"Nutritionally Complete" assurances for our pet food?

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by NutroMike

Originally Posted by mschauer

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.

Hmmm.

1) Susan Thixton does NOT have a pay per click site. And her book, Buyer Beware, costs less than $14 a copy!

2) Ms. Thixton is recognized by those in her field to be one of the leading experts on the pet food industry's manufacturing processes and ingredients sourcing and labeling practices. The amount of research she has conducted, including interviews with top government, USDA, and AAFCO, and PFI executives is extensive, and the vast majority of her discoveries are publicized for free on her site. As are her frequent notifications of recalls.

3). Ms. Thixton's motivation is no secret to anyone who has spent any time on her site - like me, she's lost a beloved family member to pet food contamination.

4). Ms. Thixton's information is only one of many, many sources being used to explore this topic. A quick scroll through this thread will give you post after post with links directly to AAFCO and other related organizations. In fact, it was the limited nature of AAFCO's feeding trials that prompted the start of this thread.

5) That study you two are referencing in such negative terms is a heavy metals research project conducted by the Spex CertiPrep company, which has absolutely no association with Ms. Thixton. And it is only one of many studies, papers, and documentaries discussed in this thread.

The pet food industry's blithe assurances that all is well, that every one of their products bearing an AAFCO "complete and balanced" stamp of approval is both 100% complete and balanced and perfectly safe to feed to our cats day after day, year after year is blatantly, egregiously false.

Regards.

AC

 

[ldg]

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.

What does any of the discussion in this thread have to do with Susan Thixton? I THINK AC provided some links to her blog/website, but the information links were ultimately not to opinion-based information. The heavy metal toxins was a click-through (no payment required LOL) to a study published in Spectroscopy Magazine.

.......

4). Ms. Thixton's information is only one of many, many sources being used to explore this topic. A quick scroll through this thread will give you post after post with links directly to AAFCO and other related organizations. In fact, it was the limited nature of AAFCO's feeding trials that prompted the start of this thread.

5) That study you two are referencing in such negative terms is a heavy metals research project conducted by the Spex CertiPrep company, which has absolutely no association with Ms. Thixton. And it is only one of many studies, papers, and documentaries discussed in this thread.


The pet food industry's blithe assurances that all is well, that every one of their products bearing an AAFCO "complete and balanced" stamp of approval is both 100% complete and balanced and perfectly safe to feed to our cats day after day, year after year is blatantly, egregiously false.

Regards.

AC

I added the underline to AC's last paragraph just in case people missed it. Clearly, many commercially prepared foods do not harm our pets - at least not in the short term. They're not necessarily the healthiest diets, but not all of them make our cats that aren't predisposed to such problems become obese, diabetic, experience renal failure, or develop cancer. But let's face it - obesity affects 40% of our pets today.

And I just wanted to add, even though it's certainly appropriate to question whether or not the amount of heavy metal toxins in our cats food is at dangerous levels, or something that would be a call to action if in human food, the study by the Spex CertiPrep company was published in Spectroscopy Magazine - not Susan Thixton's website.

"Spectroscopy's editorial goal is to promote and support the effective use of spectroscopic instrumentation in applied research, quality control, environmental testing, and the life sciences. We provide information that demonstrates the potential of spectroscopic techniques to solve real-world problems; reviews important fundamental concepts of spectroscopy; and informs readers of important developments in equipment, applications, or techniques.

Spectroscopy is read by more than 25,000 scientists. Our readers come from all branches of the chemical sciences, as well as from diverse disciplines such as astronomy, environmental engineering, molecular biology, optical engineering, physics, and many more."

And it is a peer-reviewed journal:

"Upon receipt of a submission which follows the preceding guidelines, the editors will commence the process of peer review, which usually takes about four weeks. All submitted application articles are peer-reviewed, and Spectroscopy reserves the right to reject manuscripts for any reason."

http://spectroscopyonline.findanalytichem.com/spectroscopy/static/staticHtml.jsp?id=932

 

[melesine]

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

My understanding is that pet food manufacturers have 6 months to update their packaging to reflect formula changes. Which makes me very uncomfortable. If I want to play devils advocate then that would mean they could change the formula every 5 months and it would never be accurate on the package. I found this out after I had already switched our dogs to raw and before I got the cats. 

