"Nutritionally Complete" assurances for our pet food?

auntie crazy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,435
Purraise
60
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 FoodFirst 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
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #82

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy said:
In my opinion, it seems that everything from the basic premise for the pet food industry's very existence (to dispose of human agricultural waste), to the types, quality and condition of ingredients, to the bioavailability (or actual nutrition) and appropriateness of ingredients, to the ever-increasing numbers of sick, unhealthy, and dying kitties, there is room for true concern and rethinking of the whole "food in a can/bag" concept.


1) The premise of the pet food industry, and to lump them all under one umbrella, is unsubstantiated and by its broad scope can not be anything more than your personal opinion.
Though I often find the back-and-forth between you and AC amusing (and usually informative) please note the bold and enlarged part of the quoted section.


Ducman69 said:
2) Likewise, you can say nothing to the bioavailability, type, quality, or condition of ingredients over an entire industry. In fact, I'd like you to list your figures for the bioavailability of even just one popular brand of cat food. What is the protein bioavailability of the chicken in Nutro Complete Care for example, and how exactly did you come across this information? If its merely regarding being cooked, note that bioavailability can be drastically increased by cooking and is not always decreased. Raw eggs have only roughly 50% of their protein bioavailable, compared to 95% for cooked eggs, and raw eggs interfere with the absorption of various vitamins.
Actually, the discussion of bioavailability in this thread had nothing to do with cooking or not cooking. It has more to do with a species-appropriate diet than anything. For instance, and I think I might have mentioned this in this thread already, but take carrots as an example. Most people think carrots are healthy, chock full of Vitamin A via beta carotene. Yet cats lack the digestive enzymes required to convert beta carotene into Vitamin A. In fact, the issue of bioavailability is discussed at length in the research paper link provided in my first post in this thread, as it is one of the main criticisms of the AAFCO nutritional “balanced and complete” claims:

Morris & Rogers 1994. “Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle,” Journal of Nutrition (Supplement): pp. 2520S – 2534S (The authors are from the Dept of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis) http://jn.nutrition.org/content/124/12_Suppl/2520S.full.pdf

Most of the world's companion animals depend on humans to supply their nutritional needs. In their native state, cats and dogs apparently selected nutritionally complete and balanced diets, but with domestication generally a single food is presented, which eliminates the choice animals previously exercised. Cats and dogs may reject the food offered to them, which sends a powerful signal to their owners, who appear to use the degree of acceptance of food as the primary criterion of nutritive value. In many countries, a high proportion of the food ingested by cats
and dogs is commercially prepared by a limited number of multinational manufacturers. As the health of the majority of the world's pets depends on the adequacy of these foods, it is important to review the nutritional basis on which commercially prepared foods are formulated. Despite the lack of precise information on requirements for many of the essential nutrients for cats and dogs, a large number of the prepared commercial pet foods support excellent growth, reproduction and maintenance in healthy companion animals. However, these diets are often formulated using empirical information that cannot be directly applied to new formulations based on different ingredients. Progress in the nutrition of companion animals requires more precise information on the requirements of cats and dogs at various physiological stages, bioavailability of nutrients, interaction among nutrients and the role of various nutrients in the prevention of diseases….

Many studies have been done on the bioavailability of dietary minerals by various animals, but few of these studies used cats or dogs. Phosphorus in corn, soybean and other plant seeds is largely in the form of phytate (myoinositol phosphate) and is poorly available to simple stomached animals (Reddy et al. 1982), some sources having a bioavailability as low as 0.3. In contrast, the apparent digestibility (absorption) of phosphorus in mineral mixtures by cats can be >0.70 but decreases with the level of calcium in the diet (Pastoor 1993). Because a high apparent digestibility of phosphorus is equivalent to a high urinary excretion of phosphorus, diets that contain an excess of phosphorus place an additional load on the kidneys of cats with compromised renal function and are contraindicated. For most animals, the bioavailability of magnesium from plant sources is low, although the apparent digestibility approaches 0.5 for mineral sources of magnesium (Pastoor 1993). The efficiency of magnesium absorption is not constant but is inversely related to the level of phosphorus and calcium in the diet of cats….

There is quite a bit more referenced information on bioavailability issues in the paper.


Ducman said:
3) Regarding the ever-increasing numbers of sick, unhealthy, and dying kitties, where are you getting your numbers from, and what recognized medical organization has linked this to the pet food industry, which has over all consistently become healthier every year?

I suspect AC did not reply to this because she’d already provided it: The Banfield State of Pet Health Report, 2011. (Banfield being the largest chain of vet practices in the U.S., with 770 hospitals. From the front page of their website: “Overweight/obesity is a serious issue that affects many pets. Recent studies have shown that approximately 40% of pets are overweight and obesity is now the most common disorder of companion animals.” http://www.banfield.com/ ) You need a study to link obesity to diet? I’m sure they exist, but it is common sense…


...So the fact remains that while one could argue that the government's/AAFCOs feeding trials and nutrition profiles are not strict enough, home made raw diets can be FAR WORSE as they are completely unregulated, and virtually all raw diets tested to date were so off the mark for nutritional completeness that they didn't even meet the AAFCO's bare minimums and maximums.
Most of us agree – having labeling regulation and ingredient definition is important – as you say, “An imperfect safety net is better than no safety net.” I’m certainly not arguing that. But the point of the thread was to explore the imperfections in that safety net – a safety net that with the claim “balanced and complete” leads the consumer to believe the food they feed their pet is healthy, when, in fact, it may not be because, as we are finding out by exploring the issue, there are enough holes to allow for unhealthy pet food to be sold as “balanced and complete.”

You encourage research and education: again, that’s the point. There appear to be so many holes in the AAFCO “safety net” that upon inspection by people in the Dept of Molecular Biosciences at the School of Veterinary Medicine of UC Davis, it seems the nutritional claims of “balanced and complete” are meaningless given how they have been developed and given our lack of knowledge required to MAKE that claim.

Yes, having nutritional requirements is good – but it seems to me, after all this research, that home prepared food that has not met the AAFCO recommended nutritional profile for "completeness" does not by definition mean it is not healthy – or healthier for our pets than some food that does meet the AAFCO claims. THAT is certainly something I’ve taken away from this process. If you want further information on the flawed thinking of the AAFCO's "bare minimums and maximums," please again refer to the Morris & Rogers piece published in the Journal of Nutrition. So just as you point out that claims made that are not published studies in peer-review journals by non-nutrition or whatever-degreed people are subject to skepticism, there appears to be plenty of room for skepticism that comparing foods to AAFCO nutritional guidelines may be meaningless. This is not fear-mongering. It is a paper published in a peer-review journal by properly “vetted” people as it were. ;)


1) This thread was created based on a quote of mine discussing how commercial food is safer than unregulated home diets because of the expert oversight and safety regulation of the pet food industry.
Actually, this thread was created based on a link you provided to the AAFCO feeding trial requirements that I found so appalling, I decided to research the AAFCO and pet food regulation. The AAFCO is often held up in discussions of diet as a kind of gold standard against which diets should be prepared… And, upon inspection, it isn’t so golden.


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

The entire point of raw advocates posting against commercial food in this thread is to demonstrate that regulated pet food industry food is not safer than unregulated food, hence the misleading statements that commercial pet food could be made of old leather boots and motor oil which is nonsense. Universities, scientists, government safety regulators, and industry leaders have demonstrated how NO regulation (home or unregulated diets) are certainly more dangerous than SOME regulation (AAFCO guaranteed analysis, specific ingredient definitions, nutritional profiles for growth and maintenance, recall protocols, and more).
Again, there IS reason to question the validity of the AAFCO guaranteed analysis and claims of “balanced and complete” based on their nutritional guidelines/requirements and methodology of determining that analysis. And in discussion in this thread, AC NEVER claimed that commercial pet food could be made from old leather boots and motor oil. In fact, she says, in response to that claim,


The point the documentary makes, and one I think is completely valid, is that the AAFCO stamp of approval can be obtained via a simple chemical analysis, and that as long as the chemical analysis of the food fell within the ranges AAFCO considers acceptable, it would be allowed to carry AAFCO's stamp of "complete and balanced" - regardless of its true nutritional quality. (The ingredients fall under other rules and have no bearing on the chemical analysis or the approval / denial of the AAFCO "complete and balanced" seal.)

Rather similar to the 2007 melamine poisoning, in fact - the US manufacturing companies tested for the presence of nitrogen and paid for it, assuming that it indicated a certain level of protein. We know now, of course, how profoundly inaccurate / inefficient a measurement is such test.

If the intentions of the originator is to bash commercial food with proven false or at least misleading statements such as the leather boots, motor oil, and vitamins comment, then that has already been demonstrated to be wrong, since AAFCO/FDA protections are multifaceted not just in feed trials to create bare minimum nutrient profiles for all known essential micro and macro nutrients, but a requirement to list all ingredients with specific definitions for those ingredients, along with other safety protocols.
And exactly where I have provided proven false or made misleading statements about AAFCO standards in this thread? Clearly my intent in starting the topic was to question AAFCO as a safety net, but exactly where do I bash commercial food? I feed my cats commercial food.

And certainly, for some of those “specific definitions” of AAFCO approved-ingredients, there is a lot of room for nutritional content to vary – excessively. The overall analysis must meet the AAFCO guidelines, but your holding up “chicken” as a definition is a perfect example. Because it is listed as a first ingredient can be quite meaningless – it may be all skin and bones, with the protein content in the analysis coming from wheat gluten or something.


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

And by no means by my contribution to the thread am I attempting to prevent anyone else from adding in their 2 cents.... unless you're complaining my posts are simply too long, in which case I'll try to be more concise. ;)
In fact, quite a few other – IMO – rather productive – suggestions have cropped up in this thread. Working to get labeling requirements changed, and AC herself suggested identifying potentially healthier commercial canned foods based on more detailed ingredient analysis – and has begun to post the results of her research. Thank you, for that, AC. :nod:


Further, I think it important to emphasize:

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

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

But mschauer does some it up nicely:

…the whole concept of a single manufactured food that is nutritionally balanced and complete is flawed.
In fact, all of us can get involved in the efforts to improve pet food manufacturing processes and ingredients sourcing! As evidenced by the explosive growth in raw food options since 2007 - when pet owners first became aware of the mess behind the curtain and started educating themselves - the pet food industry does listen to us….

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

AC

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

auntie crazy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,435
Purraise
60
In researching something for my own use this morning, I came across a rather alarming study on heavy metal contamination of pet foods. 'Though we've somewhat moved past all the holes in the AAFCO / FDA regulations, I thought this was disturbing enough to warrant mention - toxic levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and other heavy metals were isolated in testing done on 58 cat and dog kibble and canned foods.

Note up front - there are no FDA guidelines or toxic levels established for the presence of heavy metals in pet foods.

Heavy Metal Pet Food Testing Paper Published (January 2011)
Quoting the Paper "Analysis of Toxic Trace Metals in Pet Foods Using Cryogenic Grinding and Quantitation by ICP-MS, Part 1" published in the January 2011 Spectroscopy Magazine...

For this investigation 58 cat and dog foods were bought from local stores or donated by the authors and other pet owners. The samples consisted of 31 dry food and 27 wet food varieties. Of the 31 dry foods, 18 were dog food and 13 were cat food samples. The wet foods comprised 13 dog food and 14 cat food samples, representing pet food contained in cans and pouches."

"Pet food prices ranged from the “bargain” store foods priced at $0.02/oz to gourmet or specialty foods purchased from pet suppliers priced at $0.42/oz. Three canned foods for human consumption were tested, including tuna fish, sardines, and chicken, which were sampled for comparison and control purposes.

The analysis of all the pet food samples showed that the highest concentrations of toxic elements were found in the dry foods of both cats and dogs. Out of the elements studied, dry food had the highest elemental content for 13 of the 15 elements examined. Dog food had the highest result for nine of the 15 toxic elements and cat food had the highest concentration for six of the 15 elements.

The dry dog food contained the highest concentrations of the following elements: beryllium, cadmium, cesium, antimony, thorium, thallium, uranium, and vanadium. The wet dog foods contained lower concentrations of the toxic elements studied than the dry dog foods.  The dry cat foods contained the highest results for five of the 15 elements including arsenic, cobalt, molybdenum, nickel, and lead.  The wet cat foods showed the overall lowest concentrations of the toxic elements studied than any of the other pet foods studied.

The presence of several other elements in some of the pet food samples was unexpected. Uranium, beryllium, and thorium are often associated with nuclear energy and mining. As stated earlier, concentrations of over 500 μg/kg of uranium were found in several of the dry dog food samples. A few of the dry cat food samples had concentrations of over 200 μg/kg of uranium. In these samples of high uranium concentrations, there were also found to be the highest concentrations of both beryllium and thorium.

--------

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."
Part II of Pet Food Heavy Metals Testing Published
All of the dry dog foods tested above the EPA established limits for arsenic, six of the dog foods tested below the WHO established limits for arsenic; dog food 9, 10, 18, 20, 41 and 42.  Now move on to graph (c) - Cadmium.  Of these same dog foods that were below WHO levels for arsenic, only dog food 18 and 20 were below EPA and WHO levels for Cadmium.  When you keep following these two dog foods through all the charts, only dog food 18 stays below the WHO levels for all trace-elements; but just barely.  So out of 18 different dry dog foods that were tested, only one stayed below risk levels of heavy metals. ...

In dry cat foods, again, none of the cat foods tested below the EPA levels for arsenic.  Only one dry cat food tested below WHO levels for arsenic; cat food 46.  Cat food 46 stays within the EPA and WHO limits in all other areas except for nickel where it tests at 4 times the WHO recommended amount. ...
Because there aren't any toxicity levels established for pets, the authors of this study used guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and World Health Organization (WHO), and adjusted the data to account for weight differences for a 50 pound dog and a 10 pound cat.

Here are the graphs comparing the levels of heavy metals in the tested cat foods to the EPA and WHO toxicity levels: Figures 4 and 5.

Here is a webinar given by the research company, Spex CertiPrep, on their study and it's conclusions:



There are some theories kicked around trying to account for these toxic levels - such as the presence of fish ingredients or contamination from the machines used to do the processing - but no conclusions for the source of the heavy metals were reached.

Just more evidence of the "dumping ground" nature of the pet food industry.


AC

(Edited to add the presentation.)
 
Last edited:

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
That surprises me AC. Since most of the ingredients for pet foods are waste from the human food chain I wouldn't expect such contamination to be any greater than what would be found in human foods.

In addition to suggesting the processing equipment to be a possible source they mention "Essential minerals such as calcium and phosphorus are manufactured from industrial chemicals that could possibly contain other trace mineral impurities." That's only speculation of course but just adds to the list of unknowns with regards to what is actually in pet food. Makes me glad that when I use it I use a natural source of calcium!
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #85

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Thanks for sharing that. My guess is that part of the problem is that items not suitable for the human food chain wind up in pet food...
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Thanks for sharing that. My guess is that part of the problem is that items not suitable for the human food chain wind up in pet food...
I wouldn't think even food deemed unsuitable for the human food chain would consistently have that level of heavy metal contamination. It seems more likely to me that the source of  the contamination is other than the food items used. I guess it's pointless to speculate with so little to go on. It just surprises me.
 

Willowy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
31,885
Purraise
28,283
Location
South Dakota
I have heard that bone meal is commonly contaminated with heavy metals. I guess that whatever cows eat (and remember--it's worse than what dogs and cats eat! :eek:), the contaminants concentrate in their bones, and when the bones are made into pet food. . .voila. It's not a problem for humans since we don't eat bones. I'll try to find a source for that info later.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #88

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Well, I don't mean to further focus on the ... failings of the ingredients allowed by the AAFCO... but, well, this is a 44 second piece of an interview with Hersh Pendell, who, at the time, was President of the AAFCO.

[VIDEO][/VIDEO]
 
Last edited:

auntie crazy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,435
Purraise
60
Originally Posted by LDG

Well, I don't mean to further focus on the ... failings of the ingredients allowed by the AAFCO... but, well, this is a 44 second piece of an interview with Hersh Pendell, who, at the time, was President of the AAFCO.
[if IE]><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="390" /><![endif]
".... or, Fluffy?!!!!!!?????!!!!"  
  
 

meuzettesmom

TCS Member
Super Cat
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
829
Purraise
106
Location
In paradise, under a cat pile
I have heard that bone meal is commonly contaminated with heavy metals. I guess that whatever cows eat (and remember--it's worse than what dogs and cats eat!
), the contaminants concentrate in their bones, and when the bones are made into pet food. . .voila. It's not a problem for humans since we don't eat bones. I'll try to find a source for that info later.
I said this too Willowy. The regulations for labels are too relaxed. We all are in danger of this very thing. Not just our little friends.
 
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Well, I don't mean to further focus on the ... failings of the ingredients allowed by the AAFCO... but, well, this is a 44 second piece of an interview with Hersh Pendell, who, at the time, was President of the AAFCO.[if IE]><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="390" /><![endif]

Is there supposed to be a link?? Where is the interview?
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
I have heard that bone meal is commonly contaminated with heavy metals. I guess that whatever cows eat (and remember--it's worse than what dogs and cats eat!
), the contaminants concentrate in their bones, and when the bones are made into pet food. . .voila. It's not a problem for humans since we don't eat bones. I'll try to find a source for that info later.
Is bone meal ever used in pet foods? I don't recall ever seeing it in an ingredients label. I can only recall seeing calcium carbonate or calcium gluconate as the calcium source.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Thanks for sharing that. My guess is that part of the problem is that items not suitable for the human food chain wind up in pet food...
Since your are so good at researching maybe you can help me with something. I'm having trouble seeing how the heavy metal information is relevant to this thread. I know the information looks alarming but the question I'm having trouble finding an answer to is this: If those pet foods were human foods would the FDA (or any other regulatory agency) have taken action based on that study? I haven't had time to do a lot of research so maybe I'm missing something obvious. What I have found is that there are pretty high levels of heavy metals in the human food chain also, especially in rice. 
 
Last edited:

Willowy

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
31,885
Purraise
28,283
Location
South Dakota
Is bone meal ever used in pet foods? I don't recall ever seeing it in an ingredients label. I can only recall seeing calcium carbonate or calcium gluconate as the calcium source.
Well, cheap foods have "meat and bone meal", and I'm pretty sure by-products include bones. I'll have to look into that.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #95

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Since your are so good at researching maybe you can help me with something. I'm having trouble seeing how the heavy metal information is relevant to this thread. I know the information looks alarming but the question I'm having trouble finding an answer to is this: If those pet foods were human foods would the FDA (or any other regulatory agency) have taken action based on that study? I haven't had time to do a lot of research so maybe I'm missing something obvious. What I have found is that there are pretty high levels of heavy metals in the human food chain also, especially in rice. 
Well, the problems in pet food would also arise with problems in the human food chain, of course. So IMO it's relevant because there aren't AAFCO "maximums" for heavy metals in our pet food. Now - perhaps that's because there aren't for human foods? Though my guess is each is regulated independently, and there probably are maximums for some of them in human food... and that gets violated? :dk: Actually - the article to which AC linked makes it clear there ARE maximums for all those products tested for (in the human food chain).

For instance, this was just released yesterday: http://nutritionfacts.org/blog/2012...ts-could-be-declared-“unfit-for-consumption”/

Now - you'd think the reaction of the chicken council would be "wow, let's do something about that!" But no, the reaction is "Warning consumers about the risk could “scare the crap out of people,” the industry groups contend, and “have a significant negative economic impact on all U.S. food producers.”

However, just as an FYI, it seems the regulatory agency involved is the USDA, not the FDA.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #96

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Is there supposed to be a link?? Where is the interview?
You don't see the YouTube video? It's embedded and should be there... ? It's just a 44-second piece of some TV news channel interview with Hersh Pendell, at the time President of the AAFCO.

There has been internet chat forever about dead cats and dogs winding up in meat or bone meal. The AAFCO site says this is not the case. Since I saw these claims, I've wondered whether or not they're true, or if it's possible. Now - it may not be a common practice. I don't know. But the interview with Mr. Pendell makes it quite clear that it DOES happen - or can happen. :(

Here's the link, as opposed to the embedded video:
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Well, the problems in pet food would also arise with problems in the human food chain, of course. So IMO it's relevant because there aren't AAFCO "maximums" for heavy metals in our pet food. Now - perhaps that's because there aren't for human foods? Though my guess is each is regulated independently, and there probably are maximums for some of them in human food... and that gets violated?
Well I thought this thread is supposed to be about failings in the regulation of pet foods and how to correct them. I was assuming that we were aiming for regulation something along the lines as what is done for human foods. If so, and it is true that human foods with those levels of heavy metals would be considered acceptable or at least that there is no mechanism in place to prevent those levels then I don't see how it would be a legitimate criticism of pet food regulation that there are pet foods with those levels.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #98

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
I'm missing the problem, mschauer, or how it's not related. If there are maximums for certain heavy metals in the human food chain, then why shouldn't there be for pet foods?

And if our discussion here makes us learn about problems in the human food chain that is reflected in our pet food... how is that not a good thing? It's relevant because it's affecting our pets and us! It means we can contact our Congresspeople or Senators, or the USDA and note our concerns and desire they do something...

:dk:
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #99

ldg

TCS Member
Thread starter
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
...and just because our pet food has problems because of regulatory problems in our food chain, doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be addressed by the animal feed regulatory-related agencies... :dk: (IMO)
 
Last edited:

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
I'm missing the problem, mschauer, or how it's not related. If there are maximums for certain heavy metals in the human food chain, then why shouldn't there be for pet foods?
And if our discussion here makes us learn about problems in the human food chain that is reflected in our pet food... how is that not a good thing? It's relevant because it's affecting our pets and us! It means we can contact our Congresspeople or Senators, or the USDA and note our concerns and desire they do something...
Which brings us back to my original question, if the foods in the study were human foods rather than pet foods would any US government agency step in given those levels? 
 
Top