FDA’s own words. Hard to imagine the Agency would so publicly admit law means nothing.
On behalf of pet owners who want to know their pet’s food is safe and nutritious, in October 2016 Association for Truth in Pet Food filed a formal request with FDA asking the Agency to eliminate “diseased animal material” and “animals that have died otherwise than by slaughter” from being processed into pet food (with no warning or disclosure to the consumer). We also asked FDA to properly label pet foods as ‘food’ or ‘feed’; dog food and cat food if the products meets all legal requirements of food, dog feed and cat feed if the products do not meet all the legal requirements of food.
To have to ask the FDA to enforce law in pet food seems absurd. The FDA is charged with the responsibility to enforce the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), and the FD&C Act clearly states that a diseased animal or animal that has died other than by slaughter is adulterated (illegal). But…the FDA openly ignores these adulteration laws in pet food/animal food allowing this:
and this:
and this:
into pet food with NO warning or disclosure to the pet food consumer.
So…we had to ask them to stop allowing pet food to violate law. Our official request was sent in October 2016. Click Here to read the Citizen Petition sent to FDA. Click Here to read the addendum we submitted six months later. Two and a half years later (April 2019) the FDA responded to our request for legal ingredient pet foods with “No“. Dr. Steven Solomon – director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine – stated in the Agency’s response (Click Here to read): “we do not believe that the use of diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter to make animal food poses a safety concern and we intend to continue to exercise enforcement discretion.” In other words, Dr. Steven Solomon of FDA stated the Agency ‘intends’ to continue to allow pet food to contain illegal ingredients with no warning or disclosure to pet owners; the FDA plans to continue to ignore federal food safety laws for pet food.
It is interesting to note, that in FDA’s response to our request (and in FDA’s final statement discussed below) – the Agency NEVER denied pet food violates federal law. The ONLY thing FDA did was defend their position to allow pet food to contain illegal ingredients.
After FDA’s shocking response, we tried one more attempt. We filed with the Agency an official reconsideration request (Click Here to read) in July 2019. Received February 5, 2020 the FDA told us “No” once again.
“we further conclude that granting the Petition for Reconsideration would not be in the public interest and in the interest of justice.”
Think about FDA’s words.
We asked the Agency to enforce law in pet food and they stated enforcing law would not be in the public interest or in the interest of justice. We asked the Agency to stop allowing illegal ingredients sourced from diseased animals and animals that have died other than by slaughter in pet food – and they stated that would not be in the public interest or in the interest of justice. And we asked FDA to properly label pet foods so that consumers can easily know if they are buying lesser quality feed or higher quality food – and again, FDA stated this would not be in the public interest or in the interest of justice.
Click Here to read FDA’s ‘not in the public interest’ statement (that particular statement is in the second to last paragraph – last sentence).
FDA’s absurd statement could easily be interpreted as enforcing law in pet food would not be in the pet feed industry’s interest. Allowing pet feeds to sell waste to unknowing consumers helps feed make high profits.
Should you want to help battle FDA – send your representatives in Congress an email quoting FDA. Example email:
Pet food consumers asked FDA through Citizen Petition (Docket ID FDA-2016-P-3578) to stop allowing pet food to violate the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, stop allowing pet food to include illegal ingredients sourced from diseased animals or animals that have died other than by slaughter. The FDA’s final response to consumers was enforcing federal law is “not in the public interest and in the interest of justice.”
Illegal pet food sold in interstate commerce is definitely NOT in the interest of justice. FDA allowing pet foods to be sold to unknowing consumers that contain diseased animals or animals that have died other than by slaughter is definitely NOT in the public interest. Please thoroughly investigate Docket ID FDA-2016-P-3578 and FDA’s responses to consumers. I ask you to demand FDA enforce law in pet food.
True justice is enforcement of law…the true interest of the pet owning public is safe pet foods free of diseased animals and animals that have died other than by slaughter. We will continue to fight for our pets…this isn’t over.
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. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2020 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Bridgit Gilmore
February 7, 2020 at 1:19 pm
This is very scary and makes me happy that A) I live in the UK and B) I feed raw from a trusted and reliable source. Now I have to find out if this same ‘ethic’ is applicable in the UK so, even though it would not effect me, I can warn my fellow pet owners.
Shinies
February 7, 2020 at 1:40 pm
What’s the deal with the FDA letter saying the signatures were never submitted to the docket? Was that a mistake on their part or were they never submitted? If they weren’t submitted, I understand their response. They are saying they already considered the information that was submitted and made a decision, and that more information needs to be added as to why the request was not adequately considered. If information was missing, this response makes a lot of sense. And if the signatures were not submitted, the whole petition means a lot less and was a weak request. Did they lose the signatures?
