Anyone saw this pet food test result?

sarah ann

TCS Member
Alpha Cat
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
404
Purraise
69
There is more to ibd than the food. In people they have studied family members with and without ibd. The family members all had increased intestinal permeability... suggesting it is genetic. Although carrageenan is a known trigger for developing ibd.

Cancer has a strong genetic basis as well. Humans have ruined golden retrievers. Cancer is so common they have been nicknamed cancer retrievers.
Inbreeding is terrible at increasing recessive genes and causing cancer. I raised gerbils most of my life. Certain lines had extremely high cancer rates. My last line of gerbils were completely cancer free. The only one from that line to develop cancer was inbred. I tried hamsters once. The two I got developed a nasty form of cancer at a very young age. They had tumors all over and one had a tumor in his eye that burst. I never wanted another hamster after that.

Pure bred cats often have inbreeding which contributes to the problem.

There are few risk factors people can control... I often wonder why so many of my animals have health issues. I have three cats and a horse who need steroids due to allergies or asthma. I believe it is something in the air... whether it is chemical pesticide sprays, or something else I just don't know. The problem with air pollution is it spreads everywhere. The problem with perfumes, laundry detergent, dryer sheets and cleaners (and even cat litter with fragrance) is that fragrance is considered a trade secret. Fragrance can consist of anything... but it won't be listed on the label. You have no idea how safe fragrance is, as you don't know what is in it!

So remember food is just part of the equation. Cat litter is important to, as is your household cleaners. Silica in litter is known to cause health problems.
 

Anne

Site Owner
Staff Member
Admin
Joined
Oct 23, 2000
Messages
40,207
Purraise
6,095
Location
On TCS
I'm not impressed with the report, at least not with the part about bacterial contamination. You can't expect food to be sterile. Bacteria "linked to" various issues doesn't mean much. Most of the bacteria in our body has been "linked to" serious illness but that only happens when you have a medical issue, for example when gut bacteria gets out of the guts and into other parts of your body. In other words, "linked to" illness is pretty meaningless in this context.

Feeding homemade food, specifically raw, most certainly won't lower the bacterial load of food. I've done some reading about pressure-treated raw too and no, it's definitely not sterile (unless it's been pressurized to the point of being essentially cooked, losing many of the nutrients in the meat and becoming processed food by definition). 

For a fair comparison, they need to show the full picture. Show actual pathogen loads (not simply the presence of bacteria) in kibble, canned, commercial raw and homemade. I am pretty certain the lowest pathogen load would be in canned. Just a matter of the way it's processed (heat kills bacteria).

I am all for regulation of pet food and public pressure to increase its quality. It would come with a price tag, but I think it would be good if some brands would offer that and I think we're seeing this happening already. I just highly doubt that a website called "The truth about" is going to be an objective source for information in that area.  
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
For a fair comparison, they need to show the full picture. Show actual pathogen loads (not simply the presence of bacteria) in kibble, canned, commercial raw and homemade. I am pretty certain the lowest pathogen load would be in canned. Just a matter of the way it's processed (heat kills bacteria).
The full report contains the amounts found:

Full Report

I'm still digesting the information myself. The only thing I've looked at so far is the sulfur issue. That concern seems to me to be overblown given there is absolutely no data available on how much dietary sulfur is too much for cats and dogs.

I wonder how many people have actually tried to understand the report and what the findings actually mean rather than just assuming that it must be exposing something awful because of the way it has been presented.
 I am all for regulation of pet food and public pressure to increase its quality. It would come with a price tag, but I think it would be good if some brands would offer that and I think we're seeing this happening already. I just highly doubt that a website called "The truth about" is going to be an objective source for information in that area.  
Trixton is certainly not above providing information in a misleading or at least extremely biased manner. 
 
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24

ankitty

TCS Member
Thread starter
Adult Cat
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
296
Purraise
19
Studies by and sponsored by pet food companies are definitely not neutral either. 

I don't count on seeing a large scale, long term, unbiased study conducted by an independent entity anytime soon. It's expensive to do such study and there's no commercial interest in it. So, as a pet parent, I appreciate whatever studies sponsored by consumers rather than pet companies. We can't deny the fact that many pets died during the massive recalls several years back. And many cats get sick with the same illnesses. We hear about it repeatedly on these forums. We don't see that in human, not in this scale. 
 

