Consumer Input Requested – Definition of Feed

If the definition of “edible” is included then it needs to be defined and assuming that it is the same as the USDA definition, enforced. That in itself would eliminate a lot of materials from the feed supply. I assume the PFI would not allow that to happen.

# 1 is ridiculous because animals eat a lot of stuff they shouldn’t, rocks, shoes, knives, etc.
#2 Leave out “which are consumed” or change to “which are normal to consume”, eliminates plastic and 4D (unless you have a pet vulture).
#3 Only if enforced as per “food law”. I agree with Susan, no use of the word food unless it is food.
#4 Is what we have now, calling feed, food. Which it clearly isn’t, unless they change the definition of edible.
#5 No, even if change edible. “Usually” is a loophole.
#6 Change the word food to the word eat.
The definition would be:

A product or substance including raw materials and ingredients, which is intended to be used by animals other than humans, to eat or drink for nourishment.

Can I vote for none of the above? I guess #2 is the definition I would least object to.

Doing a little brainstorming here. Would this work?

Animal-grade “feed”: Ingredients intended for consumption by pets and other animals for the primary purpose of providing nutrition and energy. Feed may also include non-nutrtional substances, such as anti-caking agents, binders, emulsifiers, enzymes, mixing aids, preservatives, processing aids, stabilizers, and aroma/flavor/color enhancers.

Pet food and human food should not be differentiated. Keep it simple.

I would like to see specific ingredients listed and do not find anything else acceptable. Whatever it is, should be what it is labeled. For example, if it is chicken, than the part of the chicken. If it is chicken by-products, than what by-products. We have the right as consumers to know what we are purchasing and what we are feeding our companion animals. We are their caretakers and should not have to call companies, ask for and wait for responses as to what is in the food they are producing. If they are producing it, they should know where it comes from. I do agree with Susan that it should not say food unless it is human grade food.

I have a problem with “which are consumed or intended to be consumed” and I’m not sure how to define my thoughts on the subject. When a child drinks a poisonous liquid, he ‘consumes’ it and when they spray plants ‘intended to be consumed’ with pesticides and the pesticides are left to soak into the skin of the fruit or vegetable, what are the underlying intentions? IF this is acceptable practice for ‘human grade’, what will be done to the poor second and third class victims of the ‘feed’ category?

I think there needs to be an emphasis on the fact that 1) Food and FEED are not the same thing, legally. For example, #1 could read “Materials eaten by animals, rarely food-grade. 2) is fine, but I would like to see, “may not be food-grade unless specified”.
3) Not food. Cannot be used in definition in my opinion without a deliberate attempt to mislead the consumer. So…. #3: Feed and/or Feed-based ingredients fed to cattle, livestock and pets. (Let’s call it what it is without trying to make it out to be what it is not!) #4: In my opinion, given that many of the “edible” things have been declared dangerous and certainly of dubious nutritional value, I think all reference to nutrition needs to be struck. It should not be used since that has not been established to be the case. #5: Same objection as #4. References to the effect it is supposed to have on the animal is not in evidence and should not be referenced. #6: Feed grade materials fed to animals. No mention of “food” since legally that is not what it is. No mention or reference to “edible” or “nutrition” or “energy” since much of that is soundly disputed by experts and has not been proven decisively by the industry. Endotoxins do not provide energy or nutrition. Much of what is in feed grade pet feed is neither edible nor nutritious. No definition should be allowed which blurs that line. Any attempt to create such a definition is simply a bait and switch on the consumer and should be called out as illegal.

Definition 2 has my vote. It avoids attempting to define food and/or nutritional value. “Feed” should do no harm; do we need to address ingredients consumed should be scientifically tested to do no harm to the intended animal or those that consume the animal?

Perhaps I’m missing something, with regards to the appropriate wording that should be utilized. But, just as your post states, the individual State regulatory agencies can merely decide to ignore whatever definition is agreed upon. Just as they ignore vitally important legislation.

Besides letter writing, are there other avenues we can take that would ultimately lead to forcing the approrpiate government agencies to Enforce current legislation?

I find this very confusing so I guess I would vote for the most simple–the first definition. However, it is immaterial to me because since the 2007 pet food recalls due to melamine in pet food, I have simply fed grocery store human meat to my cats. The only hard thing about that was locating a source for an organ meat other than liver. Once I found a place that sells kidney, my little meat-and-bone eaters were good to go. 🙂