The FDA has recently refused to provide pet owners the legal definitions of pet food ingredients. In other words, every single pet owner in the US is forced to buy pet products while being denied access to knowing what is in that product.
What does “Made with Real Chicken” mean when it is printed on a pet food label? Or what does “Beef” mean listed in the ingredient panel on your pet’s food label? Or what about those controversial pea ingredients “Pea Protein” or “Pea Starch” – what do they mean?
I can’t tell you what they mean – because pet food ingredient definitions are “confidential commercial information” per the FDA.
Just so you know…
Each and every ingredient in your pet’s food has a legal definition that is VERY different than the same food ingredient in your (a human’s) food. As example, Chicken in a human food means ONLY USDA inspected and passed chicken meat. But chicken in pet food means something VERY different.
When a pet food label ingredient list includes the word “chicken” – it could be USDA inspected and passed chicken meat (just like in human food) OR it could be condemned chicken meat, chicken bones with no meat, condemned chicken bones, chicken skin with no meat, condemned chicken skin or a long list of other possibilities.
The problem is that most pet owners don’t know that the ingredient chicken listed on a pet food label can mean so many different things – because – pet owners have no access to the legal definition of pet food chicken.
And it gets worse.
If you’d want to look up what the ingredient ‘beef’ means that listed on your pet’s food label…nope, you can’t look it up – Google doesn’t have the definition. If you’d want to look up the definition of the currently controversial pet food ingredients ‘pea protein’, ‘pea starch’, ‘pea fiber’…you can’t. Pet owners can find the definition of the human food processed pea ingredients – Google has that information. But Google has no information on the pet food ingredient definitions that are very different than the human food counterparts; pet owners are denied public access to ANY pet food ingredient definitions.
So…to the point of this post…
We asked FDA for those definitions, with the intention of sharing them with pet owners. FDA most certainly has the definitions, the definitions are part of law that FDA enforces. On December 1, 2017 we filed a Freedom of Information Act request with FDA asking for:
“Records requested are definitions of all feed/pet food ingredients, which includes the common ingredient name, description, and any appropriate limitations for its use. These records are published in the AAFCO 2017 Official Publication under a Memorandum of Understanding agreement between FDA and AAFCO. Should the 2018 AAFCO Official Publication definitions be currently available to FDA, the 2018 definitions are requested.”
Eighteen months later, the FDA finally decided to respond to our FOIA request telling us:
“We are denying your entire request. Specifically, we are denying a copyrighted document. You can obtain the information you requested directly from AAFCO:
AAFCO Headquarters Office
1800 S. Oak Street, Suite 100,
Champaign, IL 61820-6974
Phone: 217-356-4221 — Fax: 217-398-4119
Email: aafco@aafco.orgExemption (b)(4) Trade secret and confidential commercial information.
The following sections of the implementing regulations of FDA and reasons applicable to this denial contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 21 are
• 20.61(b)(c) Trade secret and confidential commercial information, in general, and information, not previously publicly disclosed.”
The FDA said “no” – pet owners will not be allowed to know what is in their pet’s food because it is “confidential commercial information“.
To read the full FDA response, Click Here.
Consider this…
The FDA is charged with enforcing the laws and pet food ingredient “confidential commercial information” (definitions).
How in the world can a federal agency legally enforce “confidential commercial information” onto the public when the public has no clue to what is being enforced?
Would you buy a car not knowing ANYTHING about it other than seeing the outer shell? You are not allowed to know what’s under the hood, denied the ability to see the interior, you have no information on the car other than seeing the shape and the color. Would you buy it?
Pet owners are put in this exact situation when buying pet food. They are provided ONLY minimal information – basically only the shape and color of the product they trust their pet’s life with. How in the world can this happen?
It happens because of a special ‘confidentiality agreement’ FDA has with AAFCO; they call this confidentiality agreement a “Memorandum of Understanding“. The FDA/AAFCO agreement states:
“The FDA and AAFCO agree to the following:
A. AAFCO maintains definitions of various feed ingredients, which includes the common ingredient name, description, and any appropriate limitations for its use, and publishes the currently accepted feed ingredient definitions in the AAFCO Official Publication (OP).“
The very first agreement item – AAFCO gets to “maintain” or own the legal definitions of pet food ingredients. Because of this special agreement between FDA and AAFCO – pet food ingredient definitions become “confidential commercial information“. Pet owners are denied the ability to understand what chicken or beef or pea protein or every other ingredient listed on their pet food label means.
Angry? You deserve to be.
Tell the FDA the current Memorandum of Understanding agreement is little more than a confidentiality agreement. We (Association for Truth in Pet Food) are waiting for a meeting date to be scheduled to meet with FDA on this very issue. In the meantime, please send the FDA your sentiments. Example email:
AskCVM@fda.hhs.gov
I am contesting the current Memorandum of Understanding agreement between FDA and AAFCO and any future agreement that prevents my public access to pet food ingredient definitions. Currently the agreement is little more than a confidentiality agreement that denies my and other pet owners rights to understand what we are feeding our pets. Legal definitions of pet food ingredients and all applicable rules should be public information. I contest any agreement that prevents public access to this significantly important pet food information.
Also send an email to your elected officials in Washington DC. Example email:
I want to make you aware of an official agreement FDA currently has with the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO); Memoradum of Understanding MOU 225-07-7001. In essence, this agreement is a confidentiality agreement that denies the public access to any and all pet food ingredient definitions. Directly due to this FDA and AAFCO agreement, I am not allowed to know what is in my pet’s food. FDA has recently stated pet food ingredient definitions are considered “confidential commercial information” (FOIA request 2017-10123 provided June 27, 2019). This MOU agreement between FDA and AAFCO must be amended in order to provide all pet owners with full access to ingredient definitions.
Please tell the FDA on my behalf to properly amend MOU 225-07-7001 so that all of my pet’s food ingredient definitions are public information.
We will continue to battle the injustices of pet food – but we need your help. Please send your emails.
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.
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
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
The 2019 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Iva Kimmelman
July 11, 2019 at 12:41 pm
I think it is safe to say I am about done with commercial pet foods. Time for a homemade diet. It will be costly, for 12 whippets, but I can sleep at night. Still love my NL, but frankly I am just too nervous. Thank you Susan for all you do.
J. King
July 11, 2019 at 7:06 pm
Do it – I’ve been feeding my senior cat commercial raw pet food for the last 5 years after 11 years of kibble and cheap canned food. I had blood work done on her a couple of months ago. Her kidneys and thyroid are good. In fact her vet said the results were “kind of boring.” After going through the hyperthyroid/renal failure route with her older “brother” – RIP – boring is kind of awesome!
The cost of real food for pets will always be more than repackaged garbage no matter what big pet food puts on the label. We’re only conditioned to believe pet food should be cheap. No one who loves their pets would ever want to believe they were walking garbage dumps – that that’s exactly what they are would become crystal clear if the pet food ingredient definitions were freely available.
Thank you Susan!
Gloria
September 24, 2019 at 4:54 pm
Iva Kimmelman: You are wise to consider making the switch for your dogs from a commercial diet! You don’t need to cook for your Whippets though, just get educated on what balance of meats, organs and bones your dogs need to thrive, and feed it the way nature created it: raw. Carnivores don’t cook, so we shouldn’t cook for them either! 😉 It’s a lot easier to portion and freeze, then just thaw and serve, than to destroy the enzymes and other nutritional components that our carnivore pets need. Many are quite fragile, and even mild heat can destroy or damage them so they offer no nutritional value. When fed raw, our carnivores are able to extract the nutrients they need. Odds are your dogs will love it, and they will certainly benefit from having the nutrition that they need to thrive.
Happy feeding to you!
.
Harry Giarratana
July 11, 2019 at 12:55 pm
Thank-you for your hard work on our behalf, Susan. We appreciate you so very much.
Teresa Johnson
July 12, 2019 at 10:27 pm
Much wisdom gleaned over my lifetime from bumper stickers and t-shirts:
Trust the government? Sure, ask any whale or Native American.
If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention!
It’s a sad statement of consumers concerns to see so many blindly trusting labels and supposed regulations to be enforced. Sadder still to see so many take the easy and/ or less expensive way for food while risking health and bigger veterinary costs for their pets.
I for one will be questioning FDA and AFFCO.
As for the disposal plan for hurricane victim animals, well here we go again and I’m so sickened the any government agency would even contemplate this action.
Susan, our language is inadequate to express my thanks and gratitude for the work you do.
Cannoliamo
July 11, 2019 at 12:58 pm
FDA appears to be unwilling to inform pet owners and protect pets who consume AAFCO-labeled pet feed.
…. along these same lines, I contacted FDA and asked why their DCM alert did not address the potential myocardial risk from feeding other brands of dry, grain-free dog food that contained the same pea / lentil legumes and pulses as those brands that provided the basis for associating the identified 16 brands (as indicated on both the AAFCO label and the dog food label).
This is the response I received ….
“Thank you for contacting FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). Your comments and information are duly noted. At this time, the FDA is continuing to investigate and gather more information in an effort to identify whether there is a specific dietary link to development of DCM and will provide updates to the public as information develops.”
Sincerely,
CVM Compliance
Susan Thixton
July 11, 2019 at 1:03 pm
Know this is my bad attitude talking – but I’d call them partners in crime.
Walter OBrien
July 11, 2019 at 1:14 pm
Try talking to a food scientist out side of the pet industry and they’ll answer all of your questions. Worked selling ingredients for 35 years.
Vicky
July 11, 2019 at 2:09 pm
Thank you, that is very kind, no doubt you have quite an interesting story!!! Love to pick your brain! but I think the reason Susan and the people that belong to this site are upset is because the general public has no idea and certainly would not know to ask you. I think they read the label on something like Halo or Nutrish (hope I can name brand names but just an illustrative examples) thinking that because a famous person is behind the product, it is super high quality and best of the best at a good price. They read the package and it says chicken. They assume it is truly human chicken like they buy for their own meals. Heck, the picture on the label sure looks great! Unfortunately, most of the public doesn’t REALLY want to know because it is easy to just believe the “System” will do the right thing. If the facts were known about what was REALLY in there then people would have to make the choice and then would indeed choose very differently. Just my thoughts/opinion.
PLEASE remember to sign the Answers petition!!! We need to get those numbers up if we want to make a difference.
Iva Kimmelman
July 11, 2019 at 1:18 pm
PLEASE KEEP that attitude Susan. It is strength and we need you strong.
T Allen
July 11, 2019 at 2:12 pm
Thank you Susan!
Pacificsun
July 11, 2019 at 3:10 pm
I don’t understand how the ingredients (isolated) can be proprietary. The secret sauce would be in the recipe (the use & roportion) of them. Also we’re not asking where they come from (suppliers).
While they used the “proprietary” designation to justify the denial, is there any way to dispute the accuracy (relevance) of the denial? Or in fact, can the FDA do anything they want. So the explanation doesn’t matter?
SCV
July 11, 2019 at 3:46 pm
You all need to look at a Facebook Group entitled, “Taurine Deficient (Nutritional) Dilated Cardiomyopathy (DCM). The “experts” in that group are pushing the Big 5 kibble brands (Purina, Science Diet, Royal Canin, and Eukanuba) because only they, follow WSAVA guidelines that supposedly include feed trials (even though WSAVA itself admits that feed trials very often, mean nothing), stringent Quality Control (more on this in a minute), many PHD and Board Certified Nutritionists, etc. They are hanging their hat on a graph the FDA recently published showing an association between 16 brands and incidences of DCM. While the FDA and many academics are stating that much more research needs to be done to try to pin down the causes, this DCM Facebook Group has jumped all in to the notion that only the Big 5 brands can be trusted and the others, especially the makers of grain-free food are selling potentially dangerous products which are killing off dogs and putting profit before anything else. Never mind that no one yet knows what is causing DCM or if there is truly an association between diet and clinical cases….the DCM Facebook Group has already decided who the villains are and pointing the accusatory finger at what they call, BEG Diets (Boutique, Exotic, Grain-Free). Even people who home-cook or otherwise use fresh, raw ingredients are being admonished that they need to employ the services of a “Board Certified Nutritionist” or a PhD with credential in animal nutrition. Throughout this smokescreen they put up on a daily basis, they avoid the 400 pound gorilla in the room that maybe, just maybe, its the kibble, Stupid!! Regardless of brand. Kibble, in and of itself has been suspected as the culprit in many clinical issues from the past. I remember the seeming-epidemic of bloat cases in the mid 1990’s where there was genuine concern among veterinary teaching hospitals, pet owners and dog clubs large and small. 11 parent dog clubs from different breeds combined with the Morris Animal Foundation and the AKC Canine Health Foundation funded a study by Purdue University whose goal as to once and for all, get to the bottom of the bloat issue and come up with some answers. The study was well-funded and used a good sample of test subjects….unfortunately, in many cases, we were left with more questions than answers. Anyway, back to Quality Control. So on this graph where the FDA published the names of 16 brands of dog food who are being correlated with DCM incidence, there is a bar graph representing “Others” which consists of additional brands who have been linked to DCM cases. One of them is Science Diet, the same brand that is being pushed by the DCM Facebook Group. Science Diet also had a problem with excessive Vitamin D levels inn their formulas which caused them to have to recall said products. So, in spite of the WASAVA-compliant Quality Controls,the feeding trials and Quality checks didnt stop products with excessive Vitamin D from going out the door nor did it prevent incidences of DCM as that Facebook Group would have you believe that in xome cases, its related to diet. If it is, then the graph implicates Science Diet too!
Nancylynn Lockman
July 15, 2019 at 3:21 pm
I belong to that group and find it group and find them INFURIATING . I belong to see what they blame,etc. Any question of their path is met by statement that over 3,000 vets belong and agree… so what !
The only food they consider safe is by the BIG 4 or is it 5.
Join and lurk if they will let you in now.
Jeanmarie Todd
July 15, 2019 at 7:21 pm
I joined that group a few days ago and spent the weekend going through all their educational units. Thanks for the good summary of their positions. I would just add that they aren’t saying foods from the Big 5 brands will guarantee safety, just that no cases of DCM have been reported of dogs eating those foods. That’s interesting that Science Diet is one of the “Others,” though. Also interesting how they say how terrible it is that consumers are trying to assess the quality of dog food by reading ingredient labels. What else do we have to go on? The AAFCO compliance statement, I guess (or whatever it’s called).
One of the documents in their learning units was about how we shouldn’t worry about ingredients, just nutrients. This seems dangerously close to the “nutritionism” decried by Michael Pollan a few years ago, the tendency to focus on individual nutrients instead of fresh, whole foods. Now, I might be persuaded that animal byproducts simply means organs, skin and bones — no problem there! But If that’s what it means, I’d like to know. If that’s NOT what it means, I’d like to know, for sure.
I’m not defending the grain-free makers. For sure they are spending a lot more on marketing than on testing and feed trials. That’s become clear to me. And they have definitely over-relied on legumes, and legumes don’t have a long history of testing in pet food the way corn and wheat do. The WSAVA-compliant companies do put a lot of faith in their testing and in the expertise of their PhD animal nutritionists. The thing that’s left out, though, is what is the bias of such people? What are their philosophical positions on animal feeding? They seem to have tremendous faith in a diet devised in a lab, more so than fresh foods and certainly more so than raw.
It makes you wonder how dogs ever survived to the modern age when they could be fed scientifically designed and balanced kibble… and yet, kibble as a concept is only a few decades old.
I’m more confused than ever.
Dee Dee
July 23, 2019 at 7:53 pm
Of course there are no reports of any of the big 4 having an issue even though they do manufacture formulas with the “suspect” ingredients.. you dont think they are going to report themselves … they sweep issues and concerns with their foods and treats under the rug.
Cannoliamo
July 23, 2019 at 9:51 pm
This is the most succinct comment I’ve read to date ….
“The “science” that was originally behind this irresponsible and alarmist “grain free linked to DCM” push was a “study” conducted by Lisa Freeman, a shill for Nestle-Purina. Considering that Nestle -Purina lost its bid to acquire Champion, AND that Petco’s new policy greatly negatively affected NP’s marketshare, it seems like they are playing dirty.”
VCHS
July 25, 2019 at 8:20 pm
Yes, Dr. Lisa Freeman, who works for Tufts University, is one of the shills who started this whole ball rolling on the DCM topic. The other shill is Dr. Joshua Stern whose employer is UC Davis. So Stern and Freeman originally wrote an “Opinion” piece on the so-called “diet-related DCM cases they were seeing in clinical cases and this “Opinion”, without any peer-reviews, was published in the American Veterinary Medical Assoc Journal. What Stern, Freeman and others hope no one notices is that UC Davis and Tufts receive substantial amounts of “research” dollars from those who are vested in this issue, i.e., Mars Petcare, Nestle Purina, Hill’s, Bayer, etc. I seriously doubt that Stern, Freeman and their ilk are going to bite the hand that feeds them and their respective employers by publishing ANY research that would negatively impact their benefactors named above. To show how even more incestuous this setup is, WSAVA, who these hacks point to as the “worldwide authority” on what “guidelines” should be followed by pet food manufacturers, proudly boasts on its website that Nestle Purina, Mars Petcare, Hill’s Bayer, etc. are all “Diamond Partners” of WSAVA. And it just so happens that all these “Diamond Partners” supposedly follow the “Guidelines” that WSAVA has established! Imagine that! So Stern, Freeman, et al now want us to ignore the waste products and garbage that composes the kibble brands they are pushing and just focus on the “nutrients”. To them, ingredients don’t matter. By that logic, one could make a food out of ingredients mentioned in past discussions, like old shoe leather, motor oil and sawdust. Just add all the necessary nutrients to these ingredients and you’ve got a “complete and balanced” dog food! For that matter, human food could follow the same formula…no need for fresh and whole foods…its nutrients we need, not ingredients! That DCM Facebook Group is worth joining just to see the denial and excuses those sycophants make for the Big 5 brands….most defy logic!
Cannoliamo
July 25, 2019 at 9:05 pm
Thanks, … kinda what I had surmised but you’re way ahead with knowing a lot more of the facts.
Donald Whitlock
July 11, 2019 at 3:49 pm
There is a reason why some pets die of various cancers at a young age and others live long healthy lives…IT’S WHAT THEY’RE EATING!
Nicole
July 11, 2019 at 4:03 pm
Is it possible to deliver the same request to AAFCO? If they hold the definitions, wouldn’t it be plausible to try to obtain those definitions from them…?
Kathleen Giacini
July 13, 2019 at 2:10 pm
I was thinking the same thing. Has anyone tried this already?
Tina
July 11, 2019 at 7:29 pm
Hi Susan, Thanks so much for this post, & for the template responses.
I read the full FDA response. Do you plan to appeal / have you appealed, or will you give Katherine Uhl a call? I’m assuming only you can make the call or appeal if you want because you were the one who made the FOIA request?
Susan Thixton
July 11, 2019 at 7:33 pm
Not so much appeal this decision – but argue the outcome. We were told the FDA would meet with us regarding the Memorandum of Understanding Agreement that allows the ingredients to be hidden. We are waiting for them to give us a date.
Tod Workman
July 12, 2019 at 9:33 am
Sounds like the FDA just made a big loop hole for Human food manufacturers. They now can state commercial trade secrets. What are they thinking??? It’s the commercial lobbyist in Washington. We need to get rid of the commercial big business lobbyists.
Jeff White
July 12, 2019 at 10:50 am
The swamp runs deep. Although there may be honest government bureaucrats somewhere, they apparently don’t work at the FDA. Furthermore, I will hit the Mega Millions jackpot before any of this changes. To think that the money train between all of these intertwined industry and government groups is going to stop anytime soon is the stuff of fairy tales. As DJT has clearly shown, the swamp runs deep in Washington DC.
So quite whining about it and just make your own food blend for your pets….it’s pretty simple with the multitude of advice out there.
Susan Thixton
July 12, 2019 at 7:49 pm
I don’t think people here – myself included – are whining. We are proactive trying to change the industry for the better.
~Pet Owner~
July 12, 2019 at 8:42 pm
I can give you an easy shortcut folks. Use Sojo’s premix. Add your own meat.
Cover your bases intermittently with a couple of meals of raw meat/crushed bone.
Find a nice Pet Kelp supplement.
And throw in an egg every so often.
Don’t stress, be happy. And your pet will be too!!
No, I don’t sell any of these products!
Paul Seamons
July 16, 2019 at 2:17 am
I have no concerns, as we have fed DIY raw for 22 years. I know what our dogs are eating, so do not need to put trust into corrupt multi-national waste disposal corporations, AKA pet food manufacturers.
Cannoliamo
July 12, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Susan,
I just received a “heads-up” email from FDA / CVM providing “Resources for Animal Food Producers in Gulf Coast of U.S. Affected by Tropical Storm Barry.” The email provided a link to a 1995 policy paper entitled “CPG Sec. 675.200 Diversion of Adulterated Food to Acceptable Animal Feed Use”
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/cpg-sec-675200-diversion-adulterated-food-acceptable-animal-feed-use
specifically identify “adulterated” human food that can be diverted for use as animal food / feed. …….
Diversion requests will be handled on an ad hoc basis. The *Center* will consider the requests for diversion of food considered adulterated for human use in all situations where the diverted food will be acceptable for its intended animal food use. Such situations may include:
Pesticide contamination in excess of the permitted tolerance or action level.
Pesticide contamination where the pesticide involved is unapproved for use on a food or feed commodity.
Contamination by industrial chemicals.
Contamination by natural toxicants.
Contamination by filth.
Microbiological contamination.
Over tolerance or unpermitted drug residues.
Is this still current? Is it as bad as it sounds?
Susan Thixton
July 12, 2019 at 4:45 pm
Yes – this is still current. And it can be very bad.
Pacificsun
July 12, 2019 at 7:09 pm
Not that the above notification isn’t pertinent in this moment, but the notice comes out every time there’s a major natural disaster affecting crops. Probably (and no doubt) livestock too! So figure in every single prior year now.
You better believe they’re going to find a way to offload that crud. Just the salvage alone is costing them money. And if they can find producers to take it off their hands, there’ll be commodity exchangers who will. We’ll probably never know where that stuff goes.
But I wouldn’t be buying my PF from the Dollar Store or Gas Stations!!! There’s a reason why that stuff is so cheap!
Erica Johnson
July 12, 2019 at 10:37 pm
Are the definitions that are published yearly in the AAFCO Official Publication, still available to consumers for $110.00 per year? Not that I’m justifying the obvious act of the FDA and AAFCO fighting to be transparent with consumers and tell us what pet feed ingredients actually are by.
Susan Thixton
July 13, 2019 at 7:38 am
Yes. Consumers can purchase the definitions. $120 a year. The argument is – they shouldn’t have to buy them because they are ‘legal’ definitions, part of law.
Cannoliamo
July 15, 2019 at 7:41 pm
Susan,
….. I just thought of this (btw, not all of my impulsive thoughts are good ones) …. If these definitions are not protected by copyright, why don’t you have them scanned into a pdf file and put them on your website? I’ll help pay for the scanning.
Merriann Harbert
July 14, 2019 at 4:08 pm
Interview political hopefuls about the above concerns. Many of them have dogs and cats. We need to make them cognizant of the outrages lack of transparencies.
Lesley Dipple
August 25, 2019 at 4:12 pm
It’s easy stop feeding kibbles, canned or pouched processed pet foods
Michael
February 11, 2020 at 2:19 pm
This is why Just Food for Dogs exists, to provide a healthy alternative with veterinarian balance meals.
Jane
March 20, 2020 at 11:47 pm
Susan you are amazing for what you do bringing truth to a deceptive market where money comes before health.
When I first started studying pet food nutrition a decade ago I became so aware of all the mistakes I had made over the years with my dogs and what I was feeding them…I cried…
I began to understand that these big brands didn’t actually care about my pet…they care about how much money they could take from me every month, all the while I was feeding both my dogs and cats (my joy) a toxic blend of “garbage” they labeled as pet food. I was shocked and hurt and angry. Fast forward…
I no longer feed dry food but feed my pets a fresh food diet and feeding them a healthy diet is a joy!
I was concerned about the cost of feeding a fresh food diet but have found it is not any more expensive than a so called “high” brand of what kibble costs. Took it a step further…
I also have a number of recipes that I now make myself that are fully balanced and are budget friendly with no synthetic vitamins or minerals.
It’s because of websites like yours that pet owners are becoming aware and changing the quality of their pet’s life, health and longevity.
Thank you Susan for your work and your passion.