Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Pet Food Regulations

Fox Guarding the Hen House

The Washington Post is reporting that the FDA allowed fees to be charged – as much as $25,000 – for companies to attend private meetings held with the agency. Private meetings that “shaped the federal government’s policy for testing the safety and effectiveness of painkillers”. It makes you wonder if such paid admission private meetings happens with pet food issues too.

The Washington Post is reporting that the FDA allowed fees to be charged – as much as $25,000 – for companies to attend private meetings held with the agency.  Private meetings that “shaped the federal government’s policy for testing the safety and effectiveness of painkillers”.  It makes you wonder if such paid admission private meetings happens with pet food issues too.

The Washington Post states:

A scientific panel that shaped the federal government’s policy for testing the safety and effectiveness of painkillers was funded by major pharmaceutical companies that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to affect the thinking of the Food and Drug Administration, according to hundreds of e-mails obtained by a public records request.

The e-mails show that the companies paid as much as $25,000 to attend any given meeting of the panel, which had been set up by two academics to provide advice to the FDA on how to weigh the evidence from clinical trials. A leading FDA official later called the group “an essential collaborative effort.”

Patient advocacy groups said the electronic communications suggest that the regulators had become too close to the companies trying to crack into the $9 billion painkiller market in the United States. FDA officials who regulate painkillers sat on the steering committee of the panel, which met in private, and co-wrote papers with employees of pharmaceutical companies.

Even as the meetings were taking place, the idea of FDA officials meeting with firms that had paid big money for an invitation raised eyebrows for some. In an e-mail to organizers, an official from the National Institutes of Health worried whether the arrangements made it look as if the private meetings were a “pay to play process.”

FDA officials did not benefit financially from their participation in the meetings, the agency said. But two later went on to work as pharmaceutical consultants and more than this, the critics said, the e-mails portray an agency that, by allowing itself to get caught up in a panel that seemed to promise influence for money, had blurred the line between the regulators and the regulated.

In a statement, the FDA said “we take these concerns very seriously.” But, it said, “we are unaware of any improprieties” associated with the group.
 
Douglas Throckmorton, a deputy director of the agency, said in an interview that strict rules of transparency and funding apply to the public-private partnerships that the agency engages in and that these efforts are important for the government and the industry.

But the group in this case was not initiated by the FDA, he said, and so was a private partnership to which those rules did not apply.

The meetings, which involved about 30 to 40 people, included academics, FDA and NIH officials, and often as many as 14 representatives from pharmaceutical companies. Only the companies paid fees to attend.

The Washington Post story shares that the meetings were not organized by FDA; the meetings were organized by two university professors – “Robert Dworkin of the University of Rochester and Dennis Turk of the University of Washington.”  These two professors received “as much as $50,000 apiece for a meeting”.

The Washington Post story continues explaining that an FDA chief (of analgesic division) “touted the influence of the group” (known by the acronym IMMPACT) in a 2007 presentation.  “A 2007 ¬PowerPoint presentation he put together was called “The Impact of IMMPACT” and recognizes the group’s influence on FDA thinking. The presentation describes the committee as “a wealth of opportunity for communication” that was advancing the science and “approving new analgesic drug products.”

There’s more – please read the Washington Post story – Click Here.

Now, in light of the above information, let’s consider a couple of things in pet food…

Pet foods and animal foods are given special privileges by FDA to violate federal law.  Federal law states (Section 402 a 5 of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act) “A food shall be deemed to be adulterated–
5) if it is, in whole or in part, the product of a diseased animal or of an animal which has died otherwise than by slaughter;” 

One of the biggest pet food special privilege is FDA Compliance Policy 690.300 which states:

“POLICY: Pet food consisting of material from diseased animals or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter, which is in violation of 402(a)(5) will not ordinarily be actionable, if it is not otherwise in violation of the law. It will be considered fit for animal consumption.”

It makes you wonder doesn’t it?  It makes you wonder who was in on that meeting when a FDA policy was developed to allow illegal ingredients in pet food.

It makes you wonder why the FDA – after six years of investigation into the deaths and illnesses of thousands of dogs – has yet to find the contaminant in the Chinese manufactured jerky treats.  It makes you wonder why the FDA has yet to respond to science hand delivered to them more than 10 months ago – that links the illegal antibiotic residues found in the Chinese dog treats to the exact symptoms suffered by so many dogs.  It makes you wonder what companies have influenced FDA’s thinking on this investigation doesn’t it?

With pet food, it is not solely FDA that takes the opinion and input of industry.  From the 2013 AAFCO Official Publication…(bold added)…

“Chairperson shall use discretion in inviting the trade to closed sessions.  A general philosophy shall be that formal representation at closed meetings shall be restricted to selections of trade organizations and that organizations such as the following should be given the opportunity to present when topics of concern to them are discussed;
American Feed Industry Association (AFIA)
Animal Health Institute (AHI)
National Cottonseed Products Association (NCPA)
National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA)
National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA)
Pet Food Institute (PFI)

Regulatory authorities of AAFCO and FDA just don’t understand it is a HUGE conflict of interest to allow industry private meetings and allow industry the opportunity to influence regulation.  And no one of authority (Congress) cares to force the agency to into doing its job correctly and fairly.  The fox guarding the hen house…we know what the outcome is.

 

Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,

Susan Thixton
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible

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 2500 cat foods, dog foods,  and pet treats.  30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com

 

2013ListImageSmall

 

2013 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods.  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

7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Ken Kalligher

    October 15, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    “And no one of authority (Congress) cares to force the agency to into doing its job correctly and fairly.”
    Given the record of Congress in recent history, it should not be a surprise to anyone how little this matters. Congress is unable to manage it’s own affairs, let alone worry about the people. I have said repeatedly that the relationship FDA has with industry is troubling. If we expect consumer protection from these government regulatory agencies for human health, we are dreaming. Now, you ask, “What about our pets?” We just have to do our own homework and never mind what companies, vets and the regulatory & advisory agencies tell us. As Mollie has said, “We are not stupid.” We are not! Do your homework and rely on people like Susan and Mollie, and others for sound honest advice. Then make your own choices based on what you can afford.

    • Pacific Sun

      October 16, 2013 at 6:06 pm

      I think your conclusion is inevitable and can not be denied. But I wonder what kind of state we’re in when we, as pet food consumer novices, are reduced to relying upon (literally) 2 independent, self-supporting, dedicated, experienced, and well-gifted advocates, who provide information that may indeed be saving the lives of our pets?

      • Ken Kalligher

        October 16, 2013 at 7:50 pm

        Well, for one thing those independents need support! There is no question that both these ladies have faced intense criticism from the industry, regulatory agencies, and advisory groups. The number one enemy of dissent is the fear that these large entities can exert not only on the economics of doing this work, but the personal fear that can be levied. There is no question the pet food industry has had it “their way” since the industry developed. The government does many wonderful things for people, but without the “pressure” of effort, be it paid lobbyists or an indomitable spirit, focus, dedication and, in the case of Susan & Mollie, the abject love for our pets, there would be nothing in the way of these forces from just continuing to serve up the poison they continue to peddle. We all complain and write about this, but these 2 ladies are “doing” something about it. They deserve our financial support, but they need help! Change is slow, tedious and difficult, but change can happen. It happens out of the type of focus and flow these two ladies demonstrate. We need more of them, many more; then change will come, but it is uphill…all the way!

        • Ken Kalligher

          October 16, 2013 at 8:13 pm

          I’m so sorry I used the phrase “abject love” incorrectly. I meant to say “profound love, but that’s what happens when we write and don’t proof read before posting. My apologies.

        • Susan Thixton

          October 16, 2013 at 10:10 pm

          Thank you Ken!

  2. lynn

    October 19, 2013 at 5:49 am

    just makes you wonder what has happend since 2007… enough to not trust pet food of any kind as no one seems to care what goes into it if no one over see’s the safety… and has no respect for our beloved fur kids then why have respect for putting money into their pockets … to kill our pets we need to make our own pet food and put each and every pet food out of business.

  3. lynn

    October 19, 2013 at 5:54 am

    i meant to also say nothing is being done and they are showing how they don’t care.and, nothing is ever going to be done. they just want your money they do not care about your pets.that is why i do not ever buy pet food and i make even my fur child treats and food.i always check in as i have friends who do trust pet food ha! can’t tell some people anything even though she lost a very sweet fur child in the 2007 recall.

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Learn More

Human Grade & Feed Grade
Do you know what the differences are between Feed Grade and Human Grade pet food? Click Here.

 

The Regulations
Pet Food is regulated by federal and state authorities. Unfortunately, authorities ignore many safety laws. Click Here to learn more about the failures of the U.S. pet food regulatory system.

 

The Many Styles of Pet Food
An overview of the categories, styles, legal requirements and recall data of commercial pet food in the U.S. Click Here.

 

The Ingredients
Did you know that all pet food ingredients have a separate definition than the same ingredient in human food? Click Here.

Click Here for definitions of animal protein ingredients.

Click Here to calculate carbohydrate percentage in your pet’s food.

 

Sick Pet Caused by a Pet Food?

If your pet has become sick or has died you believe is linked to a pet food, it is important to report the issue to FDA and your State Department of Agriculture.

Save all pet food – do not return it for a refund.

If your pet required veterinary care, ask your veterinarian to report to FDA.

Click Here for FDA and State contacts.

The List

The Treat List

Special Pages to Visit

Subscribe to our Newsletter
Click Here

Pet Food Recall History (2007 to present)
Click Here

Find Healthy Pet Foods Stores
Click Here

About TruthaboutPetFood.com
Click Here

Friends of TruthaboutPetFood.com
Click Here

You May Also Like

Pet Food News

Speak now, before pet food is required to be irradiated.

Pet Food News

Lack of consistency in Salmonella Recall Alerts could Put Thousands in Danger

Pet Food News

...you are being told incorrect information.

Pet Food Regulations

And refuses to do anything about.