True. The Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021 included a statement on how FDA should investigate grain free pet food/DCM.
H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act was recently passed by Congress. This bill was a government funding bill and included economic stimulus provisions due to the coronavirus pandemic.
But…buried within the bill – within sections for funding for FDA (Division A, page 58) – was this paragraph:
“FDA is directed to provide an update on the investigation it is undertaking regarding canine dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and the manner in which it has released information to the public. The update shall include: the case definition FDA uses to include or exclude cases and the scientific work ongoing at the agency and with collaborating partners for identifying a causation of DCM; how FDA distinguishes cases of DCM due to genetic predisposition in certain breeds; how the agency plans to work with pet food companies and the veterinary cardiology community during the investigation; and the timing and nature of any future public reporting.”
This bill “directed” FDA to provide the public an update on the agency’s DCM investigation. This sounds good, until you read what Congress required of FDA to include in the public update – and then it gets suspicious.
Congress basically told FDA this funding is contingent on FDA explaining how they previously identified DCM diagnosed dogs and who FDA has collaborated with in their investigation. Congress told FDA to publicly explain how the agency determines if a dog is genetically predisposed to DCM and how the agency determines if the DCM diagnosis was linked to a pet food or of the diagnosis was genetic. And Congress told FDA to publicly disclose how the agency plans to work with the pet food and veterinary industries in the future of the investigation.
It’s puzzling. Why would Congress include in this funding bill such specific language on how FDA investigates DCM in dogs and how the agency will investigate DCM in the future?
Perhaps the answer to this question lies within a letter sent to FDA in early September from Senators Kevin Cramer, James E. Risch, Mike Crapo, Steve Daines, John Hoeven, Roy Blunt, and Jon Tester. The letter, sent two weeks prior to a private webinar held by Kansas State University regarding the DCM and grain free pet food dilemma, includes a very telling statement:
“Please let us know how the FDA intends to release the information presented at the symposium. And, if the scientific evidence presented diverges from the FDA’s initial conclusions, we are asking for your assurance the FDA will update its previous public statements accordingly, especially with regards to any ingredients or brand names that have been implicated.”
These seven Senators appear to be asking FDA to change what the agency previously posted about DCM in dogs – specifically asking the agency to “update its previous public statements…with regards to any ingredients or brand names that have been implicated.”
Who were the implicated pet food brands and what were the implicated ingredients these Senators wanted FDA to diverge from their initial conclusions?
The brand names:
The ingredients:
It appears that these seven Senators asked FDA to tell the public that Acana, Zignature, Taste of the Wild, 4Health, Earthborn Holistic, Blue Buffalo, Nature’s Domain, Fromm, Merrick, California Natural, Natural Balance, Orijen, Nature’s Variety, NutriSource, Nutro, and Rachael Ray Nutrish were perfectly safe pet foods with no link to DCM.
It also appears that these seven Senators asked FDA to tell the public that Grain-free pet foods are perfectly safe and peas, lentils, potatoes and sweet potatoes are perfectly safe ingredients – again, with no link to DCM in dogs.
Back to the Appropriations Bill…
The Senators letter was sent in September 2020. FDA did not issue a statement clearing the pet food brand names and clearing grain free pet food ingredients. So – we assume – these same Senators upped the ante to FDA. Telling the agency within their funding appropriations bill, the FDA is required to disclose how they came to the conclusion that grain free pet food (and specific brands of grain free pet food) were linked to DCM in dogs.
Congress came to the rescue of grain free pet food and grain free pet food ingredients.
Opinion: It seems Congress was lobbied by grain-free pet food manufacturers and the pea, legume, potato pet food ingredient industry to take action on their behalf. It appears industry was concerned because their wallets were harmed by FDA’s DCM investigation. The seven Senators listened to the financial woes of industry, neglecting the bigger picture.
I agree that FDA has some explaining to do about their DCM investigation. However, Congress’s focus with FDA should be how the agency’s investigation into DCM in dogs could have been so haphazard to begin with – half of veterinary nutritionists on one side of the grain free pet food fence and the other half on the opposite side. This points to a major problem within the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine for firmly standing on one side of the fence BEFORE the agency fully investigated the issue? Why didn’t Congress recognize the foundation of the problem – the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine?
The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine has failed pet owners for years. We need an external audit of the agency to evaluate their ability to regulate and investigate any pet food issue. Clearly, there’s a problem that needs to be corrected.
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 2021 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Christina K Swanson
February 3, 2021 at 1:29 pm
No, it doesn’t direct them to change it Willy-nilly
Only if:
*the scientific evidence presented diverges from the FDA’s initial conclusions, we are asking for your assurance the FDA will update its previous public statements accordingly, *
That’s how science works, and how the government should work off the back.
Now if the science doesn’t show it (we don’t have enough information which ever way, esp when you read into the FDA reporting) then it stays the same.
This is fair.
Mary Doyle
February 3, 2021 at 1:44 pm
I would also like to know why the FDA came tp its initial conclusion and be upfront about who pays for these studies – Mars who also benefits from the initial analysis – Mars pet food companies. Vets today are actually suggesting that their clients use Purina etc based on the first study. The only benefit is that many of these grain free foods have gotten rid of legumes, peas and sweet potatoes which are often major allergy producers in dogs. So I don’t really see anything nefarious about this language. Finally the FDA’s budget is not dependent upon this provision – its a request of the agency to respond.
Angela Windolph
February 4, 2021 at 1:13 pm
Seems logical to me. Show us the proof. It definitely appeared that certain companies were targeted without scientific proof of connection. I think these Senators were right to require logical, proven testing and follow-up. The initial reporting, in my opinion, was haphazard, and should never have been presented. If we just let this go, it sets a precedent where any pet food company can be blamed for something that has nothing to do with their food. The purpose should always be the health of the animals, not destroying OR promoting certain companies.