The FDA considers insect or rodent contaminated pet food ingredients and diseased or euthanized animals to add “aesthetic” value to pet food? You can’t make this stuff up.
This is one of those things that you have to read several times…it is so absurd, your brain keeps going ‘Nah, couldn’t be true’.
From the FDA website (this particular page is explanation of CPG Sec. 675.400 – FDA Compliance Policy on Rendered Animal Feed Ingredients)…(bold added)
“…the Center for Veterinary Medicine does not believe that Congress intended the Act to preclude application of different standards to human and animal foods under Section 402. Different standards have historically existed for human and animal food concerned with aesthetics. The Center has permitted other aesthetic variables in dealing with animal feed, as for instance the use of properly treated insect or rodent contaminated food for animal feed.”
How can – anyone (with a straight face), never the less a Government Agency – explain away that it is acceptable to violate federal law? (with exception of a seasoned criminal.) The FDA has the audacity to do this by using the term “aesthetics“.
Just to be clear, ‘aesthetics’ is defined by Meriam-Webster.com as:
“of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful”
“pleasing in appearance: attractive”
Used in a sentence “There are practical as well as aesthetic reasons for planting trees.”
So…the FDA – specifically the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) division of the FDA – considers insect or rodent contaminated food an “aesthetic variable” of pet food/animal food. And because this illogical reference to “aesthetics” is found on the Compliance Policy page that allows “animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter” and “tissues from diseased animals” into pet foods/animal foods, we have to assume the FDA/CVM considers these to be a ‘aesthetic variable’ of pet food as well.
The FDA/CVM is clear to acknowledge, “the Center for Veterinary Medicine does not believe that Congress intended the Act (Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) to preclude application of different standards to human and animal foods…” No, the Act does not. The definition of “food” in the Act is clearly defined “for humans and animals”. However, numerous FDA Compliance Policies – including the one on this referenced page – does apply different standards to human and animal foods.
The different standard applied to pet foods, according to the FDA/CVM, is aesthetics. Pleasing in appearance – tissues from diseased animals, euthanized animals. Beautiful – insect or rodent contaminated food.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Thanks to Jay at Fresh Fetch Pet Foods for pointing out this FDA/CVM award winning absurdity. I’ve read this FDA Compliance Policy a hundred times but never caught the ‘aesthetics’ statement. Perhaps my brain just didn’t want to believe it.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author, Buyer Beware
Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
PetsumerReport.com
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 2500 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking for pets made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Are you subscribed to Truth About Pet Food Newsletter? Click Here to subscribe
Follow Truth about Pet Food on Twitter
Become a Fan of Truth about Pet Food, Dinner PAWsible, Buyer Beware on Facebook
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
