The nightmare has once again proven to be true. Dog DNA was found in two pet foods, along with a long list of other ingredients not disclosed by the manufacturer.
The University of New Mexico has recently published a study evidencing a wide-awake nightmare of pet food. “Using Pet Food as the Subject to Investigate the Effectiveness of Whole-Genome Sequencing in the Authentication of Highly Processed Complex Food” was published January 6, 2023 by the American Chemical Society. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsfoodscitech.2c00265
The research did not provide the brand names of the pet foods tested.
The study abstract stated “Our test detected DNA of undeclared ingredients in all tested pet food samples, entailing improvements of regulation and quality control in American pet food industry.”
One of those “undeclared ingredients” discovered in the dog foods analyzed was dog.
Dog DNA was found in two of the six pet foods tested.
This is the third time in 4 years dog food has tested positive for dog DNA. (The first evidence of this horror was DNA analysis included in a lawsuit against Rachel Ray Nutrish dog food.)
Everything but the kitchen sink.
The DNA analysis of these six dog foods found that every single pet food included multiple ingredients NOT DISCLOSED on the label. Federal and state pet food regulations require disclosure on the label of all ingredients included. If an ingredient is not disclosed/listed in the ingredient panel, the pet food would be mislabeled. All six of the pet foods tested were mislabeled.
Below is a “Supporting Table” from the study. The bold font are ingredients that were listed on the label, the un-bolded font indicates an ingredient that was NOT listed on the label but was found in the pet food. As you can see the majority of the results are not listed as bold. In other words, most of the results are ingredients found in these pet foods that were NOT listed on the label.
Sample R1 – contained 12 undisclosed ingredients.
Sample R2 – contained 14 undisclosed ingredients.
Sample R3 – contained 17 undisclosed ingredients.
Sample R4 – contained 12 undisclosed ingredients.
Sample R5 – contained 17 undisclosed ingredients.
Sample R6 – contained 13 undisclosed ingredients.
Not only did all of the pet foods analyzed contain multiple ingredients not listed on the label, several pet foods did NOT contain ingredients they claimed to contain.
Sample R1, R2 and R6 claimed to contain “beet” – the dog foods did not contain beets.
Sample R4 claimed to contain “salmon” – the dog food did not contain salmon.
And Sample R6 claimed to contain “sweet potato” – the dog food did not contain sweet potato.
The FDA website states: “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates pet food similar to that for other animal foods. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that all animal foods, like human foods, be safe to eat, produced under sanitary conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be truthfully labeled.”
“Truthfully labeled”? Once again scientific evidence has proven the opposite.
100% of the pet foods analyzed in this research were mislabeled.
It doesn’t get more ‘un-truthfully labeled’ than that.
The following message was sent to the FDA:
Recently the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, University of New Mexico published a paper titled “Using Pet Food as the Subject to Investigate the Effectiveness of Whole-Genome Sequencing in the Authentication of Highly Processed Complex Food”.
The researchers DNA-analyzed six dog foods. All six dog foods contained multiple ingredients (as many as 17) that were NOT disclosed on the label. Two of the six dog foods contained dog DNA.
The FDA website states “The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that all animal foods, like human foods, be safe to eat, produced under sanitary conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be truthfully labeled.”
Pet owners deserve to know the FDA is properly monitoring the pet food industry. Pet owners deserve to be able to trust the ingredient statement on labels.
On behalf of pet food consumers, we are asking the FDA to provide pet owners some type of evidence that the agency IS properly monitoring the pet food industry. We also ask the agency to provide pet owners some type of evidence FDA is validating ingredient statements on pet food labels.
We await your response.
We encourage all pet owners to send the FDA a message regarding this undeniable evidence provided by the University of New Mexico. We encourage you to tell the FDA if you do or do not trust pet food labels, and encourage you to share your feelings about dog DNA being discovered in dog food. Email the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine: AskCVM@fda.hhs.gov.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
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 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2023 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Robin Liston
April 25, 2023 at 2:52 pm
“The research did not provide the brand names of the pet foods tested.”
