Skip to main content

AAFCO Meeting, Consumer Input Requested

100Sage

Related News

Comment17

  1. Jude

    After reading all the submissions, I believe that the word “meaty” should not be allowed to describe any part of any pet food. It should not be on the label, period.

  2. Kay Henn

    Oh Susan, you have my heartfelt support and sympathies. For the moment, we’re /relatively/ OK over here in Europe, but who knows what TTIP will bring — I hope not backdoor rescinding of EU pet food regulations.

    It sounds as if AAFCO is learning from you. “She publicises the difference between food grade pet food and animal feed pet food — OK, we’ll (1 intimidate her and her sources the hell away*; 2.) just make everything food grade.”

    *Did Not Work; New Strategy Needed

  3. Kay Henn

    P.S. “Food” to me clearly means “species-appropriate” — which at the very least means cannibalism-free; not sourced from diseased animals; not sourced from rancid leftovers; not sourced from otherwise contaminated raw material.
    “Meaty” to me clearly means “at least half muscle meat”.

  4. Kay Henn

    P.P.S. I assert my status as a consumer as per US-EU trade agreements:)

  5. CC Griffin

    Safe for Human consumption, safe for dogs and cats. All ingredients are 100% human grade – period!

  6. Holly

    To be completely honest, I find the survey questions hard to answer, so I didn’t take it . i suppose it’s because the two words, feed and food won’t matter to 99% or pet owners. Does it really matter what they call crap in a bag? People are going to feed it no matter what. I’m frustrated just reading about what you do, Susan. I can’t imagine being in the trenches. I’d have an ulcer by now.

    1. Cheryl Mallon-Bond

      Holly, Please ask Susan, or anyone else for that matter, for clarification of the questions if you are not understanding them. It is pertinent that every single person involved here be apart of this survey they need to hear all of our voices & opinions.

  7. Anthony Hepton

    Susan, There may be a clear attempt by FDA to change the rules to fit their goal of making pet food as a distinct category from food. This will allow them to permit 4D animals as ingredients in pet food and to use pets as an to alternative landfills.They were not shy about being against applying regulations as they are written and they would love to solidify that position. Those rules were written to protect the health of our pets, they should not ever be compromised to facilitate the supply of cheap, but questionable, ingredients for the profits of pet food manufacturers.

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      That is exactly my suspicion Anthony. I feel certain there is no good reason (for consumers) of FDA wanting this.

    2. Pet Owner

      Yes, I agree with Anthony too. Very dangerous precedent. We must speak up against it!

      1. Kay Henn

        This is what I meant above — just realised it possibly doesn’t read that way. Just call everything food, no matter how unsafe it is: problem solved.

        1. Kay Henn

          Problem solved from the point of view of pure profit, that is.

  8. Cheryl Mallon-Bond

    Susan, that was a good idea for you to make a short survey, with a chance at the last question, to add our own wording. A consise survey will be an advantage for AAFCCO to clearly see what we don’t want, clearly & to the point.

    I hope everyone here will be sure to take this survey, it is of the utmost importance for all our voices to be heard.

  9. Cheryl Mallon-Bond

    FDA: Keep the terminology as it is, as it has been for forever. Stop, once again diluting the terminology to appease industry. The consumer does NOT want the terminology change. It would nothing to clarify to the public the differentiation of pet products on the market that we feed to our pets. Your job (may I remind you) is.to serve what is in the best interest of the public, NOT corporations! Leave it as is, please.

  10. Cheryl Mallon-Bond

    Oops!!!! Sorry!! Forgot to include in my last comment post….the terminology I am referring to is: feed vs food (that the FDA wants to change over to use food only)

    Susan, please amend my wording before submission of comments are presented to the FDA, or let me know if I need to re-write the full comment adding in what I forgot to add. Thanks.

  11. Cathy

    It is essential there be differentiation in feed that is approved for livestock animals that are being prepared for death as opposed to food that is approved for beloved companion animals for healthy longevity.

  12. Phyl

    How about TRUTH IN ADVERTISING their products???? I am tired of lies lies lies that US Gov’t allows to happen because US Gov’t officials take money to look the other way!

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *