Complete and Balanced Nutrition

Don't Think So!

Exposing the Fraud (new! 5/21/08)

FDA "public" meeting - COMMENTS NEEDED by June 13, 2008 (updated 5/14/08)

More Dangerous than the Food?

Food Safety Act update

Campaign for regulation of pet foods

Latest updates and news

Pet food recalls

Research papers that document illness or death in animals as a result of pet food

Rebuttal to Pet Food Institute's comments by Dr. Hodgkins

Testimony of Dr. Hodgkins to Senate appropriations committee

Misleading or incorrect information by pet food industry

Making pet food


Dr. Hodgkins' rebuttals to comments made by pet food industry

Rebuttal to Pet Food Industry Response to Hearings Held April 12, 2007

by Dr. Elizabeth Hodgkins, DVM, Esq.

Today, April 13, 2007, the pet food industry has issued a broadly published statement and Q & A to counter testimony and questioning that occurred yesterday in Washington DC before the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee investigating the recent pet food contamination recalls. Much of what has been published is incorrect and the industry’s way of trying to do damage control. The following is the text of the industry’s message and my rebuttals to that message: (pet food statements are in italics, my rebuttal in bold):

The pet food industry remains a partner in the investigation with the FDA and has cooperated with state and federal regulators since evidence leading to the recall first surfaced. The industry will continue cooperate fully with any other official investigations relating to this incident.

The FDA’s investigation is ongoing and has not reached any conclusions about how any foreign substances entered the process. I think it’s presumptuous to additional regulatory measures at this time. Only when we have this information can we make an accurate and informed decision.

The industry representative insisted that the industry is cooperating fully in this investigation, yet when asked how long it had taken Menu Foods to report to the FDA about the toxins in their food, he admitted that he did not know. The time to report, which is well documented at 3 weeks, would have been something he would have known had the industry been fully involved and cooperating with this investigation. The industry wants this to go away, not be fully investigated so that better quality control measures can be implemented.

How Pet Foods Are Regulated

Pet foods are one of the most highly regulated food products. They are required by law to provide on their labels more information than most human foods. State departments of agriculture provide standards and enforcement policies for regulation of manufacture of pet foods resulting in safe foods. Ingredients in pet food must be acceptable to state authorities. In the March 23 press conference Sundlof also stated that regulation of pet foods is the same as human foods.

Pet foods are far from regulated as human foods are. 4D meat (meat from dead, dying, diseased or disabled animals) CANNOT be used for human food, but it CAN be used in pet foods and is used routinely by at least some manufacturers. Other ingredients that would not be allowed in human foods, such as rendered tissues, are allowed in pet foods. Further, human food health claims are very difficult for human food makers to get. Virtually ALL pet foods contain unsubstantiated claims for safety, completeness and balance that NO HUMAN FOOD in the world would ever be able to get. While some pet foods are likely to be adequate food for pets, many are not, yet there is no testing done to differentiate the good from the bad in this self-regulated industry. FDA has delegated the responsibility of pet food regulation to an association known as AAFCO. AAFCO itself ADMITS it has NO regulatory AUTHORITY or enforcement capabilities, so although there are several layers of APPARENT regulation, there is actually no regulation of pet foods today.

Pet food manufacturers are responsible for producing safe products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state governments provide the rules, guidance and oversight under which safe pet food is produced. FDA requires pet food to be wholesome, contain no harmful or deleterious substances, and to be truthfully labeled.

Yes, pet food companies are responsible for producing safe products, and they have failed many times in the past, at least 3 times in the past 18 months. To say they are responsible for doing something is quite different from saying they are ACTUALLY doing it. The facts speak for themselves on this point. The pet food industry has breached the FDA’s mandate of them because they are self-regulated!

How Ingredients and Finished Pet Foods Are Tested

Pet food ingredients undergo significant testing for safety and quality assurance including screening for mycotoxins (including aflatoxin), bacteria (including Salmonella and E.Coli) and nutrient content. Furthermore the finished product is analyzed to ensure appropriate nutrient levels, evaluating protein (including 11 amino acids), fat, fiber, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants.

