Skip to main content

Affidavit of Suitability

Related News


  1. angela collins

    why do we have to feed our animals pet food anyway? why can’t my cat eat chicken breast and fresh salmon like I do? is it only because of taurine? why can’t we buy tourine and add it to food?

  2. Dori

    Hi Susan. I’m wondering if all the foods that are on your 2014 and 2015 lists (I have purchased both, thank you thank you thank you for all you do) have signed AAFCO Affidavits of Suitability letters? If not, could you let us know which ones have and which ones haven’t?

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      This is too new (the Affidavit) – but I will ask them!

  3. Tracey A

    There’s a problem with this Susan. This affidavit just asks if the nutritional content is suitable per species. You can mix motor oil, old shoe leather and add some synthetic vitamins/ minerals and meet the nutrition requirements. So yes you’ll get some help with the foods (Feeds) that are way out of spec on one mineral, like you found in your study. It won’t help with the added “stuff” that hasn’t been proven harmful but that we wouldn’t consider eating, like wood shavings, hay, straw that contains manure. etc. Or dead, decaying meat products, rotting vegies, moldy corn. These items do meet the criteria for nutritional value protein, carbs, fat and maybe if cooked or processed right are not technically harmful (at least in the short term) but we certainly wouldn’t want to feed them to our pets or livestock! That’s why it’s a big “dirty” secret that gets out sometimes. Usually after causing a disease outbreak. Thousands of baby pigs dying? Couldn’t be because they were feeding them pork meal? It goes on and on.

  4. Pacific Sun

    Considering one side of the argument I’m assuming that points (1) and (2) are a distillation of the entire document which goes into much greater and specifics. However if not, then like all things we have to go back to the written specifics. Making this is a very interesting statement. If read literally it only says that the “signer” is familiar with and has knowledge of …. . But it does not say that the product is guaranteed to contain what the signer is familiar with or has knowledge of. Would you say this is an unintended or intended slip of the pen? Second thing is who is the signer? The person signing a notarized affidavit has a legal responsibility and accountability. Sounds like a good hook alright. Except is the signer a person of any consequence in the company? Or would it be a paid (but expendable) nutritional specialist? Would it be a Vet? Is it the owner of the company? Or is it the Chief Operating Officer, etc.?

    To the other side of the argument “suitability” means nutrition that is appropriate to the natural (native) diet of the species. Therefore you would have to say that all the consumables in the product are what is natural for the species to be eating. Does suitability/appropriate mean … oh well something similar is also okay? We already know that dogs do not frequent corn or rice fields, for example. Or does suitability mean that specific nutrients in the product can be represented in terms of the scientific evidence referenced? If that’s the case, then we certainly have a hold on these companies now. First they have to have access to the scientific studies in the first place. And second, they have to be adhering to the recommended guidelines. Do individual studies exist for a range of 2500+ PF products out there? Next point is remembering that dogs are scavengers/ opportunists yes there could be a wide variety of consumable proteins and carbohydrates in products. But what is NOT natural to any species diet are CLEARLY toxins and contaminates! So then you would think a company would have to PROVE they are free of all toxins and contaminates.

    Is that even possible?

Leave a Reply