 

[ldg]

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. 

Here's the bottom line.

Start with PUBLIC LAW 111–353—JAN. 4, 2011 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ353/pdf/PLAW-111publ353.pdf ), the "Food Modernization Safety Act."

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FDA Food Safety Modernization Act’’.
(b) REFERENCES.—Except as otherwise specified, whenever in
this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment
to a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).

‘‘(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN.—If the
Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that
the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other
article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely
to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse
health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person
(excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes,
packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article
shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated
by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation
of appropriate credentials and a written notice to such
person, at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and
in a reasonable manner, to have access to and copy all records
relating to such article and to any other article of food that
the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in
a similar manner, that are needed to assist the Secretary
in determining whether there is a reasonable probability that
the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse
health consequences or death to humans or animals."

OK - so our Food Safety Act under the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) applies to both humans and animals.

Then we have the FDA discussion of Tolerances & Exemptions for Pesticide Chemical Residues (for which we already posted the link to maximum tolerance levels set in animal feed). But FDA regulation makes it clear it's not just animal feed but, "For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘food’’, when used as a noun without modification, shall mean a raw agricultural commodity or processed food." http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInform...icActFDCAct/FDCActChapterIVFood/ucm107550.htm

So the FDA oversees enforcement the FFDCA Food Safety Laws, that apply to both humans and animals.

To review the Adulterated food laws: "Generally, if a food contains a poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to health, it is adulterated. For example, apple cider contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 and Brie cheese contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes are adulterated. There are two exceptions to this general rule. First, if the poisonous substance is inherent or naturally occurring and its quantity in the food does not ordinarily render it injurious to health, the food will not be considered adulterated. Thus, a food that contains a natural toxin at very low levels that would not ordinarily be harmful (for instance, small amounts of amygdalin in apricot kernels) is not adulterated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adulterated_food

So the FFDCA requires that the amount of a poisonous or deleterious substance that is itself not directly added to food, but rather is a constitutive component of food, needs to be present in an amount that ordinarily renders the product injurious to health before the food can be considered adulterated and actionable under the prohibitions of the Act: but it does apply to both humans and animals (e.g. note recalls for pet food contamination).

Now, interestingly, the AAFCO has divorced pet food nutritional requirements from the National Research Council guidelines, as already discussed in this thread: but in determining whether action should be taken when it applies to mineral levels as re: animals, the FDA references the National Research Council's "Mineral Tolerance in Animals," (Second edition was published in 2005).

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11309

http://books.google.com/books?id=k0...nepage&q=Mineral Tolerance of Animals&f=false


The FDA has set action alerts for maximum tolerance levels for a number of toxins & chemical residues in various feeds and products, as we already saw. (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceCom...emicalContaminantsandPesticides/ucm077969.htm). But these are not the sole set of MTLs, as the amount of lead allowed in children's candy has an MTL. So whether or not an MTL has been set for a substance by the FDA, the LAW (above) is that action could/should be taken if levels of contamination are potentially harmful, whether human OR animal. And the EPA is responsible for establishing MTLs for a number of toxins, though usually as they relate to human/animal exposure in the environment, drinking, or waste water.

The FDA position is that WHO and EPA levels are not appropriate for determining injurious levels to animals - thus the NRC's Mineral Tolerance in Animals.

Interestingly, the Mineral Tolerance in Animals, by the National Research Council, p. 5 notes:

'Relevant information for predicting the MTL [maximum tolerance level] of minerals for aquatic and companion animals is relatively incomplete. Mineral absorption and excretion in aquatic animals is often considerably different from that in terrestrial animals. Studies designed to determine the MTL in aquatic species are needed. Companion animals have long life spans and there are few studies on chronic mineral toxicoses in these species."

The MTL table is only partially available on google books, but the MTLs listed are for rodents, poultry, swine, horse, cattle, sheep, and fish.

So I'm not sure how the FDA uses these for MTLs as it relates to cats and dogs... it also seems there are a number of toxins tested that aren't included in the Mineral Tolerance in Animals:

Beryllium
Cesium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium

So... the FDA doesn't have MTLs set for cats or dogs yet doesn't extrapolate from WHO or EPA data.

Fear mongering? Not fear mongering? :dk:

Guess there isn't any simple, straightforward answer. I think there's basis for concern. But I'm not doing any more research on the subject, nor am I paying for the NRC's Mineral Tolerance in Animals. :lol3:

 

[mschauer]

Simply whether there is "cause for concern" IS NOT the issue I was attempting to address.

So it is not clear whether or not any government regulations would have been violated if the foods in the study had been human foods but we are supposed to be outraged because it is pet food and no government regulation has been violated? 

 

[ldg]

I don't know who is suggesting you be outraged. :dk: AC brought the article to our attention, questions got asked, I spent a lot of time looking into the issue, and found there are no conclusive answers. In fact, the research doesn't exist to KNOW whether those levels of toxins in our pets' food is a problem or not.

If you have an issue with the way Spectroscopy presented the article, or the way the authors of the article presented their findings, feel free to contact them.

The email addresses are up on the website: Here is the addy of the Editorial Director (Laura Bush): [email protected] , and here is the "contact us" form of SPEX CertiPrep, the company whose employees conducted and wrote the study: http://www.spexsampleprep.com/about-us/contact-us.aspx

 

[mschauer]

I don't know who is suggesting you be outraged.

AC brought the article to our attention, questions got asked, I spent a lot of time looking into the issue, and found there are no conclusive answers. In fact, the research doesn't exist to KNOW whether those levels of toxins in our pets' food is a problem or not.
If you have an issue with the way Spectroscopy presented the article, or the way the authors of the article presented their findings, feel free to contact them.

My issue is not with Spectroscopy.

Most of the comments in this thread with regards to the article and certainly on Ms Trixton's website are clearly intended to give readers the impression that there is scientifically established heavy metal content of a dangerous level in pet foods. 

If you are saying I have misinterpreted those comments and that in fact it is understood by all that :

 In fact, the research doesn't exist to KNOW whether those levels of toxins in our pets' food is a problem or not.

then I am a happy camper. 

Thank you Laurie for taking the time to do all that research. 

 

[ldg]

My issue is not with Spectroscopy.

Most of the comments in this thread with regards to the article and certainly on Ms Trixton's website are clearly intended to give readers the impression that there is scientifically established heavy metal content of a dangerous level in pet foods. 

If you are saying I have misinterpreted those comments and that in fact it is understood by all that :



then I am a happy camper. 

Thank you Laurie for taking the time to do all that research. 

But my understanding is that IN THIS THREAD we were discussing the article, not Ms. Thixton's website. :scratch: And I don't see any comments I would consider fear-mongering IN THIS THREAD. AC stated her opinion that the study provides "Just more evidence of the "dumping ground" nature of the pet food industry." I don't know if you consider that fear-mongering - but I don't see anything else that could even remotely be considered fear-mongering IN THIS THREAD.

 

[mschauer]

My issue is not with Spectroscopy.

Most of the comments in this thread with regards to the article and certainly on Ms Trixton's website are clearly intended to give readers the impression that there is scientifically established heavy metal content of a dangerous level in pet foods. 

If you are saying I have misinterpreted those comments and that in fact it is understood by all that :



then I am a happy camper. 

Thank you Laurie for taking the time to do all that research. 

AC provided a link to Thixton's site obviously with the intent that people read it. That makes it part of the thread. Otherwise she would have provided just the link directly to the article.

 

[ldg]

Sorry, I thought you were accusing people posting here in the thread of fear-mongering (which I never understood why :lol3: ). Personally, I don't know much about Susan Thixton or TheTruthAboutPetFood.com. Perhaps she could or should have asked the questions we did. :dk: But it's her blog to do with as she pleases. Honestly, I don't really care one way or the other. Seems to me someone with passion, whether intentionally fear-mongering or not, is just an off-set to the complacency the AAFCO (or in this case the FDA?) would have us feel about the quality and/or safety of our pet food. :dk: Again - as with any opinion-based information, it's up to people to do their own research and make their own decisions. IMO.

 

[meuzettesmom]

Maybe the pet food industry isn't perfect. And a dumping ground of the junk from our food. Our food isn't out of the clear either. Things will not change, for the powers that be are in charge. Animals are concidered property, no more than a boat or car. They don't think they have any feelings or they matter. I know it isn't so.

i would feed more naturual food if I thought my cats would eat it.

 

[ldg]

Well, things DO change! There are more and more higher quality food offerings. And as consumers, we DO have power to make choices, and to let companies know what we want, and to let our regulators - pet or otherwise - know what we want. :nod:

One of my mottos? Don't get mad, DO something!

And when it comes to feeding more natural foods... there are all kinds of tricks, hints and tricks in getting cats to eat the food you want them to in this forum, and in the raw feeding sub-forum. :nod: Both Carolina and Momto4kitties are transitioning their cats right now. Lots of great ideas in both threads. :nod:

And Feralvr and Auntie Crazy have been doing research and posting here commercial wet foods that do not contain a lot of ingredients that are often considered problematic.

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by MeuzettesMom


Maybe the pet food industry isn't perfect. And a dumping ground of the junk from our food. Our food isn't out of the clear either. Things will not change, for the powers that be are in charge. Animals are concidered property, no more than a boat or car. They don't think they have any feelings or they matter. I know it isn't so.

i would feed more naturual food if I thought my cats would eat it.

Ah, but it *IS* changing!

The more pet consumers educate themselves, the more we change our purchasing behaviors based on knowledgable choices, and the more we raise our voices demanding better, safer practices and healthier foods, the faster the industry will respond to us.

Here are two studies I just stumbled across today: Protein requirement for lactating cats. and Effect of dietary starch in cats and dogs.; and here's just one of several articles exploring the future of pet food: New petfood products: What comes after humanization?

Firstly, I'm just plain excited to see these topics being explored. More importantly, however, they indicate the pet food industry is listening to us - and responding!

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

For anyone interested, the first study was an attempt to determine "if the energy requirements (of lactating cats) can be met with wet food or if the volume is too restrictive" and instead concluded that the National Research Council's minimum protein requirements for lactating queens is probably too low... an indication that one of the potential problems with commercial foods meant for cats is that they lack sufficient protein (or lack it in the animal-sourced form that cats can actually use).

The second study concluded "The time lag (approximately 11 hours) between eating the HS diet and the subsequent prolonged elevation of plasma glucose concentration in cats may reflect metabolic adaptations that result in a slower digestive and absorptive capacity for complex carbohydrates."

My only response to that is a "...slower digestive and absorptive capacity for complex carbohydrates"? Ya' think?

And the article concludes with this paragraph: "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."

I believe change is right on the horizon. In fact, I think we are just at the beginning of a swelling wave of change that is going to radically alter the pet food landscape. Kibble for cats is on its way out... and a whole slew of new, more species-appropriate - and healthier! -  products are going to replace them. We just have to keep pushing for it!

AC

 

[melesine]

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":

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

Thanks for the link.

You know, I haven't really followed pet food labeling stuff for about 5 years since we switched the dogs to raw. Then I got the kitties about 6 months ago and had to play catch up. I already was firmly in the grain free camp but have been conflicted about going 100% raw with the cats due to concern over taurine deficiency. My cats have been on a combo of grain free commercial food and raw for months now. But reading that link to the FDA has really pissed me off. I knew the commercial food I fed them had fruits and veggies in it, but by reading the ingredient list they were pretty far down so I figured it was a fairly small amount of the total. I didn't realize that descriptors like formula and recipe would mean that 25% was the minimum of those items. So basically my can of chicken and turkey formula could be only 25% chicken and turkey combined and the rest all the veggies. Even the Wellness Core is labeled as formula ( I checked their website) as is all the EVO products other than those that say 95%. I did feed Weruva for awhile but my cats like the broth more than anything and the cans are 1/2 the calories of pate foods and my cats lost weight. 

I don't even really trust product labeling, especially not after reading that they have 6 months to change their packaging to reflect ingredient changes and the pet food recalls and deaths ( which I was lucky enough to already be feeding my only animals at the time, raw when that happened ) 

UGH! 

