of which consumers should be aware. :nod: Even without the corporate buy-outs, formulas get changed. :nod:

 

[just mike]

Oh I understand it is *speculation*. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is acknowledged as *speculation*. 

I'll say yet again, although it seems hopeless, that all *I* am trying to get at is whether the contents of that study are a justifiable reason to criticism pet food regulation. If the criticism is based solely on speculation then I think any reasonable person has the answer to that question.

I would *really* like to see some effort to understand whether the heavy metal levels in those pet foods is because of something unique to pet food manufacturing or whether it is just because of the levels of those metals that are found in our general food system. *That* would tell me whether that study is anything to get excited about. But I'm not one to just take someone else's opinion on such matters. I want to be given the information so that I can decide for myself. If the information given can't stand up to scrutiny then how valid can it be? And if it can't hold up to scrutiny, those who present it leave themselves open to a justifible charge of fearmongering.

Yes, I agree mschaucer.  And quite frankly I have always been suspect of Susan Thixton's continuous fear mongering. I am not a fan of hers and do not consider her an authority on any aspect of pet food manufacturing, labeling, or nutrition.  Anytime someone mentions her pay per click site I tend to say uh-huh.  Speculation does not hold much water with me, nor does personal opinion when it comes to pet nutrition.  I deal with it on a daily basis and the misinformation spread from opining or speculating is phenominal.
 

 

[carolina]

Actually, that's important Lauren. :nod: A LOT of pet food companies DO change the ingredients from time to time without any kind of notice.
For instance, P&G purchased Natura last year - Natura makes Innova, Evo, California Natural, Healthwise, Mother Nature, and Karma brands of food. I wonder how the ingredients now compare with before the buy-out? Or how they'll look a year from now, if they haven't changed the ingredients (yet)?
It's not directly related to the AAFCO topic, but it is something of which consumers should be aware. :nod: Even without the corporate buy-outs, formulas get changed. :nod:

I am not sure how the rule is for pet foods, but for products like the ones I deal with, the FDA has a rule that might explain those occasions: You can use the packages with the old printing until you run out of them in case of a formula change/co. buy out unless the change is extreme. There is a certain percentage of change where you would need to reprint. Once you run out of the old package inventory, you then run production featuring the new formula.
Again, this rule is one that I am aware in my industry - not necessarily on Pet food....... but it might be the same :nod: