Another AAFCO meeting is within a few weeks, final agendas have been published on the AAFCO website. Here are issues that I would like consumer input on to take to the meeting.
AAFCO hosts public meetings twice a year. The second meeting of 2016 will begin on August 1, 2016. The meeting will be held in Pittsburgh, PA at the Marriott City Center. For any pet food consumers in the Pittsburgh area, you are welcome to attend ($500.00 admission fee). All meetings can be listened to for free, details of call in information below.
Side note: For pet food consumers in the Pittsburgh area, you are invited to a fund raising event hosted by independent pet food store(s) Healthy Pet Products (for Western Pennsylvania Humane Society); Paws, Claws & Laws. I will be speaking at this event and would love to meet pet owners in the area face to face!
At the January 2016 AAFCO meeting, FDA told the crowd the agency is wanting to drop the term ‘feed’. FDA introduced the new term ‘animal food’ for the first time at this meeting (first time to my knowledge). Quoting the minutes of the January meeting: “Jenny Murphy said that FDA is moving away from the term “feed” except for “medicated feed” and is using the term, “animal food”.”
This discussion was ‘tabled’ in January for discussion at the upcoming August meeting.
Background information:
Historically, the ‘food’ that animals eat has been referred to as feed; cattle feed, pig feed, chicken feed. Pet food is the only animal food that is referred to as food (not feed). AAFCO itself is a ‘feed’ organization; Association of American Feed Control Officials. Legally, all of what animals consume should be referred to as food. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act defines food as: “(1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.” But as we know, law is not often followed when it comes to the food that animals consume.
The same Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act defines feed (in reference to drugs allowed into animal feed – medicated feed) as: “an article which is intended for use for food for animals other than man and which is intended for use as a substantial source of nutrients in the diet of the animal, and is not limited to a mixture intended to be the sole ration of the animal.”
Concerning
We do not know if there is a motive behind FDA’s decision to change the agency’s reference to animal food from feed. We do not know – why now? Why is the FDA is wishing to change from feed to animal food after decades of referring to the material animals consume as feed. Regardless, in my opinion the term ‘animal food’ further confuses pet food consumers.
As explanation, pet food can consist of legal food ingredients, food supplements, and manufactured according to food regulation – or it can consist of illegal food ingredients, classified as feed supplements, and manufactured in a feed plant.
If both of the above are called pet food…or both referenced by FDA as animal food, how can consumers understand what they are purchasing? They can’t.
It is my opinion FDA is furthering the confusion with the term ‘animal food’. It is my opinion that the term ‘food’ should only be used on animal products that abide by food rules (grey column above). All products that follow the yellow column above should be called feed. Again, it is my personal opinion that there needs to be a clear, easy way for consumers to determine what they are buying (is it food, or is it something entirely different?).
But…
My opinion is not why I go to AAFCO meetings; I go to these meeting to take your opinions. So…your opinion on the above is welcome (survey link below).
The above discussion is listed on the agenda for two meetings (unknown why). It is included on the agenda for Model Bills & Regulations Committee (item 4 a) to be held on Monday August 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, and on the agenda for the Ingredient Definitions Committee (items 4 a & b) to be held on Tuesday August 2, 2016 at 1:30 PM.
Information for consumers to listen to these meetings are listed on the agenda documents linked above.
The Pet Food Committee Meeting lists a discussion of human grade pet food; all the agenda states is “FAQs”. Also on the agenda is a discussion from Big Heart Pet Food on the “use of the word ‘Meaty’ on labeling”.
I am requesting input as to what consumers believe the word ‘Meaty’ should mean on pet food labels.
The Pet Food Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday August 2, 2016 at 9:30 AM. Details for consumers to listen to this meeting is provided on the agenda document linked above.
Survey
To help organize comments, I have built a quick survey on the two issues discussed above (Animal Food and the term Meaty). Click Here to take that survey.
Thanks to all in advance.
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
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 4,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2016 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
The Other List
The List of pet foods I would not give my own pets. Click Here
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking for pets made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Jude
July 13, 2016 at 5:40 pm
After reading all the submissions, I believe that the word “meaty” should not be allowed to describe any part of any pet food. It should not be on the label, period.
Kay Henn
July 13, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Oh Susan, you have my heartfelt support and sympathies. For the moment, we’re /relatively/ OK over here in Europe, but who knows what TTIP will bring — I hope not backdoor rescinding of EU pet food regulations.
It sounds as if AAFCO is learning from you. “She publicises the difference between food grade pet food and animal feed pet food — OK, we’ll (1 intimidate her and her sources the hell away*; 2.) just make everything food grade.”
*Did Not Work; New Strategy Needed
Kay Henn
July 13, 2016 at 6:18 pm
P.S. “Food” to me clearly means “species-appropriate” — which at the very least means cannibalism-free; not sourced from diseased animals; not sourced from rancid leftovers; not sourced from otherwise contaminated raw material.
“Meaty” to me clearly means “at least half muscle meat”.
Kay Henn
July 13, 2016 at 6:21 pm
P.P.S. I assert my status as a consumer as per US-EU trade agreements:)
CC Griffin
July 13, 2016 at 7:00 pm
Safe for Human consumption, safe for dogs and cats. All ingredients are 100% human grade – period!
Holly
July 13, 2016 at 7:14 pm
To be completely honest, I find the survey questions hard to answer, so I didn’t take it . i suppose it’s because the two words, feed and food won’t matter to 99% or pet owners. Does it really matter what they call crap in a bag? People are going to feed it no matter what. I’m frustrated just reading about what you do, Susan. I can’t imagine being in the trenches. I’d have an ulcer by now.
Cheryl Mallon-Bond
July 13, 2016 at 8:59 pm
Holly, Please ask Susan, or anyone else for that matter, for clarification of the questions if you are not understanding them. It is pertinent that every single person involved here be apart of this survey they need to hear all of our voices & opinions.
Anthony Hepton
July 13, 2016 at 8:14 pm
Susan, There may be a clear attempt by FDA to change the rules to fit their goal of making pet food as a distinct category from food. This will allow them to permit 4D animals as ingredients in pet food and to use pets as an to alternative landfills.They were not shy about being against applying regulations as they are written and they would love to solidify that position. Those rules were written to protect the health of our pets, they should not ever be compromised to facilitate the supply of cheap, but questionable, ingredients for the profits of pet food manufacturers.
Susan Thixton
July 13, 2016 at 8:20 pm
That is exactly my suspicion Anthony. I feel certain there is no good reason (for consumers) of FDA wanting this.
Pet Owner
July 14, 2016 at 1:11 am
Yes, I agree with Anthony too. Very dangerous precedent. We must speak up against it!
Kay Henn
July 17, 2016 at 3:49 am
This is what I meant above — just realised it possibly doesn’t read that way. Just call everything food, no matter how unsafe it is: problem solved.
Kay Henn
July 17, 2016 at 3:52 am
Problem solved from the point of view of pure profit, that is.
Cheryl Mallon-Bond
July 13, 2016 at 8:55 pm
Susan, that was a good idea for you to make a short survey, with a chance at the last question, to add our own wording. A consise survey will be an advantage for AAFCCO to clearly see what we don’t want, clearly & to the point.
I hope everyone here will be sure to take this survey, it is of the utmost importance for all our voices to be heard.
Cheryl Mallon-Bond
July 13, 2016 at 9:06 pm
FDA: Keep the terminology as it is, as it has been for forever. Stop, once again diluting the terminology to appease industry. The consumer does NOT want the terminology change. It would nothing to clarify to the public the differentiation of pet products on the market that we feed to our pets. Your job (may I remind you) is.to serve what is in the best interest of the public, NOT corporations! Leave it as is, please.
Cheryl Mallon-Bond
July 13, 2016 at 9:09 pm
Oops!!!! Sorry!! Forgot to include in my last comment post….the terminology I am referring to is: feed vs food (that the FDA wants to change over to use food only)
Susan, please amend my wording before submission of comments are presented to the FDA, or let me know if I need to re-write the full comment adding in what I forgot to add. Thanks.
Cathy
July 16, 2016 at 2:15 pm
It is essential there be differentiation in feed that is approved for livestock animals that are being prepared for death as opposed to food that is approved for beloved companion animals for healthy longevity.
Phyl
July 17, 2016 at 5:33 pm
How about TRUTH IN ADVERTISING their products???? I am tired of lies lies lies that US Gov’t allows to happen because US Gov’t officials take money to look the other way!