Sorry for the length of this post. Please bear with me.
I'll post the point first, and then explain. It seems to me the AAFCO "nutritional completeness" standards provide a false sense of security when it comes to feeding our pets.
Yes, having definitions, guidelines, and consumer protection via labeling regulations is better than nothing.
But when the definition of "nutritional completeness" is based solely on a nutritional profile of ingredients, and not BIOAVAILABILITY of those nutrients, that label becomes essentially meaningless.
In fact,
Clearly, if anyone checked the ingredients, I doubt those consumers would purchase the product. But I didn't start checking ingredients on the cat food I feed my pets
until one of our vets (a DVM trained in nutrition and chinese medicine) basically insisted we switch our cats to an all wet food diet.
******************
It's really only in the past few months/year that discussions in the Nutrition Forum have sparked my interest in nutrition / food for cats...which I find very odd. I normally research everything. So why would I assume that commercial pet food is healthy? Because there are ... "nutritional standards," and we can look for the remarks on bags of kibble or cans of wet food that the food is "nutritionally complete?"
Now - I know there are differences in quality, but I just never considered the fact that the AAFCO would allow something like feces to be considered acceptable as an ingredient in our pets' food.
But recent discussions on the board about raw food diets got me wondering about the "nutritionally complete" aspect of commercial foods, and, frankly, it was the link in this quote to the protocols for the AAFCO food trials that outright SCARED me and sent me running for information. (From this thread: http://www.thecatsite.com/t/239547/scientific-studies-supporting-raw-food-diet )
Well, I clicked on that link and read the protocols for the AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) food trials, which are:
So SIX (or 8) animals don't die, meet FOUR blood values measures, and don't lose 15% of their body weight in 6 months and two weeks, the manufacturer can state that the food was subjected to and successfully met AAFCO feeding trials.
Further inspection of AAFCO requirements revealed that pet food subject to feeding trials need NOT be analyzed in a laboratory for a nutrient profile in order to state it is "complete and balanced." OR... pet food analyzed in a laboratory that meets the AAFCO guidelines for nutrient minimums (and a few maximums) need not be subject to feeding trials in order to be declared "nutritionally complete."
Notably, (I believe this was discussed before), the AAFCO does not regulate, test, approve or certify pet foods in any way.
So what do they do?
Simple. The AAFCO establishes a framework for uniform regulation of the feed industry. They
- establish standards or models for regulations aimed at ensuring that manufacturers provide clear, accurate, and consistent information about animal feed, including pet food;
- provide ingredient definitions and feed terms;
- establish "nutrient profiles," an effort to identify the minimum (and a few maximum) levels of “macronutrients” (protein, fat, and fiber) and the “micronutrients” (vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids) that research has shown to be necessary for dogs and cats.
- address labeling issues such as label format, ingredient lists, nutrition claims, and guaranteed analysis;
- define "nutritionally complete" for three life stages (Growth; Gestation/Lactation; Adult Maintenance) (or "All Life Stages." ).
Yet the last time the nutritional requirements ("profiles") for cats was updated by the AAFCO was in a report released by the AAFCO's Feline Nutrition Expert Subcommittee in 1991-1992. Yet the National Research Council's "Nutrient Requirements of Cats and Dogs," (most current version, released in 2006), accepts that despite ongoing research, large gaps still exist in the knowledge of quantitative nutritional information for specific nutrients.
So with 20 year-old nutritional guidelines and admitted gaps in knowledge of nutritional requirements for our pets, how do AAFCO standards ensure healthy food for our pets?
They don't.
And it's not surprising, given what is approved for use in our pet food.
If you want to read more detail on the limitations of AAFCO nutrient allowances, an article, "Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle," by members of the Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, published in the Journal of Nutrition is available here: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/124/12_Suppl/2520S.full.pdf
Like I said. I, for one, believe that having definitions, guidelines, and consumer protection via labeling regulations is better than nothing. But it is certainly no end-all / be-all guarantee that the food we purchase for our pets is actually good for them.
I'll post the point first, and then explain. It seems to me the AAFCO "nutritional completeness" standards provide a false sense of security when it comes to feeding our pets.
Yes, having definitions, guidelines, and consumer protection via labeling regulations is better than nothing.
But when the definition of "nutritional completeness" is based solely on a nutritional profile of ingredients, and not BIOAVAILABILITY of those nutrients, that label becomes essentially meaningless.
In fact,
Quote:
(bold emphasis added) (excerpt from Jeane Hofve, DVM of LittleBigCat.com, "Pet Food Regulation" http://www.littlebigcat.com/nutrition/pet-food-regulation/ ).Although the Nutrient Profile system has done a lot to standardize the business of pet food production, it's not without its critics. There are studies that suggest some nutrient levels may be too high, and others too low. The Nutrient Profile system of formulation does not address the issue of ingredient quality whatsoever. One critic of this method of feed formulation designed a “food” that met all the AAFCO nutrient profile requirements – even though the food was primarily formulated from old shoe leather, sawdust and motor oil with a multi-vitamin-mineral supplement. Obviously, there would be no guarantee that any animal would eat such a food, or could digest it, even though it contained all the vitamins, minerals, protein, fat, etc. that the nutrient profiles required.
Clearly, if anyone checked the ingredients, I doubt those consumers would purchase the product. But I didn't start checking ingredients on the cat food I feed my pets
until one of our vets (a DVM trained in nutrition and chinese medicine) basically insisted we switch our cats to an all wet food diet.******************
It's really only in the past few months/year that discussions in the Nutrition Forum have sparked my interest in nutrition / food for cats...which I find very odd. I normally research everything. So why would I assume that commercial pet food is healthy? Because there are ... "nutritional standards," and we can look for the remarks on bags of kibble or cans of wet food that the food is "nutritionally complete?"
Now - I know there are differences in quality, but I just never considered the fact that the AAFCO would allow something like feces to be considered acceptable as an ingredient in our pets' food.
But recent discussions on the board about raw food diets got me wondering about the "nutritionally complete" aspect of commercial foods, and, frankly, it was the link in this quote to the protocols for the AAFCO food trials that outright SCARED me and sent me running for information. (From this thread: http://www.thecatsite.com/t/239547/scientific-studies-supporting-raw-food-diet )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 
3) We have scientific studies that verify that supplemented cooked food is nutritionally complete, thanks to FDA/AAFCO feed trials on large numbers of cats (addressing concerns of taurine deficiency for example) for over 40 years.
3) We have scientific studies that verify that supplemented cooked food is nutritionally complete, thanks to FDA/AAFCO feed trials on large numbers of cats (addressing concerns of taurine deficiency for example) for over 40 years.
Well, I clicked on that link and read the protocols for the AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) food trials, which are:
Quote:
Only 8 animals (either dogs or cats) need to participate in the feeding trial. There is no restriction regarding breed or sex. Only 6 of these 8 need to complete the trial, which lasts for just 26 weeks. During the trial, the only food available to the test animals is the food being tested. Water is available ad libitum.
Before the trial starts, and after it ends, the participating animals must pass a physical examination by a veterinarian. The veterinarians evaluate general health, body and hair coat condition. At the end (but not at the beginning) of the trial, 4 blood values are measured and recorded: hemoglobin, packed cell volume, serum alkaline phosphatase, and serum albumin.
The diet being tested fails if any animal shows clinical or pathological signs of nutritional deficiency or excess. No dog or cat is allowed to lose more than 15% of its starting body weight. Specific minimum values for the blood tests are given, and applied to the average result of all participating animals that finished the trial.
Before the trial starts, and after it ends, the participating animals must pass a physical examination by a veterinarian. The veterinarians evaluate general health, body and hair coat condition. At the end (but not at the beginning) of the trial, 4 blood values are measured and recorded: hemoglobin, packed cell volume, serum alkaline phosphatase, and serum albumin.
The diet being tested fails if any animal shows clinical or pathological signs of nutritional deficiency or excess. No dog or cat is allowed to lose more than 15% of its starting body weight. Specific minimum values for the blood tests are given, and applied to the average result of all participating animals that finished the trial.
So SIX (or 8) animals don't die, meet FOUR blood values measures, and don't lose 15% of their body weight in 6 months and two weeks, the manufacturer can state that the food was subjected to and successfully met AAFCO feeding trials.
Further inspection of AAFCO requirements revealed that pet food subject to feeding trials need NOT be analyzed in a laboratory for a nutrient profile in order to state it is "complete and balanced."
OR... pet food analyzed in a laboratory that meets the AAFCO guidelines for nutrient minimums (and a few maximums) need not be subject to feeding trials in order to be declared "nutritionally complete."Notably, (I believe this was discussed before), the AAFCO does not regulate, test, approve or certify pet foods in any way.
So what do they do?
Simple. The AAFCO establishes a framework for uniform regulation of the feed industry. They
- establish standards or models for regulations aimed at ensuring that manufacturers provide clear, accurate, and consistent information about animal feed, including pet food;
- provide ingredient definitions and feed terms;
- establish "nutrient profiles," an effort to identify the minimum (and a few maximum) levels of “macronutrients” (protein, fat, and fiber) and the “micronutrients” (vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids) that research has shown to be necessary for dogs and cats.
- address labeling issues such as label format, ingredient lists, nutrition claims, and guaranteed analysis;
- define "nutritionally complete" for three life stages (Growth; Gestation/Lactation; Adult Maintenance) (or "All Life Stages." ).
Yet the last time the nutritional requirements ("profiles") for cats was updated by the AAFCO was in a report released by the AAFCO's Feline Nutrition Expert Subcommittee in 1991-1992. Yet the National Research Council's "Nutrient Requirements of Cats and Dogs," (most current version, released in 2006), accepts that despite ongoing research, large gaps still exist in the knowledge of quantitative nutritional information for specific nutrients.
So with 20 year-old nutritional guidelines and admitted gaps in knowledge of nutritional requirements for our pets, how do AAFCO standards ensure healthy food for our pets?
They don't.
Quote:
(Again, Jeane Hofve, DVM of LittleBigCat.com, in "Pet Food Regulation" http://www.littlebigcat.com/nutrition/pet-food-regulation/ ).In generational studies, where animals were kept on the same food for three to five generations, researchers at the University of California at Davis found that some foods that pass feeding trials still won’t support animals over the long term. They estimated that, of 100 foods that pass AAFCO analysis criteria, 10 to 20 would not pass the feeding trials, and of those, 10 percent would not be adequate for long-term feeding.
And it's not surprising, given what is approved for use in our pet food.
Quote:
(From "The Myth of "100% Complete and Balanced" Processed Pet Foods" by Wysong: http://www.wysong.net/pet-health-and-nutrition/?article=36&cat=cat6 ).Because of the nondescript nature of the mush and nuggets in pet food cans and bags, pet owners must extend a lot of trust to manufacturers. But the balm of blind trust and faith never turns out to be a solution for anything. For example, consider the following approved ingredients from the official AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) regulatory publications:
dehydrated garbage (you read that right)
polyethylene roughage (plastic)
hydrolyzed poultry feathers
hydrolyzed hair
hydrolyzed leather meal
some 36 chemical preservatives
peanut skins and hulls
corn cob fractions
ground corn cob
ground clam shells
poultry, cow and pig feces and litter
hundreds of chemicals
a host of antibiotic and chemotherapeutic pharmaceuticals
a variety of synthetic flavorings
adjuvants
sequestrates
stabilizers
anticaking agents
This is not to say these ingredients are commonly used, just to point out that they can be. Obviously these ‘approved’ ingredients prove it may not be such a good idea to blindly trust regulators, manufacturers and nutritionists, and assume they know better about how to feed your pet than you do.