Then this info is absolutely useless to us.
Susan Thixton
April 25, 2023 at 3:31 pm
I disagree Robin. While I wish dog food names would have been disclosed, most university research does not provide brand names. The research is VERY useful because it is evidence of a serious concern in pet food.
Kathy
April 26, 2023 at 12:27 pm
Yes it’s useful in that way, but it doesn’t tell the consumer if the food they’re feeding is one of those on the list so they can make an informed decision about what to feed. I’m with Robin, consumers should know which foods these are and these pet food manufacturers should be called out. Have to wonder if there’s a reason ($)some of the universities don’t include the brand names.
Kyle
April 27, 2023 at 10:13 am
Possible issues with continued funding if they DO name the brands, most likely.
Which should already tell you who the parent companies are.
Kathleen
May 6, 2023 at 8:16 am
I agree with Kathy. I pay for a premium brand and I want to know if they are using undisclosed ingredients.
Gail
April 26, 2023 at 6:46 am
Most all this can be explained by cross contamination. As far as the dog dna, more tests need to be done by more labs.
The brands really should have been disclosed, otherwise there is no way to corroborate the results
Debra Brandt
April 26, 2023 at 10:17 am
I would like the name of the dog foods as well! That definitely would be usefull.
Alice Brown
April 26, 2023 at 11:57 am
Maybe if a company like this would put the actual names with the actual info people could do something aboit it. Like refusing to buy it. But this info is useless, by it self, yes it makes us aware its happening but it still makes it like playin Russian Roulette when we purchase dog food. Man up and stand behind your testing by putting the names with your tests.
Dr. Laurie Coger
April 26, 2023 at 8:13 pm
Robin, you are missing the point. The production process is what allows this to happen. Could be any brand. And some samples and not others. Further, to publish something that states a specific product is a problem opens the researcher/writer to a lawsuit. It would be insane to publish brand names without extensive corroboration. And even then whoever does so faces possible legal repercussions. Instead, look at the warning that is being delivered by sharing these results, and take action to avoid the categories of products that research suggests are higher risk.
Erica Johnson
April 25, 2023 at 3:14 pm
I’m not surprised, but I’m happy testing is being done, hopefully testing can continue as I’m sure this is not uncommon. Do you know what brands these are?
Erica
Susan Thixton
April 25, 2023 at 3:31 pm
No – the research did not disclose the brand names.
Pam
April 25, 2023 at 3:19 pm
Ate you going to tell us what brands had dog DNA?
And I would like to know which brands had horse.
Thank you
Susan Thixton
April 25, 2023 at 3:31 pm
The research did not disclose the brand names.
Kristy
April 26, 2023 at 9:27 am
If you look at the % of DNA and not the read # you will see that of these 6 brands, all 6 showed 0.00% horse DNA, which means none of them had it, unless they had like 0.0001% which is likely just from some kind of cross contamination from obtaining beef from a slaughter house that also killed horses. Not nefarious.
Caryn
April 25, 2023 at 3:23 pm
Do they list the brand names of the food? I can’t seem to access the journal article.
Susan Thixton
April 25, 2023 at 3:32 pm
The research did not disclose the brand names.
Sally
April 25, 2023 at 3:35 pm
We know the FDA will not do its job no matter how many consumer complaints it receives. The FDA is an agency within Health and Human Services and HHS has an Office of Inspector General; however, it appears that pet food fraud is not the kind of fraud they investigate. It appears the FDA answers to no one. The University of New Mexico should name the brands. Has ProPublica ever investigated the pet food industry?
CMO
April 25, 2023 at 4:38 pm
Would be good to know the names of the food.
Tamar Lowell
April 25, 2023 at 4:42 pm
How do we get the names of the pet food companies tested?