This is an untruth. Many if not most pet food ingredients undergo no testing whatsoever. If this statement were true, we would not have repeated pet food aflatoxin toxicity problems as we do. We also would not have had a recent and very serious toxicity problem in a major pet food from excess Vitamin D supplementation. This statement merely describes what is SUPPOSED to happen, not what really DOES happen. The facts speak for themselves.

A Consumer's Guide to Pet Food: Valuable Information for Pet Owners

Veterinarians agree that pets are living longer, healthier lives since the use of commercially prepared pet foods became widespread. Decades of research have gone into the development of pet food to make sure the special nutrition needs of pet dogs and cats are met.

Veterinarians DO NOT agree about this, they can’t, it is totally unproven. Evidence about changes in the life span of pets over the past several decades is sparse, and no scientist would dare draw the conclusion that pets today live longer on average than pets 30-40 years ago because of commercial pet foods, for example. What does seem clear is that today’s indoor pets live much longer than those that live outdoors. The evidence for this conclusion is strong.

Those who would give commercial pet food even partial credit for this increase in life expectancy in the indoor pet, however, have absolutely no evidence to back up this conclusion. There are many factors that affect the life span of pet animals under indoor and outdoor circumstances. Indoor pets are more protected from death due to automobiles and predators, they are more protected from exposure to infectious disease and often receive more medial care than outdoor pets, to name just a few of the important differences between these two groups. It is easy to sweep commercial food consumption right along with all of these other factors as contributing to longer life in today’s pets. Unfortunately for this particular factor, there is no reason to believe it has anything to do with the longer life of house pets. Let’s look at an analogy to understand how this might be so.

Humans in the US enjoy longer life expectancy today than they did fifty years ago. During those decades of improving average life span, those same people have consumed ever-increasing amounts of fat-laden, sugary, carbohydrate-rich “fast” food and other types of over-processed “convenience” foods. We are far more obese today than in decades past, and human nutritionists nag us endlessly about changing our diets to include better quality, fresh whole foods. Imagine anyone believing that this increasing consumption of highly processed “fast” foods and increasing obesity is the reason, or even makes a positive contribution to our increasing life spans! We are living longer in spite of our diets, not because of them. Many other factors, such as less tobacco smoking, the use of seatbelts, better prenatal and postnatal care, and astonishing high-tech medical advancements for defeating disease and injury account for our increasing life spans. Our convenience-oriented diets are actually working against longer life, but cannot defeat all of these other strong protective factors in our lives.

So it is with our pets. When they live indoors, they live longer than if they lived outdoors, but commercial foods likely have no part in adding those extra years. Like our own “overprocessed” diets, they may even be depriving our pets of even greater health and longevity. If you hear anyone make the flat statement that pets are living longer BECAUSE of commercial foods, demand to see the scientific data for that statement!

What does "complete and balanced" mean?

Unlike most foods for people, many pet food products are designed to be the sole source of nutrition for a pet dog or cat. Products that are labeled "complete and balanced," as defined by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), have been tested to make sure they meet the complex nutritional requirements of a healthy dog or cat.

No, they have NOT been tested to make sure they meet the requirements of healthy pets! Only a very few “sample” diets have even been tested on any animals for even 6 months. Considering that cats have a natural lifespan of 20 years or more, and dogs can live 10-20 years depending on breed, 6 months is NOT long enough and 6 animals is not anywhere close to a statistically valid number to even prove a 6 month claim. This is one of the most serious and most misleading of the untruths that pet food companies make about their foods.

What does it mean on a pet food label that a product has been tested using animal feeding trials?

There are two ways a pet food company can test the nutrition of its products. One method is the use of standardized animal feeding trials, designed by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), to make sure their products meet the complex nutritional requirements of dogs and cats. The animals in these tests are fed the food for six months and are closely monitored to make sure they stay healthy. A product using this test will have language similar to the following on the label - "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that Nancy's Food for Dogs provides complete and balanced nutrition for all life stages."

This is almost a completely truthful answer, because it admits that this “study” only last six months. This answer omits two important factors: there are only a handful of animals tested, and only a few sample diets are even tested on those few animals for those few months.