The absurdity of official nutrition deepens because at the same time regulators approve dehydrated garbage, they ban natural ingredients like pollen, chondroitin, Coenzyme Q10, and other nutraceuticals (natural substances with health effects). Any health food store and grocery has foods and nutraceuticals approved for humans that are banned from inclusion in commercial pet foods.
This sad state of irrationality—approving feces and garbage but banning chondroitin—can only be explained by the fact that regulators are trained in old school nutrition - using textbooks parroting 100-year old nutritional ideas. They are taught and come to believe that the nature of the food makes no difference, just the percentages of protein, fat, vitamin A, and the like. If dehydrated garbage and feces is made sterile (safe?) and has 12% protein, then to them that equals nutritious food. Similar thinking can be found in human hospitals where old school nutritionally trained dieticians feed diseased and starving patients instant potatoes, Jell-O, canned meat, and Diet Coke. Any claim about special merits of natural ingredients is often considered voodoo by them.
Both human and animal nutritionists can be so caught up in their science of percentages that no room is left in their brains for common sense. If that’s the way they want to eat, that is one thing. It’s quite another for consumers to follow along just because nutritionists and regulators promote themselves as expert, authoritative, and immune from error.
dehydrated garbage (you read that right)
polyethylene roughage (plastic)
hydrolyzed poultry feathers
hydrolyzed hair
hydrolyzed leather meal
some 36 chemical preservatives
peanut skins and hulls
corn cob fractions
ground corn cob
ground clam shells
poultry, cow and pig feces and litter
hundreds of chemicals
a host of antibiotic and chemotherapeutic pharmaceuticals
a variety of synthetic flavorings
adjuvants
sequestrates
stabilizers
anticaking agents
This is not to say these ingredients are commonly used, just to point out that they can be. Obviously these ‘approved’ ingredients prove it may not be such a good idea to blindly trust regulators, manufacturers and nutritionists, and assume they know better about how to feed your pet than you do.
The absurdity of official nutrition deepens because at the same time regulators approve dehydrated garbage, they ban natural ingredients like pollen, chondroitin, Coenzyme Q10, and other nutraceuticals (natural substances with health effects). Any health food store and grocery has foods and nutraceuticals approved for humans that are banned from inclusion in commercial pet foods.
This sad state of irrationality—approving feces and garbage but banning chondroitin—can only be explained by the fact that regulators are trained in old school nutrition - using textbooks parroting 100-year old nutritional ideas. They are taught and come to believe that the nature of the food makes no difference, just the percentages of protein, fat, vitamin A, and the like. If dehydrated garbage and feces is made sterile (safe?) and has 12% protein, then to them that equals nutritious food. Similar thinking can be found in human hospitals where old school nutritionally trained dieticians feed diseased and starving patients instant potatoes, Jell-O, canned meat, and Diet Coke. Any claim about special merits of natural ingredients is often considered voodoo by them.
Both human and animal nutritionists can be so caught up in their science of percentages that no room is left in their brains for common sense. If that’s the way they want to eat, that is one thing. It’s quite another for consumers to follow along just because nutritionists and regulators promote themselves as expert, authoritative, and immune from error.
If you want to read more detail on the limitations of AAFCO nutrient allowances, an article, "Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle," by members of the Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, published in the Journal of Nutrition is available here: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/124/12_Suppl/2520S.full.pdf
Like I said. I, for one, believe that having definitions, guidelines, and consumer protection via labeling regulations is better than nothing. But it is certainly no end-all / be-all guarantee that the food we purchase for our pets is actually good for them.
...... That's a red flag if you ask me.... weird..... $105!! 
at what is listed as acceptable ingredient's. I have to say - I am REALLY rethinking what I feed my pet's.... who can you really trust to make your cat's food other than yourself..... Very important information to have and thank you for this thread 
