Skip to main content

“It Shall be Suitable for use in Animal Food”

Related News


  1. TerryM

    This wording causes me to question one vendor’s claims regarding its products being “human-grade.”

  2. Dianne

    I would take it to mean, anything I won’t be sued over because I used it. Also, our limited feeding trials didn’t kill any animal, but then I expect that feeding trials use the best of the product, probably what is cooked up in their research labs, which will of course, be only mostly like the same product used in the feeding trials.

  3. Jeanette Owen

    Well who wants to feed their pets, food from animals that is “other” than slaughtered? What a bunch of baloney!

  4. Pacific Sun

    Well there are a couple of different ways to take apart the basic question of ~ WHAT DOES ~ “It shall be suitable for use in animal food” mean. Clearly let’s ask 1) What is NOT suitable for use in animal food? So far we know animal (ingredient) sources come from slaughter or other than by slaughter which includes material from diseased animals but not from decomposed (assuming rotting) animals. [Wow that’s a pretty fine line isn’t it?] So that statement means the animal could be cancerous, still standing, and slaughtered, OR the animal died of natural means (diseased or not) before slaughter. However it’s been “scooped” up quickly enough so that it’s not lying around in some (aging) pile of dead, decomposing, decaying carcasses. Oh okay. Uhh and by-the-way 2) What’s the turn-around time for that rule? Is it used within a week, or within a month? Or before it turns gangrene?

    Next we’re told not to worry because even if these animals are diseased, they are cooked at such a high temperature that the effects of the disease aren’t a risk factor (and do note) they’re referring specifically to a canned product. So 3) What does happen to the carcass of a highly tumor ridden animal cooked at high heat? What’s left of it? And 4) Does the high heat cooking process also apply to how the (kibble) mixture is made for extrusion? And if the high temperature kills all “bacteria” then 5) Isn’t that killing all beneficial enzymes too? If the answer is yes, but the mixture is being nutritionally compensated with external additives (vitamins, minerals, et. al) then 6) Aren’t PF consumers actually buying “sanitized waste and non-waste material” injected with supplemental nutritional elements that equate to whole food values? If that’s the case then 7) Why can’t PF consumers just serve (non-toxic) whole food scraps to their animals in the first place, supplemented with the same array of external nutritional elements being used in commercial products for which they’re paying $3+lb? And yet, we’ve been preached to by the PFI and Vets that PET FOOD is the only suitable, balanced, and nutritionally safe meal we can feed our animals. Hmmm, some really strange rationale is going on there. So it’s better to serve possibly compromised food material, than human edible food – just because a manufacturer has some kind of license to sell an artificially generated product? And by the way, raw food feeders, if your source is also commercialized then the same issues apply. Meaning nobody can be sure all the animals sourced are non-diseased and if HPP is used for the same reasons of killing all pathogens, you’re back to ground zero as well.

    With all these safeguards and manufacturing regulations in place, I guess the REAL (and only) question to ask the FDA and CPG is simply this:

    If it’s suitable (enough) for use in animal food then what is about that statement that means is it NOT suitable for human consumption? And why are suddenly talking about “animal food” instead of “pet feed?”

  5. Ellie

    As far as the veterinarians know there is no animal that has become ill after eating diseased animal carcass??? How would they know?! There are plenty of animals sickened daily by pet foods while the owners are told by the vet they don’t know what is causing their pet to be sick!

    The fact that most pet food is cooked at extremely high temperatures at least 3 times during the processing leaves the door wide open for the industry to use whatever they wish as part of the mix of goo they produce. They just plan on any harmful bacteria to be eradicated by the heat process.

    This move by the FDA is a huge money maker for many. Those companies that once disposed of such garbage now can make money by selling their garbage to a pet food company. Pet food companies can use this cheap garbage to help bulk up their food and they calculate this garbage into the “nutrition” listed on the label. They just don’t bother to inform the pet owners that they are feeding their pets diseased animal carcass.

    It appears to me that this is false advertizing. Withholding information from the consumer is just the same as lying to them. Why is this allowed? I have to wonder if the FDA allows this kind of subterfuge in the pet food industry how much of it goes on in the human food industry?

    1. Jane Eagle

      Why? $$$$$$$$$

  6. […] “It shall be suitable for use in animal food.” These nine little words are found in numerous places within pet food regulations, but they are not found within federal food law. These nine little words allow a multi-billion dollar a year industry to mislead pet food consumers. What – exactly – do these nine little words mean? Learn more here. […]

  7. Mike L

    Hey that was fun to read. Not the nasty content type stuff but the writing style and quotes. Well done.

    I guess that any meat, regardless of source or condition, is fine for humans to consume just as long as it is processed at a high enough heat, time and clean facility. Maybe that’s how we get wieners, mock chicken and baloney and such.

  8. Jane Eagle

    This is a perfect illustration of that old corporate saying: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.” Lots of words that say zilch.

Leave a Reply