Are fillers used in pet food?

Every ingredient used in pet food is there for a reason. Decades of research have gone into making pet foods that meet the nutritional needs of dogs and cats. The makers of pet food do not put in anything that's not needed.

There is almost no research on any pet food anywhere that can be considered scientific by any genuine scientist. Whether reused vegetable oil and rendered animal scraps and wood cellulose is “needed” by any dog or cat is very highly questionable by intelligent and well trained experts. The cat has absolutely no need for carbohydrates, for example, yet all dry cat food has PLENTY of this cheap ingredient that is required for dry food processing. Further, the acids that pet food companies put into “urinary tract diets” can and do even cause other diseases, proving that those acidifiers are not only not needed, but are even harmful to many cats. Pet food companies absolutely DO put things in pet food that are not needed and that can even cause harm.

What is ingredient "splitting?"

Some people incorrectly believe pet food makers split up ingredients to give the illusion that some ingredients are at higher concentrations than others. Pet food makers are required to carefully label their products according to stringent government regulations. Just as the case with food for people, pet foods must clearly state what ingredients are included in the product. Each ingredient in pet food is there for a reason and to serve a nutritional purpose.

The "stringent" ingredient regulations have been developed by the industry in concert with AAFCO. AAFCO has no real authority over the pet food companies, and goes along with the desires of an industry that, by the admission of the FDA, is a good way for by-products of American agriculture to “dispose” of those by-products of agriculture that are not fit for or undesirable for humans to eat. Many ingredients in pet food serve no nutritional purpose in our pets, but keep farmers and ranchers from having to throw them away.

An example of ingredients splitting: Pet food companies who wish to disguise the amount of cereals in their products will list several different cereals in stead of using just one (not top quality cereals either) so that what meat IS in their products will legally be listed as the one of the first ingredients. In many, if not most of these foods, cereal actually makes up the majority of the food, but consumers see “chicken” as one of the top 2-3 ingredients and think that chicken is a predominant component of the food. This is “smoke and mirrors.”

The regulations may demand that the ingredients be listed in order of predominance, but there is NO prohibition against the sleight of hand described in this example.
The pet food industry is an ineffectively regulated 15 billion dollar industry that produces everything your pet eats, day in day out. This should make you want to know a lot more about what is going into those cans and bags, and into your pet!

From: American College of Veterinary Nutrition

Contrary to the assertions of some, it simply is not in the best interest of companies to want to sell potentially unsafe product. The long history of the industry's provision of safe and nutritious products to the consumer speaks to its dedication to the health and well-being of pets.

This is almost as stupid a statement as the "pets are living longer because of commercial foods" lunacy. The ACVN apparently thinks this comment is a winner for them and I hope pet owners have the sense to see through it. The makers of Vioxx, and the makers of Peter Pan peanut butter hve no interest in having dangerous products either, but does that mean those contaminations did not happen or were not extremely serious, and were not the result of mistakes made by the givernment and the companies themselves?? Are you any less dead if Vioxx was only negligently or accidentally unsafe than if Meriel inteneded for you to die from use of it? Do companies have to WANT pets and people to die for toxic problems to be held against them? Isn't negligence and indifference enough? I'm an attorney and I can tell you that negligence and indifference certainly IS enough to win a lawsuit, and it certainly ought to be enough for the court of public opinion!

Further, there is NO SUCH long history of safety. Within the past decade, no fewer than 10 incidences of tainted, leathal pet food have been uncovered, and those are only the cases that were uncovered! How many more have not been recognized and exposed to the public??

The pet food industry, and even more so the expert "apologists" for the industry like the "College of Veterinary Nutrition" should be ASHAMED of themselves. They are defending the indefensible, making them no better, not one tiny bit better, than the poorest quality, most negligent sloppy pet food company!

How can we expect the pet foo companies to behave well when this is the way the specialists behave??????????

Dr. Hodgkins on proper diet for cats:

Dr. Hodgkins' Senate Hearing Testimony Here


Feel free to contact me at Pet Food Crusade!

Sponsored by Mousabilities