Anne

Site Owner
Staff Member
Admin
Joined
Oct 23, 2000
Messages
40,207
Purraise
6,095
Location
On TCS
Bacteria are all around us. You can hardly expect kibble to be sterile. Canned cat food is likely to be very easily contaminated too once opened. We are not sterile, and neither are our cats. In fact, 90% of all living cells in our body are bacteria and other micro-organisms and not our own cells. Without them, we would die within hours. So, sterile is not a good thing. The questions is what types of bacteria and how much of each kind. 

Next, eating bacteria does not usually lead to infection. Lots of reasons for that but the bottom line is there are only specific pathogenic bacteria that cause infection by eating, and even then you need a significant load to get you sick. Same is true for cats. Kibble, for example, and of course raw meat, can certainly be contaminated by salmonella. However, it doesn't mean your cat will get sick from it.

I'm looking at their findings of Pseudomonas. I had a lovely chat with a biologist yesterday who runs a lab at one of the universities here. Her research focuses on a strain of Pseudomonas. She mentioned that "her" strain is part of our microbiome. It won't cause disease unless it gets to places where it shouldn't be. Otherwise, it's safe and is part of the army of microbes which helps protect us from invading pathogens. 

Now, I'm not an expert, but what she said tells me a page like this is entirely agenda-driven and is not a scientific way of presenting data, and I'm being very understated here - 

Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa may be a horrible thing. It's not necessarily what was present in the pet food. All of the red and bold fonts may try to scare us but they simply do not have the scientific data to back that up.

Just an example, I'm sure there's more of it. It makes the entire report something I would take with quite a few grains of salt.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
 
Studies by and sponsored by pet food companies are definitely not neutral either. 

I don't count on seeing a large scale, long term, unbiased study conducted by an independent entity anytime soon. It's expensive to do such study and there's no commercial interest in it. So, as a pet parent, I appreciate whatever studies sponsored by consumers rather than pet companies. We can't deny the fact that many pets died during the massive recalls several years back. And many cats get sick with the same illnesses. We hear about it repeatedly on these forums. We don't see that in human, not in this scale. 
When it comes to trying to understand what it is about commercial processed foods that may be harmful to our pets don't you think the focus should be on factual information? The only kind of understanding that comes from false information is false understanding.  Personally I want solid, factual information that I can obtain solid, factual understanding from.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27

ankitty

TCS Member
Thread starter
Adult Cat
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
296
Purraise
19
 
When it comes to trying to understand what it is about commercial processed foods that may be harmful to our pets don't you think the focus should be on factual information? The only kind of understanding that comes from false information is false understanding.  Personally I want solid, factual information that I can obtain solid, factual understanding from.
Yes, I agree with you. I don't think this particular study actually lied about the numbers, so it's not really "false", but I noticed that it didn't include more supposedly better commercial foods. I wish it was more through. And not much is conclusive except that it made me think that I probably won't feed Meow Mix to my cats.

However, when the large pet food companies mostly dominate the information from advertisements, pet stores, vet schools and vets themselves, it's hard to know what the truth is. When several vets (from the same vet school) recommended a prescription diet repeatedly when it was clearly not working for my cats, it was very confusing. So, biased or not, I appreciate the studies or opinions from other sides. 
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Originally Posted by ankitty  

Yes, I agree with you. I don't think this particular study actually lied about the numbers, so it's not really "false", but I noticed that it didn't include more supposedly better commercial foods.
Something can be false without being a lie. To lie implies deliberate intent to deceive. I don't pretend to know what the intent is behind the report only that it arguably presents information in such a way as to give a false impression.
 

red top rescue

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
4,466
Purraise
1,486
Location
Acworth GA, USA

zoneout

TCS Member
Super Cat
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
992
Purraise
99
Location
Stamford, CT USA
Not surprising really.   Dr. Pierson warned of fungi in dry food (among other problems not reported here) long ago.   It`s no wonder that homemade food is gaining popularity and momentum.   I just wonder how the industry could have forced it to be taken down.   What happened to freedom of speech in this country?   Oh right I forgot .... corporations are people according to the supreme court.   What a farce this country has become.
 

denice

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
18,836
Purraise
13,144
Location
Columbus OH
It could be reliable results but I would need to see it from an organization without an agenda.  This organization has long had a very public agenda that is extremely anti commercial pet food.  I am not saying that they are lying but a 'study' is only as good as it is ran, just as statistics can be made to say anything that someone wants them to say.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #32

ankitty

TCS Member
Thread starter
Adult Cat
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
296
Purraise
19
 