Don’t get me wrong, I STRONGLY believe in your mission and support you often, but if you read the whole lengthy letter, part of their response makes sense. I don’t agree with their decision to deny the original petition and I think it’s ABSURD that they want enforcement discretion (try having enforcement discretion on more serious crimes!), but I understand why they didn’t reconsider (based on the information contained in this most recent letter). I think we need to let this response go and focus on how to make our next request better.
Maybe as a next step we can submit requests that are smaller steps, less complex, and less demanding of industry. At least then it will be more ridiculous if they deny it. I also think it would help pet owners call in to defend your requests if it were simpler, that way the FDA knows how many of us support you. I know sometimes I get overwhelmed with the complexity of the requests sent in so I don’t end up calling because I know I won’t stay on topic or make a strong argument. And perhaps it would help us stay on topic when we do choose to call in. I mention that because of the FDA letter mentioning a pet owner commented but the comment was off topic so it was not considered in the request. I know we all want to help, but if we kept it to a smaller/simpler request we might get farther.
One example I think could make a big difference and is one of the most compelling part of the argument is to make labeling around using condemned animal sources. It’s not necessarily asking industry to lose out on any sales, just to make consumers aware, and you can make an argument that not labeling it is actually unjust and that it would be in the best public interest for them to know the source of the animal ingredients. Can we consider that for a next step?
Susan Thixton
February 7, 2020 at 2:11 pm
The signatures were submitted to FDA years ago – they are historical record. To my understanding I did not need to resubmit them to FDA. They didn’t lose the signatures, they probably ignored them from the very beginning.
~ Long, Long Time Follower ~
February 7, 2020 at 2:41 pm
It’s notable that you took the time to read through the document and offer a well meaning suggestion. You might be a newer follower, and if so, welcome! But to add some perspective, in order to just help explain the context behind all this, please understand that Susan Thixton is incredibly well known to the FDA (and all the associated Agencies). They know exactly what her advocacy is about. And have “promised” (if you can call it that) to be engaged with her on numerous occasions. Susan has met with their Office (and at their site) at other times, and is often in frequent communications with them.
So if there was ever any sincere intention to work towards the Public interest (in truth) then they would very well know how to make that bridge. Instead they are playing with technical distractions (perhaps) just to delay and thwart the overall goal. Gladly would be acceptable, ANY step-by-step path toward progress and reform, if only that was ever being offered.
Sadly not.
Shinies
February 7, 2020 at 6:18 pm
I’ve followed passively for a short while. I get that they know Susan and are playing technical distractions and know how to bridge the gap, but I think unless we force them to make a bridge they aren’t going to do it. Maybe if we ask for a small thing, we can chip away at them and they will have less things to come back to distract with? That’s my only point. I only intend to encourage discussion and suggestions on how to move forward, because I agree with Susan, it’s not over.
I do feel strongly that if we can get more people to call in and be focused on the issue at hand, it would put more pressure on them. For other issues I’m more involved in, they have a tool to look up your representatives, an autodialer to call them for you (or sometimes just a list of numbers to call), and a script to read. This makes it easy to take action. I wonder if we can get something like that set up here because anyone who is willing to get on here and type up a comment surely can enter their address into a box and read a script on the phone.
~ But Never Give Up ~
February 7, 2020 at 7:05 pm
I agree with you and admire your enthusiasm and optimism. Hard work does indeed matter. We should never be silent OR silenced!
I’ll be honest in sharing the lesson I learned about influencing government over a decade ago in my State. The initiative was extremely controversial and the majority of legislators were ready to side with (what they assumed was) the general public’s preference. Because it seemed so popular publicity wise. However that initiative had deeper repercussions than the public actually understood, and so it required further explanation. And plenty of examples as to where it had failed. These facts amounted to the consequences resulting from turning that proposal into a regulation. By not considering all the ramifications.
It was an uphill battle. Touch ‘n “Go forever!! And I remember calling all the phone lines, communicating our message among distribution lists. And watching the legislators debate on the government website. One Party insisted on voting in unison. (There was no hope). The other side seemed open to persuasion however. We worked our tails off. But the turning point was employing a professional lobbyist (who actually volunteered his time to us), who not only was sympathetic to our argument, but knew how to tighten the screws on which legislators to vote our way. Once it became clear how unpopular those legislators would become in their own districts, who would have to face the constituents who had a real state in the matter, then those politicians were convinced it wouldn’t be worth not being re-elected. And that’s what it really came down to. So few people (politicians) operate (particularly independently) from a sense of ethics and good conscience, that only a significant consequence gets their attention.
That’s what we really have to figure out.
Benda
February 8, 2020 at 12:30 am
I agree with the idea of chipping away at this. Lofty umbrella requests are often considered too ambiguous for such powerful entities. But send out a phone number for all the pet lovers in the nation to call and a few varied scripts to read with allotment for individualized add ons and it will wear them down. The request itself, labeling where the protein source is from is not unreasonable. Would we as people actually buy a package of meat labeled “mystery meat”? Would the FDA allow that? Of course not! Pet food is no different. I wonder how many FDA workers have their hand in the big business of pet medicine and care? Afterall, the unhealthier the food, the higher the costs for vet and pet treatment and care.
Lorin Grow
February 7, 2020 at 1:43 pm
What they meant to say is “…would not be in Big Pet Food’s interest” #petfoodmafia
Jill Chambers
February 7, 2020 at 1:47 pm
The best thing to do now is spend as much time and energy educating the public that they should just make their own dog food at home and boycott ALL commercially made pet foods.
Cannoliamo
February 7, 2020 at 2:09 pm
Maybe you can ask them if it would be in the interest of dietary health, safety, proper nutrition, growth, disease mitigation, longevity, vitality and general welfare for dogs and cats? I’d sure like to hear their answer.
~ Pet Owner ~
February 7, 2020 at 2:25 pm
Do you think at this point, in response to your common sense questions, that the FDA is just thwarting you with the most inane of any potential responses. Like, if we can’t discourage ST from asking us questions at this point, then we’ll just make the next answer even worse.
I mean that’s what it really seems like is happening. To put out such a stupid answer (response) without even trying to explain it. What do they *think* you’re trying to do on behalf of supporters anyway.
And here’s a bulletin to any of you Agency Imbeciles who might still be monitoring this site, the responses you provide (like the topic of this Post) just make you look more and more stupid all the time. Who would ever guess that you folks still haven’t reach the bottom.
Southern Yankee
February 7, 2020 at 2:50 pm
I would say that this is unbelieveable, but apparently by today’s standards, this unfortunately is “par for the course”.
As disheartening as this is, we can’t give up the fight. More pet owners every day are waking up to the reality of what is in commercial pet feed. I personally have gotten 7 different owners to switch to either raw or high-quality/human grade food for their pets in the past few months.
If we can’t beat them at their game, big government, then we need to continue to fight them at the grassroots level. The more people become aware and switch from big pet food makers, the better chance we have of making a difference. We have to hurt the profits before change can begin and switching from their garbage to healthy, species appropriate diets is the best way.
Cannoliamo
February 7, 2020 at 3:19 pm
….. a little background for Lowell J. Schiller, J.D. (he’s basically an industry lobbyist)
Attorney for Sidley Austin, LLP
Litigator specializing in appeals, dispositive motions, and agency disputes, with focus on health care and FDA-regulated industries. Represented clients and supervised teams of attorneys in cases involving complex questions of constitutional, statutory, and administrative law. Authored or co-authored successful motions, pleadings, and briefs in state and federal courts of all levels, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Advised regulated entities on matters before federal agencies, including compliance issues and challenges to agency action. Drafted successful motions to dismiss in actions under the False Claims Act alleging fraud under federal healthcare programs. Conducted internal investigations and risk assessments involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption laws.
https://www.bigpharmasbestfriends.org/lowell-j-schiller/
https://projects.propublica.org/trump-town/staffers/lowell-jacob-schiller
AbbVie, Inc. Legal Services as a client of Sidely Austin, LLP
Altria Group, Inc. Legal Services as a client of Sidley Austin, LLP
American Petrolem Institute Legal Services as a client of Sidley Austin, LLP
Amgen, Inc. Legal Services as a client of Sidley Austin, LLP
Bayer Corporation Legal Services as a client of Sidley Austin, LLP
Bayer Healthcare LLC Legal Services as a client of Sidley Austin, LLP
Chamber of Commerce of the USA Legal Services as a client of Sidley Austin, LLP
Security Industry and Financial Markets Association Legal Services as a client of Sidley Austin, LLP
Sidley Austin LLP Attorney (Filer left the firm in March 2015. All services to clients identified below terminated in March 2015.)
Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XIJ.(2)(A)(6), Lowell J. Schiller, attorney for Sidley Ailstin LLP, hereby movesthe Court to gr.ant h:izn perinission to appear pro hac vice and participate as counsel or co-counsel in this case forAmerican Petroleui-n Institute and Ohio Chamber of Conimerce.
http://supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=733757.pdf
~ Pet Owner ~
February 7, 2020 at 4:03 pm
Think how much time we’d save in our very short lives if people just spoke in everyday English.
Example, “that wouldn’t be in the Public Interest because shareholders of huge corporations would suffer a loss.”
Toni
February 7, 2020 at 4:39 pm
Steve King is my rep. Hopeless. But I did send an email.
Maisie the Westie
February 7, 2020 at 11:57 pm
Toni you have my sympathy
Tina
February 7, 2020 at 8:16 pm
Wow.
Thanks for the post Susan, & for the letter template.
Susan M.
February 8, 2020 at 7:03 am
You get what you vote for. Greed and deregulation currently rule.
Susan Thixton
February 8, 2020 at 9:05 am
This has been going on for decades – ignored by many.
VCS
February 29, 2020 at 1:12 pm
Actually, the FDA’s statement that “it wouldn’t be in the public’s interest to enforce the law” is not really hard to interpret. By “public’s interest”, they mean the pet food industry who makes profits off this garbage and the public as a whole, not just pet owners. “Public as a whole” means that the FDA is aware that the entire pet food industry is a waste disposal system and if this waste wasn’t allowed to go into pet food, the “public as a whole” would suffer because of having to deal with tons of waste that was not allowed to be used as pet food. That’s it in a nutshell, as I see it!
Sherry
February 8, 2020 at 8:51 am
The only answer is…
Make your own…
That’s what I do….
My dog is 12 years old….
She still looks like a puppy…
It’s a pain in the neck but I refuse to buy dog food…
They are like family…
So If they are family…
Feed them like family…
It’s more expensive and its work…
But if you want your pet to live longer….
It’s the only way….
Unless the dog food companies can start making it the way it’s supposed to be…
Then I will start buying it..
Peter
February 8, 2020 at 9:12 am
Denying a petition for reconsideration is a “legally” acceptable response, and what I would expect. You can’t amend a petition or legal argument once submitted. Submit a new petition with all of the issues discussed, the “new information and arguments not submitted in or with your CitizenPetition” included. In that case, however, the FDA may simply reject based on a ‘previously considered’ basis, contending that a new petition would be substantially similar… but it’s still worth considering.
D in CO
February 8, 2020 at 10:02 am
Are they talking about the old petition or are they speaking of something more recent? The reason for the question is I tried to sign the newest petition and it would not work? Said there were zero signing. Hope that has been fixed
Susan Thixton
February 8, 2020 at 10:08 am
The response that was just received was regarding the ‘Petition for Reconsideration’. We asked FDA to reconsider their previous response to a Citizen Petition filed in October 2018 (they responded in April 2019). The Petition for Reconsideration appears to still accept comments, but they will not be looked at/considered as the FDA has given their response.
vmb1321
February 8, 2020 at 1:20 pm
I wonder how much arm twisting was required to get the FDA to enforce their own laws when it came to keeping cattle products out of cattle feed due to mad cow disease. They mention it in their response and I assume you referred to it as an example.
All this makes one wonder how far they are from letting similar “enforcement discretion” get into regulation of the human food supply.
Would trying to get the USDA involved help any? Would assume that they would have some say in this as it covers what is fed to livestock as well.
Scott
February 10, 2020 at 2:04 pm
From the response:
“Agency decisions to take, or refrain from taking, enforcement actions are related to referral of a matter to a United States Attorney for the initiation of court enforcement action for violations of Federal law.”
Are they saying that they will not enforce the rules unless ordered by the court? Have we tried a class action lawsuit?
Tina
February 10, 2020 at 5:52 pm
How curious. I would also like to know.
~ Pet Owner ~
February 10, 2020 at 5:59 pm
Sounds like they will react to a lawsuit. But not avoid one.
Typical government mentality. They know they can out money most private initiators, and so far, have been very successful in doing so. Winning a suit is always based on demonstrating the preponderance of indisputable evidence.
chuck linker
February 13, 2020 at 3:25 pm
THANK YOU AGAIN SUSAN. DECADES?
DOES ANYONE DEALING WITH THE PET FOOD ISSUES HAVE ANY CANINES AT HOME?
I DOUBT THAT THE SPOUSES & CHILDREN OF THE FDA MONSTERS MAKE BATCHES OF THEIR PET’S FOOD EACH WEEK. WHAT’S ON THEIR DINNER TABLE EACH NIGHT?
ARE PET FOOD PROCESSORS DEALING WITH BRIBES?