The Pet Food Test Results

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO SUSÅN and her family!!!!!

I am so thrilled to see this.
Many thanks and eternal gratitude to you Susan for all your hard work.

Off to have some hot chocolate with my latest reading…….

Pretty amazing to me that Fancy Feast was the least offensive over everything! But not surprising at all about the prescription foods. Holy moly!!! ugh!

Thank you Susan. Letter sent to my rep.

Finally!! maybe people will start paying attention now — if you don’t buy your pets food the same way you purchase your own then maybe you need to rethink your own diet!
read labels! learn what all those strange words mean – and admit that you wouldn’t want to eat recycled spoiled food, 4D meats, or otherwise ‘USDA INSPECTED’ [ but REJECTED!!] product — meat, veggies, fruits, grains – or any other ‘raw’ ingredient —
Susan — Thank you so much for all you have put into this — you are APPRECIATED!

Hi Susan-

This is scary. It’s amazing how our government neglects this issue. The USA is supposed to be so advanced and developed. We have so many resources. I don’t get it.

I was wondering if I may re-post material from this article on my website essentiallydogs.com
I always properly site my sources.

Thanks
Janie

Thank you so much, Susan! We’ve eagerly awaited your findings! I sincerely appreciate all of your hard work in undertaking and executing this very important project.

You’re one remarkable lady!

Thank you Susan for all of your hard work, it has paid off to finally know the truth about these foods! Do you have plans to test more in the future?

I’m curious about how you chose the particular foods tested. I suspect it was by best selling?

It should be a no brainer that Meow Mix and O’Roy don’t have many redeeming qualities beyond price, so it would have been more informative to test the Premium and Super Premium foods, wouldn’t it? This is the category that is the fastest growing and has huge potential to defraud the public. Even after the Great Pet Food Recall, the industry has lots of secrets that only seem to come to light when infighting happens. Plus with Mars Pet Care (which is represented in your tests) now owning so many brands (I think its 41 now?), how easy would be for them to substitute ingredients between brands if they run short?

It’s certainly good news that no pentobarbital was found in these foods, as the cheap products are at the highest risk. Perhaps pet food companies have at least evolved away from that protein source, although we can’t be sure.

I’m looking forward to any responses from the companies whose foods you did test. Personally, I think we’ll be listing to crickets…..

Hi Susan,
have you ever contacted a large tv syndicate such as 20/20 to see if they would be interested in covering a story about These test results and some of the other Truths you have discovered in your years of pet food research? Such as the ingredient, that is still used today in some dog foods that was responsible for killing your beloved pet?

Thank you for all your hard work putting this together. Sadly I’m not shocked at the results . Kibble can be a silent killer and it’s important consumers are made aware of that fact.

Erica~

Thank you so much Susan – you are a Godsend. This is so serious and the world needs to do something about it soon! Many of my friends, including my family, have lost our 4 legged loved ones due to the fact that these major food companies are allowing this poison to hit the shelves. And they continue to do so without regret. We trusted these companies with our pet’s best interest and lives, but they have failed us immensely! I do believe there must be restitution in some way manner or form, and will never stop fighting this fight until something happens. The vet bills alone much less the grief, pain and suffering we have had to go through needs to be addressed and compensated for. My family was dumbfounded and devastated to say the least. I miss my baby girl and think of her every single day. We keep her ashes in a box on our dresser in front of us so that we can see her and that she remains much a part of our every living day. Damn you Beneful, Purina! We trusted you at the cost of our loved ones lives. And YOU cut that life short…

Thank you for all of your hard work in protecting cats and dogs. With a rise in the number of exotic pets like ferrets, has your organization thought about testing their foods?

You’re so welcome! And I couldn’t agree with you any more, Peg! 🙂 Another excellent resource is Truth About Pet Food’s Quality & Origin pledges- which I’ve used in my research as well as manufacturer inquiries, dogfoodavdisor.com, etc.

🙂

Take care!

I don’t take replies personally. It’s only an opportunity to expand the discussion. I am not suggesting that testing details shouldn’t be provided. I am saying it’s good to be grateful for any testing at all. It should be embraced as a first step. Nobody said it shouldn’t be repeated, expanded, or cross examined by others, even the industry itself. My frustration is that consumers had to fund the effort. They did so in response to all those unanswered questions above, and that the relevance to this topic.

Testing results (as you say, to be useful) should be available through professional regulatory authorities tasked with safety and enforcement. Meaning it “should” be a group that’s capable of running very consistent, repeatable and recurring testing. The reason I asked the questions is to demonstrate how frustrated consumers are by a lack of transparency. Just so AAFCO understands the real context of this discussion.

