Skip to main content

The Largest Beneficiaries of FDA Generosity


Related News


  1. Anthony Hepton

    Susan, A great summary. We should have AAFCO refer to Webster’s Dictionary for a definition of ‘slaughter’. It is the killing of an animal for it’s meat, or more specifically, the butchering of livestock for market. So all those animals that died by other means were not suitable for meat or for market. AAFCO should go back to school.

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      Thanks Anthony. AAFCO and FDA have their priorities…and pets are not one of them (industry is).

    2. Sheila

      What about Iams or Sci Di!

      1. Marie

        Same as the rest… I read that Sci Die. 🙁 Buy Susan’s List! Only real foods on that.

  2. Judith Gray

    Brilliant job…it should be reprinted and handed out in every vet’s office…of course it won’t be. Thank you.

  3. Debbie

    I’m surprised P&G didn’t make the list.

    1. Susan Thixton Author

      P&G is no longer in the pet food business. All of their pet food brands sold to Mars.

  4. Sherrie Ashenbremer

    Awful, thank God we have Susan and Dr Judy Morgan too. I’m sure there are others out there. I think these big companies are so sneaky

  5. Duncan

    This is a great deal of research with very disturbing findings. We trust to these companies and to our government to uphold standards–which they don’t.

  6. Marsha

    From the list you are able to see who funds FDA and AAFCO. Shame on both of them for not listening to us.
    Here is the definition of Slaughter that is in the dictionary.


    Word Origin

    See more synonyms on
    the killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., especially for food.

    Maybe we should send them the dictionary so they are able to look it up.

  7. Laurie Raymond

    As we already know, legal definitions are essential to regulation-writing, which is needed if any law is to be enforced. Leaving a critical definition out when crafting the regulations needed to enforce the law is how the actual “gift” is given to companies that would be subject to the regulatory process in the enforcement of laws that apply to them. If the lack of such a definition were an accidental oversight, it would have been fixed, not used it as an excuse. At every level of government, bureaucrats can sabotage the intentions of law makers pretty easily. This is far broader than pet food: the entire industrial agriculture system, of which it is a tiny part, affects everything: our health, food safety, contamination and depletion of soil, starvation of organic farms, dependence on fossil fuels, climate change. We really MUST wake up to the need for wholesale reforms that can only come from long and sustained action by engaged citizens. Yes, these eye-opening studies and expressions of consumer outrage are important. But recognize that this is only part of a fight for a regenerated and sustainable planet, that all species, not just our own, need us to win.


    Hi Susan,
    We have always used the best human ingredients. If our family wouldn’t eat it, then I will not feed it to my dogs or anyone else’s.
    We continue to use the best and yes we pay dearly for our ingredients. However, I can sleep at night!

Leave a reply

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