The FDA announced they will have a zero tolerance policy with regard to Salmonella in pet foods. That’s the good. The ridiculous is at the same time FDA is enforcing zero tolerance for Salmonella, the agency continues to be completely tolerant of any waste material not fit for consumption into pet foods.
The FDA announcement was issued as ‘Guidance for FDA Staff‘, instructing inspectors in the field to take action if Salmonella is detected in any pet food. Shouldn’t there always have been a zero tolerance for such a dangerous bacteria in pet food?
“FDA maintains a zero-tolerance policy for Salmonella in pet food because it can pose risks to human health when people who are “at-risk” (children, the elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems) come into direct contact with contaminated pet food.”
“The association between human outbreaks of salmonellosis and Salmonella-contaminated pet foods is well established. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that from January 1, 2006 to October 31, 2008, 79 human cases of salmonellosis were linked to Salmonella Schwarzengrund in dry dog food manufactured by a company in the United States. Health Canada reported that in 2005, cases of salmonellosis in Canada and the United States caused by Salmonella Thompson were linked to pet treats contaminated with Salmonella Thompson. In addition, Health Canada informed FDA of Canadian outbreaks of human salmonellosis that were linked to Salmonella Newport in beefsteak-patty dog treats that were manufactured in Texas in 2002 and to Salmonella Infantis in pig-ear dog treats that were manufactured in Canada in 1999.”
Lot’s of talk about humans getting sick, very little discussion of pets getting sick.
Now for the ridiculous. Let’s step away from the above zero-tolerance policy for Salmonella in pet food a moment and look at federal law.
Federal law defines “food” as: (Section 321. Definitions; generally) “(f) The term ‘‘food’’ means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals,…”
No grey area – pet food would be included under the federal law definition of food.
Federal law defines an “adulterated food” (prohibited by law) as: (Section 342. Adulterated food) “A food shall be deemed to be adulterated- (a) Poisonous, insanitary, etc., ingredients (1) If it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health;…”
No grey area here either. Existing federal law would have deemed a food/pet food adulterated (prohibited) if it contained a poisonous or deleterious substance such as Salmonella. So again, why is FDA just now issuing guidance to staff to have a zero tolerance of Salmonella in pet food when it should have had a zero tolerance all along?
The only possible answer is because too many people were getting sick from handling pet food.
The FDA’s outlook on pet food has historically been ‘it doesn’t matter, it’s pet food’. To give you a clear example of this FDA belief system, we need to look at one more quote of federal law. Federal law also defines an “adulterated food” (prohibited) as: (Section 342. Adulterated food) “(C) (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;”
But disregarding federal law and acting as ‘it doesn’t matter, it’s pet food’ – the FDA has (long ago established) Compliance Policies that instruct staff to ignore the above federal law. These compliance policies freely allow pet foods to contain the remains of diseased animals or an animals that have died other than by slaughter. Direct violation of federal food safety laws. (See CPG Sec. 675.400 Rendered Animal Feed Ingredients and CPG Sec. 690.300 Canned Pet Food)
To the FDA, it doesn’t matter – it’s pet food. Any waste material is welcome. Who cares if it isn’t proper nutrition and who cares if those pet foods and treats violate federal law…just make sure people don’t get sick.
It’s great FDA is taking a zero tolerance with Salmonella in pet food, but at the same time it’s ridiculous the FDA does not enforce many other federal laws with our pet foods. It DOES matter, it’s our pets.
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
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
Peter
July 19, 2013 at 11:28 am
The FDA has “compliance policies” that allow and essentially, specifically authorize “adulteration” of food… as long as it is intended for pets and livestock. No doubt the words “zero tolerance” were carefully chosen, and may be noticed by staff writers for news outlets or other printed/online information sources. That may do the agency good, as consumers skim their local paper or web news outlet without really understanding the issue. The intensity of recent recalls for Salmonella contamination may make it appear to “Joe/Average Consumer” that the FDA is actually working to ensure the safety/integrity of pet food manufacture. But the reality is that intolerance only extends to pet foods in so far as the potential for illness of humans handling the pet foods.
Christine
July 19, 2013 at 11:33 am
Hi Susan,
The issue of salmonella in pet food can go two ways. What about us raw feeders. As a true raw feeder for 17 years, I have never had, nor have any of my guardians had any incident with salmonella or anything else while feeding raw to their dogs. This includes families with children. Its all about commonsense. Wash up after handling any raw foods! You know as well as I do that a healthy, raw fed dog can handle pretty much anything “normal” in raw food. To pasteurize, HPP, etc. destroys both good and bad bacteria and can alter protein. It is not longer raw food and even the dogs know it. The texture also changes. I refuse to feed anything but pure raw.
The FDA has had a witch hunt out on the raw companies for quite some time. I know you know this. The bedfellows (FDA/pet food industry/ AVMA) are all against raw food. What a corrupt world we live in as our rights and freedoms disappear.
By the way, I love your newsletter. You go girl! We’ll continue to do our part out here.
Christine
Sean Coleman
July 19, 2013 at 5:09 pm
I worked for a deadstock company in 1999 for a summer job in high school. They rendered euthanized animals, animals that had died of infection, animals who were ravaged by gangrene and even rotted, bloated animals that had been dead for days. All of this was collected, ground up and then picked up to be used by Pet food companies. This news is so pathetic. I witnessed a horse that had been euthanized with a lot of poison by a vet being rendered and used in pet food. The same companies that package and sell poison to pets are the ones using scare tactics and political bribery to scare the public into continuing to feed their pets poison. The biggest buyer of the rendered poison at the plant i worked at was Nestle. Nestle provides “nutritional” information to pretty much every veterinarian student in North American through company created “educational” material and is the largest donator to the UC Davis school of veterinary medicine who constantly releases studies proving how great purina dog “food” (processed poison)is. The world is a really screwed up place.
KAH
July 19, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Thank you Sean for having the courage and the truth to make this post. THIS revelation, reaching mainstream media, is the dirty little secret the PFI fears the most! It breaks all trust, cracks every carefully crafted image and message. It totally betrays all consumers’ best interests. What you state in one single paragraph would be enough substance for most any stinging expose outing a regular industry. So what I can’t understand is why more line workers won’t speak up as well even if anonyomously. There should be enough ex-workers out there to corroborate most any disgusting report. Unfortunately Nestle, Purina, P&G and the like, aren’t part of just “any” old industry. They are mega-corporations surviving through a culture of intimidation, fear, dishonesty and execute a monetary stranglehold over all that they touch. What an ironic crime it is, that the most beloved and loyal creatures enriching our lives today, have been sacraficed in the name of such corruption and greed. How can the people involved sleep at night? And ALL the people still buying Pedigree, Beneful and Ol’Roy (who I watched checking out at the stores just this very morning!) meaning the kind of people who this website tries to educate over and over …remain in such denial??
Sunny
July 19, 2013 at 5:13 pm
I agree with Christine about HPP on raw food. I expect there to be a certain amount of bacteria on my pet’s raw food. Raw meats with bacteria is expected as that is what balances the body-digestive system-and helps build a stronger immune. By using HPP you might as well throw an antibiotic in the mix as well.
The FDA is clueless about nutrition for pets as we have seen time and time again. What they are is a great resource for all the companies that want to get rid of their garbage and make a buck at our pet’s exspence.
Andrea
July 19, 2013 at 6:44 pm
For 12 years, I fed my late 14 year old cat, Casper, junk kibble. (I had to put him down a little over a month ago from kidney failure and/or cancer. I am devastated! He was my first cat. We had other cats over the years, but they were family pets. They didn’t live long either… Feline Leukemia took two, and the other just got sick and ran away at 5yrs.) Casper was fed Evo and Instinct kibble for about 2 years after I got him off the junk kibble, then raw for the final 6 months of his life. I’m convinced Friskies, Atta Cat, and Nutro poisoned him over the years. These ‘foods’ are very damaging to a cat’s digestive system, kidneys, and liver. Everyone I speak to disagrees with me. ‘He would have gotten sick anyway’, ‘He had bad genes’, etc. ugh!
Mary
July 20, 2013 at 7:14 pm
I’m convinced that the FDA would only take action like this if they a) need to look like they have our interests in mind, or b) they’d like to have more ‘weaponry’ to use against the raw diets? As far as pet food is concerned, I’ve never seen them do anything at all that really benefits our dear companions.
Marty Grosjean
July 21, 2013 at 2:16 pm
What is good about zero tolerance for salmonella in pet food? Pets can handle exposure to salmonella. As someone in the pet food industry, I can tell you that this zero tolerance policy is making everyone pay a lot more for their pet food than they otherwise would. And it means yet more processing of already over-processed products. Especially in raw food, which is the healthiest possible food to feed a pet, trying to eliminate all possible traces of salmonella is a ridiculous concept. Look through all the recalls related to salmonella and see if any of them resulted in adverse health consequences to pets – nope…