Regarding nutrient profiles I am not questioning “safety or recommendation” ranges. I am looking for factual product labeling. For example I see a minimum % of fat content on a can. But I have a dog unable to eat fat. I would like to know how much fat is estimated to be in the can (or formula or recipe). I would like to see all components in the can in what proportion to one another. I can figure out minimum carbohydrate by using a calculator and the process of deduction. But wouldn’t it make more sense for the manufacturer to figure this out, also relevant starches, sugars, etc. and list it? It might be approximate but that’s okay too. Human food has all kinds of ingredient information on a label. Can’t AAFCO make recommendations even though they can’t enforce them? One problem with ingredient definitions (and AAFCO does at least discuss “definitions” correct) should be to identify them in plain English, with no fracturing. Ingredients should be interpreted as starch and sugar and fiber (for example, beet pulp is kind of nebulous meaning is it categorized as a vegetable, fiber or sugar?). Anyway consumers need this information because some dogs are diabetic, some need to lose weight, some should limit fiber, and on it goes.

There are actually multiple reasons for publishing the testing results. However critics (and not necessarily you) are stuck (and I am not so sure how constructively speaking) on its potential for fallacy or weaknesses. Some think the results or the language used (like the words “qualifying pathogen”) are used to unduly influence the reader’s suspicions (at minimum) and to sensationalize or exaggerate attention (at maximum). But I ask for what purpose would a $16,000 useless report serve? Are consumers guessing the PFI will run scared? Or owners are looking for their worst nightmares to be confirmed? Or that problems (like FDA Compliance Policies) should be excused because the government knows what it is doing? Why is improving the safety and quality of pet food even being contested. Do critics honestly believe livestock grade feed (a maintenance diet intended for animals with a shorterm lifespan) equals a nutritionally enhanced extended lifelong diet for household and working pets? Or is it an unspoken agreement that whatever they’re currently eating, is just good enough?

To believe no problems exist with pet food discounts all the hundreds of owners who witness their pet(s) sicknesses from eating particular (brands, bags, batches) of pet food. Most owners can attest to illnesses based on diet and not external causes. They feed the food which equals an issue. They stop feeding the food and it disappears. Such cases shouldn’t be invalidated only because proof wasn’t established in a court of law. They should be put together with corroborated cases, substantiated by Vets (without them fearing recrimination) to be investigated and recorded to prevent more of the same, and to warn pet owners. Truthfully losing a pet for any reason is highly emotional and owners can overreact. But when that kind of consumer takes advantage of the system looking for a product refund, then a money back guarantee by the manufactuer is the end of that story.

Here’s the real deal.

The PFI (and those politically supporting them) understand that the PFI equally suspects their own. It’s a billion dollar hyper-competitive business which is not just about a pet owner making an accusation. It’s about the competition making false accusations against one another to skew market share. Witness Purina vs. Blue Buffalo and that’s only what’s publicized. The problem is the PFI can’t figure out how to differentiate between consumer and insider damages. That’s exactly WHY it is so imperative for an impartial regulatory authority to randomly sample, monitor, and publish ongoing testing results! It’s their job, NOT the consumer’s. Eventually the industry would become self-regulating, forcing out bad businesses that can’t rank high enough by way of truly scientific and objective results. D’uhhh.

The last points are these. Some critics (and perhaps not you personally) find every excuse to challenge the outcome of the testing. This includes the methodology of examination, the measurement of mycotoxins and aflatoxins, whether or not bacteria (or pathogens) is virulent (meaning living) or not, whether the sample was contaminated, or the staff was adequately trained, without ever even asking for an Industry rebuttal. It means the competency (or simple common sense) of those responsible for the testing is completely in question. But the target isn’t. Ask yourself whether or not any reputable institution or scientist would present (or be bothered with) compromised findings without figuring out first that the effort would be monumentally scrutinized in the first place. To assume otherwise, denies the entire process, and turns it into a simply curious and entertaining synopsis. It might as well be assumed that a professionals accepted a $16,000 donation with no regard to personal reputation OR liability. Why would they accept an assignment unless they understood the appropriate scientific pathway for making either positive or negative discoveries, both relevant AND dependable. Certainly what would be their personal gain in either outcome?

Finally, it has been an uphill battle for Susan Thixton to make ANY progress regarding pet food consumer advocacy. By agencies and authorities and the industry she’s been thwarted at every turn. After all this time you have to ask why. The answer is far more than about money. It is about the advertising investment that companies don’t want to tinker with, meaning re-educating the consumer. When the cost of a product is doubled or tripled in price (due to improvements) then an explanation (or justification) is required. To say that the product is truly safer and quality enhanced compared to their “regular” food begs the question – why produce livestock grade feed for pets, that’s chemically and synthetically treated, containing imported ingredients and waste components at all?? Then think about what happens to all of that clever marketing strategy they’ve used to deceive the public, for decades. That’s the real skeleton in the closet. Everyone who really cares about the issue knows it.

As far as they’re concerned (unfortunately) it’s just a little too late ….to change it all up.

B. Dawson presents a very good reply. From being a retailer I learned more through your details provided than from many other references. You are thinking deeply and evenly about this topic. Which is important and appreciated. Thank you.

I’ve thinking how do I summarize my follow up. It’s not a matter of being confrontational, but only to expand the discussion and discovery. So I pose this question. Could it be that the info-graphics provided appear to overly simplify the results, and therefore to suggest the intention of biasing the audience? Knowing the credibility of the website owner I will absolutely vouch for the credibility involved in this total effort! The infographics provided are to present a snapshot of relevance, but more than enough detail has been made available for everyone’s independent examination. I know how much sweat and tears were shed along the way, not with the intention of throwing a stake through the heart of the PFI, but about the necessity of the quest for truth. Cliché as it might be. Only the truth is being sought. Only the truth matters. And anyone is welcomed to present it.

I thought the narrative provided to accompany the results was remarkably impartial actually. It just happened that some of the findings were so surprising that they seemed to stand out, and were relatively more “shocking” than was expected. But nowhere in that narrative was it ever concluded that one food over another was preferable or not. That one product should be purchased, or shouldn’t be. Nobody said don’t by “X-Brand” as a result. It was simply (and this is the key) a COMPARATIVE representation, from one snapshot in time, dealing with a specific lot of samples. Another date, another batch, another bag or can could be entirely different.

That reality is definitely the fascination involved, and hopefully, the incentive to see whether or not results can be reproduced, or disproved, if indeed a range of findings does exist. How in the world can there be any harm or liability in simply gathering as much information about PF products as possible? Certainly one would think, if deficiencies do exist, then the responsible parties would embrace the opportunity to the correct them, and improve the process of determining future ones.

To be quite open I think far worse results were actually expected from the testing. Admittedly, and honestly, no salmonella or DNA species identification was found. But monumental effort went into making sure the discovery process was particularly scientifically correct, for the exact reason that the worse the findings might have been, then the more intense the scrutiny would be. Especially by the PFI. If the test could be easily invalidated then there never would have been any point to the undertaking in the first place. And the investment would have been lost. The funds were finalized in April 2014. Results only started coming in, in late September and finally into November. While guidance was given about for what would be useful and relavant to test for, and then how to test for it, the scientists never favored any imagined or particular TAPF hypothesis.
Regardless of the results they had no stake in any outcome one way or another. They were quite busy with other businesses and priorities during the entire process.

I wondered indeed what would happen if none of the results were remarkable. But I think Susan absolutely accepted that possibility (risk) yet embraced the responsibility for reporting no matter what. I KNOW for a fact that she would have. To do otherwise would’ve been dishonest and a disservice to everyone’s investment in time, energy, money and interest!

Evidence of bacteria existing in food, first of all, just happens to be presented as “A” finding, period. No one has attached a recommendation to stop buying a food because of its presence! The kind of bacteria is a curiosity. It also needs to be further defined into a relevant category of type.

What we’re all learning together are the greater implications of mycotoxins and aflatoxins present in PF, especially about the relevant cumulative & simultaneous effects of them, and the impact upon certain kinds of suspectible pets. Is it not useful to gain insight as to why (and perhaps how) some food negatively affects (only) some pets? I think this (potential) cause for pet illnesses has previously been more of a mystery. So the testing is a good first step for further investigation. For the PFI to be truly transparent, they “should” be interested in what was found in this sampling, and either offer counter or additional fact finding, or offer a hand towards future collaboration.

But I do agree, that for some of the reasons you propose (irrational, overly reactive owners) the PFI shies away from direct consumer involvement. By contrast, our Consumer PF Advocate is knowledgeable, experienced and well versed as to what does and doesn’t constitute proper industry activity. No one would disagree how complicated the business and manufacturing PF is, but the main consumer requirement is FULL disclosure. If a company is going to make a lower price point product, admit it, through accurate, factual and clearly stated labeling. Don’t stick a fancy grilled filet of chicken thigh on the outside but instead fill the bag with something else. Consumers should be respected for their ability to make choices. That’s all they want to do.

In response to consumer complaints that’s where an impartial agency SHOULD be tasked with collecting data, investigating, recording, and making available various reports for consumers to make decisions. Again, I already acknowledged the competitiveness of the industry. And the danger of malicious insiders skewing consumer fears. That’s why objective, regulatory testing is so imperative. When it can be demonstrated that there are no issues with a PF, then consumer complaints must be handled in the proper perspective. We all know that production mistakes can and do happen on any assembly line. Therefore steps have to be in place to deal with them. But doing so, without insulting a pet owner’s intelligence and their concern as being ovelry or ierrationally emotional.

The he power of the entire effort, depends on whether all parties can be incented to work together!! Wouldn’t and shouldn’t that be in everyone’s best interess?

Hi we started feeding our dogs Acana and Orijen food i was wondering your opinion that these brands thank you

THIS is what should be on commercial packaging!!

Why can’t I find a lists of companies that test and don’t test on live animals?