I worry about taurine because I feel that the reason the Davis study showed it was deficient was due to feeding ground frozen foods which caused a loss of taurine in the meat. And even though I don't grind the cats raw meaty bones ( we only grind meat for ourselves and for the puppy when we first started her on raw) I still worry about freezing diminishing the taurine. I just haven't got around to educating myself on raw cats enough to be confident going 100% raw. I need some hard data to give me confidence that my cats will get adequate taurine. Say, taurine amounts in regular grocery store cuts of meats and organs that have been frozen ( just to be sure) and the requirements of cats say per day of taurine. 

 

[mschauer]

Sorry, I thought you were accusing people posting here in the thread of fear-mongering (which I never understood why

). Personally, I don't know much about Susan Thixton or TheTruthAboutPetFood.com. Perhaps she could or should have asked the questions we did.

But it's her blog to do with as she pleases. Honestly, I don't really care one way or the other. Seems to me someone with passion, whether intentionally fear-mongering or not, is just an off-set to the complacency the AAFCO (or in this case the FDA?) would have us feel about the quality and/or safety of our pet food.

Again - as with any opinion-based information, it's up to people to do their own research and make their own decisions. IMO.

I'm afraid I can't agree that there is anything positive about fearmongering. All it does is cause undue alarm, in this case, among pet owners most of whom have little choice but to feed the very foods they are being told may kill their pets and then if the alarm is proven unfounded they might be predisposed to ignore any future, legitimate alarm because of the earlier false alarm. 

IMO it is important to expose fearmongering. The people who engage in it obstruct change by making it easy for the ones capable of installing change to dismiss their concerns as those of a crackpot.

 

[auntie crazy]

Originally Posted by mschauer

Originally Posted by LDG

Sorry, I thought you were accusing people posting here in the thread of fear-mongering (which I never understood why

). Personally, I don't know much about Susan Thixton or TheTruthAboutPetFood.com. Perhaps she could or should have asked the questions we did.

But it's her blog to do with as she pleases. Honestly, I don't really care one way or the other. Seems to me someone with passion, whether intentionally fear-mongering or not, is just an off-set to the complacency the AAFCO (or in this case the FDA?) would have us feel about the quality and/or safety of our pet food.

Again - as with any opinion-based information, it's up to people to do their own research and make their own decisions. IMO.

I'm afraid I can't agree that there is anything positive about fearmongering. All it does is cause undue alarm, in this case, among pet owners most of whom have little choice but to feed the very foods they are being told may kill their pets and then if the alarm is proven unfounded they might be predisposed to ignore any future, legitimate alarm because of the earlier false alarm. 

IMO it is important to expose fearmongering. The people who engage in it obstruct change by making it easy for the ones capable of installing change to dismiss their concerns as those of a crackpot.

And IMO, not one single sentence of this very long, incredibly informative thread consists of fearmongering. Over half the links are to information provided by the FDA and AAFCO organizations; and it's their practices that are being called into question.

You have your opinion. I have mine. LDG has hers. Carolina has hers.

You can accept the status quo, or you can advocate for better. Your choice. That's how life works. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Melesine

...

You know, I haven't really followed pet food labeling stuff for about 5 years since we switched the dogs to raw. Then I got the kitties about 6 months ago and had to play catch up. I already was firmly in the grain free camp but have been conflicted about going 100% raw with the cats due to concern over taurine deficiency. My cats have been on a combo of grain free commercial food and raw for months now. But reading that link to the FDA has really pissed me off. I knew the commercial food I fed them had fruits and veggies in it, but by reading the ingredient list they were pretty far down so I figured it was a fairly small amount of the total. I didn't realize that descriptors like formula and recipe would mean that 25% was the minimum of those items. So basically my can of chicken and turkey formula could be only 25% chicken and turkey combined and the rest all the veggies. Even the Wellness Core is labeled as formula ( I checked their website) as is all the EVO products other than those that say 95%. I did feed Weruva for awhile but my cats like the broth more than anything and the cans are 1/2 the calories of pate foods and my cats lost weight. 

I don't even really trust product labeling, especially not after reading that they have 6 months to change their packaging to reflect ingredient changes and the pet food recalls and deaths ( which I was lucky enough to already be feeding my only animals at the time, raw when that happened ) 

UGH! 