It could be reliable results but I would need to see it from an organization without an agenda.  This organization has long had a very public agenda that is extremely anti commercial pet food.  I am not saying that they are lying but a 'study' is only as good as it is ran, just as statistics can be made to say anything that someone wants them to say.
Is there a neutral organization without an agenda that I should look into? Do you know? I'd love to see other studies. 
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Is there a neutral organization without an agenda that I should look into? Do you know? I'd love to see other studies. 
Whether there are or aren't isn't really relevant.

What some of us are commenting on is the trustworthiness of the report, and by extension the organization that produced it, that is the topic of this thread. The trustworthiness of other reports or studies and the organizations that produce them has no bearing on that.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34

ankitty

TCS Member
Thread starter
Adult Cat
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
296
Purraise
19
 
Whether there are or aren't isn't really relevant.

What some of us are commenting on is the trustworthiness of the report, and by extension the organization that produced it, that is the topic of this thread. The trustworthiness of other reports or studies and the organizations that produce them has no bearing on that.
It was a simple question if you know such an organization. I was not contesting anyone's view. 
 
Last edited:

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
It was a simple question if you know such an organization. I was not contesting anyone's view. 
My apologizes if I misunderstood.

It really isn't difficult to find sources of information that aren't obviously pursuing an agenda. Any information even from such a site should be viewed with a critical eye though and that is something I always try to do. Some sources, like truthaboutpetfood, are just so obviously biased that I don't even bother visiting them. 
 

ldg

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Anybody read any of the reporting on it at Food Safety News - and the blog by Phyllis Entis and the reply by Susan Thixton? (mschauer, I always giggle. It's not "Trixton," it's Thixton. :) ). IMO, the data is the data - the issue is perhaps in the presentation.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/...rming-contamination-in-pet-food/#.VLHPCnv4Ht8

This is where what was done is called "The Epitome of Junk Science" http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/01/shocked-and-saddened/#.VLHPD3v4Ht8

And Susan's reply: http://truthaboutpetfood.com/it-is-not-junk-science/

Yeah, Susan Thixton has a very hyped manner of presentation, and that's annoying. But it doesn't change the point, that commercial food is about profits, not our pets. And I give Susan kudos for having moxie - because it takes a lot of backbone to take on the entire pet food industry. She is not about to let people forget the 8,000 - 10,000 pets killed due to the way things are managed in the industry.
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
Anybody read any of the reporting on it at Food Safety News - and the blog by Phyllis Entis and the reply by Susan Thixton? (mschauer, I always giggle. It's not "Trixton," it's Thixton. 
 ). 
Hee hee. I do that consistently don't I? Must be my sub-conscience at work. 

 IMO, the data is the data - the issue is perhaps in the presentation.
No, it isn't about the presentation. Both Anne and I looked beyond the presentation. We looked closely at the data to determine whether it really revealed anything of significance. Anne found someone who is actually qualified to say what a part of the data means.

The problem is with the interpretation of the data. What we have is a lay person trying to interpret scientific data for the purpose of divining what it means to the health of an animal. If she wanted the test results to be taken seriously she should have had them interpreted by someone who is qualified to do so.
I'm not sure what those links are supposed to add to the discussion. Thrixton defends the labs where the testing was done. I don't question the work of the labs. And she again discusses her belief that the lab results are significant. I think we know she believes that from the original report. The issue is whether there is any reason of us to accept her conclusion that the results are significant.

Find a post where someone knowledgeable can tell us what the significance of the test results are. I'm fully willing to accept that there may indeed be some significance. I'm just not willing to accept Thixton's word for it especially given that we don't have to try very hard to find questionable aspects to it.
 Yeah, Susan Thixton has a very hyped manner of presentation, and that's annoying.
I would say it's beyond 'annoying'.  Usually when I look into something she is ranting about I find that she has taken a tiny grain of truth and wrapped it inside a massive boulder of BS.  


What she does is an interesting twist on the Boy Who Cried Wolf story. In the classic telling people are de-senstitized to the boys warning about the danger of a wolf because of all the false alarms he previously gave. Trixton, uh, I mean Thixton, on the other hyper-sensitizes people to the perceived dangers of pet foods by constantly posting about issues that people can't possibly truly understand. Her constant pounding just makes them believe that surely she must have valid points. It's 'Where there's smoke there must be fire' thinking.  It's kind of like in medieval times when people were terrified by non-existent dragons just based on the stories they heard.
  But it doesn't change the point, that commercial food is about profits, not our pets. And I give Susan kudos for having moxie - because it takes a lot of backbone to take on the entire pet food industry. She is not about to let people forget the 8,000 - 10,000 pets killed due to the way things are managed in the industry.
That may be true but whether Thrixton has 'moxie' or 'backbone' has little to do with the issue; the issue being whether the report she posted sheds any light what so ever on what problems may exist in the pet food industry.  

I feed a home-made diet because I believe there is 'something' about commercial processed foods that makes them sub-optimal for the long term health of my cats. I would very much like to know what that 'something' is but I don't believe for an instant I'm going to learn what it is from Thixton.

BTW Laurie, given that we know there is a good chance that the raw meat diet you and I feed will sometimes contain salmonella and given we know that a large proportion of raw food feeders have absolutely no idea what the calcium content of their food is, how do you think those foods would fare if tested as the foods in that report were tested? You are always quick to support Thrixton but I wonder if that would change if she were to turn her attention to home-made raw foods? 
 
 
Last edited:

ldg

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
Mmmm.... I think perhaps you're confusing me with someone else, mschauer. I'm not "quick to defend" her stuff, I rarely pay attention to it for two basic reasons: first is the hype, as you describe. The other is I choose to fight TNR battles. Once I switched to homemade, I gave up caring about PFI issues.

I didn't dig into the numbers, but the FSN article - as I understood it - indicated someone (potentially) qualified did interpret the data?

And yes, in other discussions, I was the first to point out supermarket / retail raw meat as tested by FDA and others tends to fare much worse, at least as far as bacterial load. ;)

I am sorry, I didn't realize we were supposed to stick to the narrow focus of her test results in the thread. If a mod would like to pull my post with the links to create a new thread for more general discussion of Thixton's report and reactions to it, please, by all means separate the discussion. !!
 

mschauer

TCS Member
Top Cat
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
6,753
Purraise
2,338
Location
Houston, Tx
 Originally Posted by LDG  

Mmmm.... I think perhaps you're confusing me with someone else, mschauer. I'm not "quick to defend" her stuff, I rarely pay attention to it for two basic reasons: first is the hype, as you describe.
I apologize if I overstated your support of Thrixton. It just seems to me that every time she comes up in discussion you are quick to praise her. Might be selective memory on my part. 

I didn't dig into the numbers, but the FSN article - as I understood it - indicated someone (potentially) qualified did interpret the data?
I am sorry, I didn't realize we were supposed to stick to the narrow focus of her test results in the thread. If a mod would like to pull my post with the links to create a new thread for more general discussion of Thixton's report and reactions to it, please, by all means separate the discussion. !!
The natural assumption, especially given the last 3 sentences,  would be that your purpose in posting is to counter the posts that had been critical of the report. I was just pointing out that they didn't. 
 

ldg

TCS Member
Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
41,310
Purraise
842
Location
Fighting for ferals in NW NJ!
I apologize if I overstated your support of Thrixton.
Overstate? I think perhaps misstate? What support? :dk:


It just seems to me that every time she comes up in discussion you are quick to praise her.
Really? Where? For the life of me, I can't think what you'd be referring to. I've just searched, and can't find a thing.


Might be selective memory on my part. :bigwink:
Not sure what selective memory would have to do with it when there isn't anything to select. Unless I'm using the wrong search terms.


The natural assumption, especially given the last 3 sentences,  would be that your purpose in posting is to counter the posts that had been critical of the report.
Why is that a natural assumption? My belief that she has hutzpah has nothing to do one way or another with ... anything, let alone accuracy of interpretation of data. :dk:


I was just pointing out that they didn't. 
OK. But I didn't mean to imply they did, and still don't see in my post where one would come to that assumption, interpretation, or conclusion. But thanks for clarifying in case anyone else made the same assumption.

As I said in my last post, if including those links has detracted or derailed this thread, a mod should pull them and place them in a separate thread - and I will spell it out more clearly this time - as they have no bearing on the data results and Susan Thixton's interpretation of them.
 
Top