Mario Orellana
April 26, 2023 at 9:49 am
There’s a book out called big kibble lots of companies are revealed in the book
Janine Long
April 25, 2023 at 6:15 pm
Yes we would all like to avoid the brands thst tested positive for dog DNA but I’m more concerned if they have evidence of drugs used to put ANY type (animal including dogs) animal killed by what chemicals are used to put that animal to death. A bullet can be removed or electric shock has less chemical but injections of chemicals to kill can be eaten along with the flesh!
Dorothy Ezell
April 25, 2023 at 6:19 pm
If the University gave the FDA these test results they are now public information cannot the information be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act? Somehow someone must be responsible and required to disclose those 6 dog food brands. What can we do?
Sherri
April 25, 2023 at 7:40 pm
I do not believe any of this will ever change, the pet food industry will never clean up and be trustworthy to produce a product I would feed my pets. So if a person insists on feeding their pets commercial pet food then this is what you can expect from this garbage industry.
Linda M Kelly
April 25, 2023 at 8:01 pm
Disgusting bunch of liars! FDA is a joke look at the human aspect of it! We are in deep “doggie” do-do and that is no joke. Don’t buy corporate dog food….
Karin Yates
April 26, 2023 at 1:01 am
I suspect the dog dna was from “animal fat” that comes from rendering plants that melt down all sorts of dead animals, including euthanized dogs and cats from animal shelters and veterinarians. Not only does the melted down slurry contain dogs and cats, but the euthanasia drugs (sodium pentobarbital)
Kathryn Smith
April 26, 2023 at 6:13 am
Zebra fish????
Kathryn Smith
April 26, 2023 at 6:16 am
Third paragraph plainly states that brand names were not disclosed.
D. E. Mers
April 26, 2023 at 4:01 pm
From 2019 — a good reminder that the previous administration actively interfered with many of the past practices of the FDA, including dismantling the FDA department of Agricultural Science.
“The agency’s “warning letters”—a key tool for keeping dangerous or ineffective drugs and devices and tainted foods off the market—have fallen by one-third, for example. Such letters typically demand swift corrections to protect public health and safety. FDA records from Trump’s inauguration through 22 May show the agency issued 1033 warning letters, compared with 1532 for the most recent equivalent period under former President Barack Obama. Compared with the start of the Obama presidency, Trump-era letters dropped by nearly half.”
Also, in 2019, the USDA was negatively impacted when a majority of scientists were told they would need to move to Kansas City from their long time location in DC with very little notice.
A Trump administration decision to move researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the Kansas City area is threatening to spark the flight of more than half of the staff selected to move, gutting the agency of its top scientific voices.
We of course have seen failure again and again with regulating the pet food industry, regardless of who held the executive office. Inspectors for USDA are woefully understaffed and cannot meet optimal obligations.
Kathleen
May 6, 2023 at 8:37 am
It is clear that the welfare of the people, much less their pets, is a very low priority for our elected officials.
Lin
April 29, 2023 at 10:01 pm
Will they ever name these dog foods ??? This is horrible !!!
Karen
May 7, 2023 at 5:56 pm
Anytime there is a “study” you have to follow the money. Who paid for the study or the testing? And no the university is never going to disclose which foods were tested because somehow some way they will lose funding: once again it all comes back to $$. And no dog food manufacturer is going to willingly admit if there is in fact canine dna
in their foods.
Cheryl Marx
May 22, 2023 at 4:27 pm
This might make people hesitant to have another pet.
MT
January 23, 2024 at 10:39 pm
UNM is a state institution, in New Mexico. Try a *state* public records request (state’s version of FOIA) for all documents, emails, faxes, letters, or other correspondence between the [named UNM employees/researchers] and [any individuals or groups at the FDA, AAFCO, Purina, Mars, P&G, Pet Food Institute, etc] and see what you get back. You might get nothing…or a trove of UNM emails back and forth discussing brands.