I worry about taurine because I feel that the reason the Davis study showed it was deficient was due to feeding ground frozen foods which caused a loss of taurine in the meat. And even though I don't grind the cats raw meaty bones ( we only grind meat for ourselves and for the puppy when we first started her on raw) I still worry about freezing diminishing the taurine. I just haven't got around to educating myself on raw cats enough to be confident going 100% raw. I need some hard data to give me confidence that my cats will get adequate taurine. Say, taurine amounts in regular grocery store cuts of meats and organs that have been frozen ( just to be sure) and the requirements of cats say per day of taurine. 

The AAFCO's minimum requirement (for what it's worth) is .2 grams per 100 grams of food on a Dry Matter Basis. Most foods contain at least twice that amount, and many contain much, much more; from all that we know, what is lost during freezing isn't enough to worry about. Even if they didn't and it was, however, taurine is water soluble and can be supplemented without being too concerned about overdosing.

I've been feeding non-supplemented frankenprey for a few years now, and my cats' health has been verified through bloodwork done at the vet's office. 

Regards!

AC

 

[mschauer]

Over half the links are to information provided by the FDA and AAFCO organizations; and it's their practices that are being called into question.

You are absolutely right. Those links contain no fearmongering. 

 

You have your opinion. I have mine. LDG has hers. Carolina has hers.

How on earth does Carolina fit into this??? 

You can accept the status quo, or you can advocate for better. Your choice. That's how life works. *shrug*

Nobody has suggested accepting the status quo. 

 

[ldg]

Thanks for the link.


You know, I haven't really followed pet food labeling stuff for about 5 years since we switched the dogs to raw. Then I got the kitties about 6 months ago and had to play catch up. I already was firmly in the grain free camp but have been conflicted about going 100% raw with the cats due to concern over taurine deficiency. My cats have been on a combo of grain free commercial food and raw for months now. But reading that link to the FDA has really pissed me off. I knew the commercial food I fed them had fruits and veggies in it, but by reading the ingredient list they were pretty far down so I figured it was a fairly small amount of the total. I didn't realize that descriptors like formula and recipe would mean that 25% was the minimum of those items. So basically my can of chicken and turkey formula could be only 25% chicken and turkey combined and the rest all the veggies. Even the Wellness Core is labeled as formula ( I checked their website) as is all the EVO products other than those that say 95%. I did feed Weruva for awhile but my cats like the broth more than anything and the cans are 1/2 the calories of pate foods and my cats lost weight. 

I don't even really trust product labeling, especially not after reading that they have 6 months to change their packaging to reflect ingredient changes and the pet food recalls and deaths ( which I was lucky enough to already be feeding my only animals at the time, raw when that happened ) 

UGH! 

I worry about taurine because I feel that the reason the Davis study showed it was deficient was due to feeding ground frozen foods which caused a loss of taurine in the meat. And even though I don't grind the cats raw meaty bones ( we only grind meat for ourselves and for the puppy when we first started her on raw) I still worry about freezing diminishing the taurine. I just haven't got around to educating myself on raw cats enough to be confident going 100% raw. I need some hard data to give me confidence that my cats will get adequate taurine. Say, taurine amounts in regular grocery store cuts of meats and organs that have been frozen ( just to be sure) and the requirements of cats say per day of taurine. 

You can always just supplement taurine if you're concerned.

 

[melesine]

I really don't want to supplement because then I have to worry about what dosage each cat is getting, plus I prefer to feed whole foods not ground. 

 

[carolina]

I really don't want to supplement because then I have to worry about what dosage each cat is getting, plus I prefer to feed whole foods not ground. 

If you feed frankerprey - not ground, my understanding is that you don't need to supplement.....
Also, when you supplement, you base the qty on the weight of the food - then you feed according with the with what each cat's need - you don't give the supplement to each cat as a vitamin - you supplement the food, not the cat. That's what I know about it, anyways. So - you would mix only one batch for all the kitties..... and feed them different qtys per their weights..... of course larger cats will need more food than smaller..... But as pointed out before, Taurine is water soluble, so there is not much you have to worry about with overdosing....
If you don't want to supplement, you can always feed a commercial raw diet that already fits the AAFCO Taurine recommendations - those are calculated "as fed", and come ready to go.... You don't need to do a thing besides feeding the proper amount of food per kitty... There are plenty out there available for the pick.
Or.... you can just keep on commercial food - wet/dry......
I chose to transition all of my to commercial raw :bigthumb: