The third AAFCO meeting for human grade claims and defining feed grade took place yesterday (10/27/15). The feed grade discussion was heated….to say the least.
I try to leave emotion out of these reports to consumers, but this time…I can’t. With each of the three meetings that have taken place thus far, I leave the meeting shaking with anger. Yesterday’s meeting was true to form, I left literally shaking with anger and frustration. It is beyond words difficult to maintain composure and act professional during discussions like this – yesterday I struggled to maintain my composure.
The meeting began with further discussion on human grade. This all went rather smoothly. All in the group were relatively in agreement on the requirements for a pet food to make a human grade claim on the label. Those requirements are:
Each requirement must be met in order to make the human grade claim (on the pet food label and on the pet food website)…
- Human grade ingredients
- Human food certified manufacturing facility
- All ingredients and finished product(s) must be stored, handled, processed and transported according to human food regulation.
The discussion went to…can pet foods state ‘Made with Human Grade Ingredients’? Key word here is ‘with’.
‘With’ is a concern because existing pet food regulations state that when ‘with’ is used on a pet food label – such as ‘Made with Real Chicken’ – ‘with’ then means “the named ingredient must constitute at least 3% of the product weight exclusive of water”. In the label statement ‘Made with Real Chicken’ – 3% moisture removed of that pet food would be required to be chicken. So…the concern was in the statement ‘Made with Human Grade Ingredients’, could an (unscrupulous) manufacturer use only 3% human grade ingredients?
It was decided to remove the word ‘with’ from the future legal requirements. And understood by regulatory authorities that if ‘human grade’ was mentioned anywhere in any form on a pet food label, all requirements (in bullet points above) would need to be met. We agreed.
The discussion also included what font size should ‘human grade’ be allowed to be on the label. I shared that consumers want to see that human grade statement – what difference does it make what size the font is? Also, I shared that if a manufacturer has gone to the effort and expense to meet every legal requirement of human grade, isn’t it unfair to them to limit the size the human grade statement is?
They disagreed. The decision was made that the font size of the words ‘human grade’ will be required to be the same size as ‘intended use’ – such as the same size as the words “Dog Food” and/or “Cat Food” on the label.
The good news is that with this legal definition/requirement of human grade – pet food consumers will have the ability to hold manufacturers accountable for their claims. Such as: if a pet food tells you they use human grade ingredients – consumers will be in a position to ask ‘So you are saying that 100% of all ingredients including each supplement in this pet food is suitable for human consumption and that this pet food is made in a human food facility?’ If they company cannot answer ‘yes’ to these questions, you will know they were misleading you with their original statement (they use human grade ingredients).
No pet food will be able to honestly make a human grade claim unless 100% is human grade. If human grade meats are added into a pet food that includes feed grade supplements – the entire pet food will be considered feed grade. Human grade is all or nothing.
Now for the emotional part…feed grade.
First, here is the definition of feed grade that was proposed by AAFCO:
Feed Grade: Material shall be safe (or shall be made safe), nutritious and appropriately handled and labeled for the intended use in making specific species(s) animal food. This includes human grade materials if labeled with an animal food label.
Dr. Jean Hofve and I disagreed with the above definition.
For starters – especially for those unaware – FDA openly allows “diseased animals” and “animals that have died other than by slaughter” into pet food. Any rejected for use in human food animal – such as a cow that died in the field and laid there for days – is welcome into pet food. This material is considered ‘feed grade’.
In reference to the proposed definition, I told the committee “Diseased animals and animals that have died other than by slaughter and the words ‘safe’ and ‘nutritious’ don’t belong in the same sentence.”
The rendering industry representative stated ‘if it is cooked and all microorganisms are killed what’s left is fat and protein that is nutritious.’ He referred to my and Dr. Hofve’s concerns of this material as a “minor concern”. Dr. Hofve came prepared with a list of toxins that are not destroyed during rendering; bacterial toxins (endotoxins), fungal toxins, pharmaceutical drugs, chemical residues, GMO’s, Maillard Reaction products, and heavy metals. Dr. Hofve kept trying to tell them her list of toxins would not be resolved through rendering. She brought up cancer statistics in pets – she told them “animals are suffering”. (She was awesome!) They – AAFCO, FDA and the rendering industry representative kept saying these pet food ingredients are safe – and shared that us saying they aren’t “is a little unfair”.
So they asked us what we wanted as the definition of feed grade. Our definition was…
Definition of feed grade: Material that does not meet the legal requirements of food, including but not limited to inedible and/or condemned foods, diseased animal material and/or material from animals that have died other than by slaughter, and adulterated human food contaminated by filth, industrial chemicals or drug residues* (*with CVM pre-approval).
We told them this definition is honest. The rendering industry representative stated ‘this definition has no place for a minority opinion’. We shared there are millions of consumers who feel the same – that’s not minority. When Dr. Hofve made another comment to the safety of most pet foods (using rendered waste material) the rendering industry representative stated to her this definition is no place for this information, he gave her a sarcastic response stating she can just post her opinion on her website, that was good enough.
After a bit of silence, the committee (AAFCO) asked me ‘do you believe consumers will understand this definition of feed grade? (the first definition). I told them “no, not in the least. I feel consumers will be angry over this and justifiable so.”
Again the rendering industry representative chimed in stating it would be “ridiculous” to use our definition of feed grade. My emotions took over again, and I suggested to him (my own sarcastic response – couldn’t stop myself) that ‘ridiculous’ was his opinion and he can share that on his website.
Dr. Hofve and I both asked the committee and the rendering industry representative why hide behind a definition that does not clearly communicate to consumers the real material being used? We asked if they are so convinced diseased animals and dead livestock is the right thing to feed pets, say it in the definition. We did not suggest the rendered diseased animals and rendered dead animals should not be used, we just asked them to be honest about it through definitions. This would allow consumers to make their own choices – informed choices.
FDA chimed in at this point and asked if the definition of rendering needs to be changed. I responded with ‘for one, consumers don’t have access to pet food ingredient definitions. Two, ingredient definitions are not written in consumer language. And three, at the most recent AAFCO meeting we learned that all of the poultry ingredient definitions were not even accurate to what is being used in pet food. So yes – many ingredient definitions need to be rewritten.’
The feed grade discussion was ugly. Dr. Hofve and I firmly sitting on one side of the fence, and industry, AAFCO and FDA firmly sitting on the other side. I don’t know if we will ever come to an agreement.
So…I am asking all of you for input to provide back to this committee in two weeks when we meet (argue) again.
First – here are a few of the FDA Compliance Policies that are considered feed grade (what is allowed as feed grade in pet food)…
CPG Sec. 690.300 Canned Pet Food
This FDA Compliance Policy allows pet food to consist of “material from diseased animals or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter”.
CPG Sec. 675.400 Rendered Animal Feed Ingredients
This FDA Compliance Policy also allows pet food/animal feed to consists of “material from animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter”. This includes dead livestock and euthanized animals.
CPG Sec. 675.200 Diversion of Adulterated Food to Acceptable Animal Feed Use
This FDA Compliance Policy allows foods with “pesticide contamination”, “contamination by industrial chemicals”, “contamination by natural toxicants”, “contamination by filth”, “microbiological contamination”, and “over tolerance or unpermitted drug residues” to be used as a feed ingredient.
Knowing just some of what is allowed as ‘feed grade’, do you as a pet food consumer understand and agree with this proposed definition…
Feed Grade: Material shall be safe (or shall be made safe), nutritious and appropriately handled and labeled for the intended use in making specific species(s) animal food. This includes human grade materials if labeled with an animal food label.
Please post your comments below and they will be shared with the committee.
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
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 3000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2015 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
Ava
October 28, 2015 at 2:47 pm
I don’t want ANYTHING in my pet’s food that I would not eat myself. Period.
Marie
October 28, 2015 at 2:55 pm
Beautifully said – succinct and powerful! I agree! And I add, feed food animals well; we are what we eat. Labeling rules really make things difficult. On purpose I’m sure.
Dianne
October 28, 2015 at 3:29 pm
You are so right, this is my Monsanto and their ilk fight so hard to stop any attempts to require food to be labelled as GMO. Look at how hard the tobacco industry fought to keep warnings off their packages, etc.
Sherrie Ashenbremer
October 28, 2015 at 3:34 pm
I agree with you
Jeti
October 28, 2015 at 5:09 pm
Agreed. This is a verbal sleight of hand. If they truly believe this is nutritious and safe, they should have no trouble or qualms about clearly and openly declaring the source of the ingredients. Let them put their money where their mouths are. Time to put up or shut up. Declining to do so speaks volumes about their motivations and fears and what they KNOW the public will reject. Truth in marketing. Nothing less is acceptable.
Marie
October 28, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Wow Susan!!! You are amazing. Great on the human grade issue! How on earth do I comment on the feed grade?! No wonder you were angry. That makes quite a few of us angry with these idiots. The definition of feed grade that they make is very cryptic and non-disclosing of what’s really going on. I don’t agree with the definition of feed grade. It lets them get away with murder. I understand the definition because I got the details from you. It’s way too vague. Consumers demand full disclosure! And quite frankly, the intended use of such so-called “made to be safe nutrition” is a joke. Do any of these people have an IQ above 70? Would THEY eat and consider nutritious what they’re trying to pass off on consumers? I’m sorry – I’m angry too! God bless you!
Deanna McKinney
October 28, 2015 at 2:54 pm
The current definition of “feed grade” is not acceptable. Consumers have the right to know what we’re feeding our pets. They are a big part of our family. They are our babies. We want the best for them and cannot make the best decisions for them if we don’t know what is truly in their food. THEY ARE NOT YOUR WASTE RECEPTICLES. THEIR BODES ARE NOT YOUR DUMPING GROUND. THEY ARE NOT HERE TO MAKE YOU RICH OFF YOUR WASTE. Consumers deserve and have the right to honest information about what we are feeding our family members. No consumer wants dishonest labeling. The current definition is dishonest to consumers, it’s only what you want. Be honest!
Christine Ballenger
October 28, 2015 at 2:57 pm
I would be appalled to learn that food I had trustingly purchased (from what I thought was a reputable company) might contain rendered animals that were diseased or had died from something other than slaughtering. Not only would I be appalled, I would be furious!
Jackie Hastings
October 28, 2015 at 2:58 pm
I disagree with (Feed grade) as having any contamination what so ever. This should never be allowed.we have too much contamination.The thing that makes me very angry is the way they word things to cover up the ingredients.Have them eat rendered food
Linda Smith
October 28, 2015 at 3:06 pm
This is disgusting, I understand that the industry is trying to make as much money as possible but at what cost. I DO NOT WANT my dogs eating “material from animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter” this is such a no brainer for me that I just find it impossible to comprehend how the FDA can’t see it. Say what it is and let us decide if we want to use it, if you are so confident that the public wouldn’t care then where’s your argument. Because you know that we DO care, most of us anyway and we don’t want your crap. I find it hard to believe that pet owners if they knew wouldn’t agree. YOU EAT IT!
gary poggemoeller
October 28, 2015 at 3:14 pm
If I cant eat it, I dont want it in my pet food
Margaret
October 28, 2015 at 3:16 pm
OMG. Keep up the fight for all. It continues to amaze me that corporations continue to think that they can continue to hide behind LIES. People are waking up, & going a more natural way, in our own lives as well as are pets. Thus I feed RAW & grow my own veggies. I also tell ALL my Pet Sitting clients & Dog Training clients what is REALLY in a bag of dog food. Educate ALL
Dean
October 28, 2015 at 3:18 pm
Unfortunately Susan you may have played directly into the hands of the FDA on the ‘human grade’ process for raw pet foods… In order for a product to be made in a ‘human grade facility’ it MUST be human edible, consequently any product containing ground bone in it is declared ‘inedible’ and not allowed…
So any raw pet food company looking to establish themselves as producing a raw frozen pet food to the ‘human grade standard’ is automatically denied. The problem is that without the capability to be inspected to that standard the cost of compliance is not valuable.
Unless they are going to make an allowance for that issue, it will be a set back for the raw products.
Susan Thixton
October 28, 2015 at 3:37 pm
With this issue, we step into another whole mess of pet food regulations. What FDA considers food grade pet food and what we can get USDA to consider food grade pet food. This topic was touched on slightly as well because USDA will not come to the table for these discussions. USDA also never attends AAFCO meetings. USDA has jurisdiction of meat – FDA has jurisdiction over pet food. If the ‘meat’ (and bone) is going to pet food directly from a USDA verified human grade facility to pet food – USDA is refusing to state the meat (and bone) is human grade…all because it is going to pet food and they say it is FDA’s jurisdiction. And then to add insult to injury, USDA requires that even human grade meat heading to pet food is denatured. It is not an easy task to get human grade meat that is not denatured (and the denaturing agent used is totally dependent on the USDA personally requiring it – nothing is set in stone). USDA has their own pet food verification system – but – and this is a big but – they allowed adulterated ingredients into their approved pet foods. It is a maddening system we have to muddle through.
Leannan
October 29, 2015 at 5:15 pm
I shouldn’t have read this article and started reading the comments when I’m as tired as I am. Now I’m too pissed off to sleep, but too tired to make (exact) sense of the whole required denaturing aspect, and what it ‘means’ to the smaller frozen raw and freeze-dried ‘raw’ brands I am currently feeding.
Is the meat used by most small (for now, until they sell out or get an ‘investment partner’ =(sell out) companies that make raw pet food adulterated in some way. Meaning, it really isn’t ‘human grade’ in the way consumers interpret the meaning of ‘human grade’?$$$
I just looked at the two raw frozen products I have in my freezer, one bag has the statement “Not for Human Food” the other product has no such statement.
What (else) have I been missing in my vetting of better quality, more species appropriate (cat) food.
I know the comments will come, about making their food myself
The biggest obstacle is the initial cost to purchase all the supplements (China taurine still a problem? I don’t remember. My head is still spinning) additives, raw meat , grinder (that’s just not possible, even used)
Secondly, I barely feed myself most days, but my cats are fed and their litter boxes cared for to a better standard than most.
The percentage of my fixed income spent on feeding my cats is ridiculously large, but I’m traumatized by the death of my first cat, because Wellness did a voluntary recall (hush hush, under the radar) instead of warning the public. OVER A MILLION CANS WERE SILENTLY PULLED OFF THE SHELVES. Statistically that would have to have put many (other) cats in danger as well. I had just bought 3 cases and wasn’t online, then. PetCo didn’t bother to use their data collection information to call and warn, ANYONE!
Two years before, when he asked me if I would care for him, and care about him, the only thing I knew about cats was that they were obligate carnivores, so I didn’t feed him kibble, (corn, food dye etc.)
When I told him I would (always) love him, and would always take care of him, I didn’t realize the odds were (knowing) stacked against my being able to keep that second promise.
Susan Thixton
October 29, 2015 at 5:23 pm
Many of us here understand your feelings and your fears. With the statement ‘Not for human food’ – FDA and State Department of Agricultures are responsible for that one. I don’t quite understand their thinking, but they encourage raw pet food (mostly) to put this statement on the label. With denaturing – just ask each company you purchase from. ‘Do you purchase meats that have been denatured?’ I wish I had a better response for you – but for now, it is about all we can do.
Leannan
October 30, 2015 at 3:52 am
I appreciate your reply. I’m just frustrated, that after all the time and effort I’ve put in over the last 4 years, I still managed to miss, or not assimilate, a HUGE, important piece of information.
Thank You for all you do on our behalf.
Learning how to, and then actually setting up a Paypal account, is on my list this month, so I can contribute financially more often, instead of having a friend use their account and then paying them back.
Dianne
October 28, 2015 at 3:43 pm
Currently, it is allowed to sell sardines, and canned salmon with bone included. Any raw meat we by off the shelf usually has bone in it, We can buy pigs feet, tail and other yucky sounding things as food for ourselves. So while what you say is possible, it may not be a problem, but it should be clarified.
B Dawson
October 28, 2015 at 4:11 pm
One raw food company I sold in my store (I won’t mention their name so I won’t tip off regulators) didn’t label their food as pet food. It was slaughtered and processed in human grade facilities, came in meat only, meat & organ blends and meat & veg blends. They also marketed a ground bone product. Nowhere on the package did it say “pet food” or “not for human consumption”, it did carry safe handling warnings. This smallish company had limited distribution so maybe that’s how they got away with it.
A human grade facility has as much to do with construction – stainless steel counters, sinks and separation of species processed – as with the ingredients that come in. I wonder if a facility that doesn’t actually process anything for humans might be able to get a pass if the bone is from approved for human consumption animals. Or it may be time for a separate certification process to be created so that ground bone is acceptable.
Marie
October 29, 2015 at 1:33 pm
Yes! Both an astute observation from Dean and a great solution to create a separate certification process! The more I’ve thought about this, the more convinced I am that we need to completely eliminate “feed grade.” It’s not food.
As to the animals obtained by means other than slaughter, my God! Feed grade supports our cruel factory farming system. It also ruins the meat for consumption by any body – we most certainly do not want our furry ones eating it! And euthanized animals were probably someone’s pet. Their sweet bodies deserve burial. The concept of feed grade is disgusting and does not deserve further attention.
To give it further attention is like trying to define this: One bucket of pesticides, one bucket of excess hormones & pesticides, twelve buckets of feces, and a bucket of drugs and diseased flesh. There is NO WAY to define this as ANY grade of “food.”
Cheryl Mallon-Bond
October 28, 2015 at 4:18 pm
Dean—-An astute observation! These bas***** will use every loophole to hang raw food manufactures. So, what then is the answer to the definition issue? Anyone have ideas about that?
Gail Jordon
October 28, 2015 at 3:19 pm
I personally will not feed my pets anything that is not human grade food. I do not trust the large pet food companies and will only use organic foods in which all ingredients are organic and not ‘feed’ grade and are not processed in China. It cost more but vet bills cost a great deal more than great food.
Janet Velenovsky
October 28, 2015 at 3:21 pm
First, many thanks to you and Dr. Hofve for your continued diligence on behalf of pets and their owners. I am exceptionally grateful to both of you for fighting this hypocrisy and self-centered greed.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY euthanized animals should EVER be allowed into pet food – no matter the “definition”. Poisons are used to euthanize animals, and no pet owner wants their own healthy pet to consume even a small amount of that substance, nor of the heavy metals or other toxins that are currently allowed. NEVER. EVER. NO WAY. The FDA has an absolute responsibility to non-industry citizens to make any definitions crystal clear, to craft very frank and honest language that the average pet owner can understand, and to make it possible for any pet owner — from six to ninety-six — to make informed decisions for their beloved companions. ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT TRUE DEFINITIONS AND CLEAR COMMUNICATION IS DERELICT IN ITS DUTY.
Successful commercial endeavors in the US typically are based on supply and demand. If there is no demand for pet food OR pet feed that includes toxins, harmful chemicals, or sub-grade ingredients, then that category should cease to exist. The US public is clearly demanding more information about where their food comes from, and we want the same regarding our pets’ foods. I call on the FDA to take ALL steps to label and identify clearly what ingredients are included and how they are handled and processed.
Thank you.
Sherrie Ashenbremer
October 28, 2015 at 3:39 pm
Well said
Christine Palmer
October 28, 2015 at 3:21 pm
This STINKS worse than the food they allow to be used in “Pet Grade” formulations.
Their “definition” is a bald face lie with absolutely no possible ethical or moral defense. Yours is clear and lays out the dangers involved in pet grade food. The primary concern of AAFCO and the FDA is to make it easy for the large pet food companies to keep increasing profits. They’re not interested in the health or well-being of the animals and are totally in the pockets of the corporations. However, if they believe so strongly in the safety of what they’re doing, why are they so afraid to use the true definition? Because they know exactly what they’re doing and I wonder how many of these people actually fed their pets this dreck.
Please keep fighting for your accurate label that tells the truth! I understand how hard it is. You may not win but if it’s on record, can’t they be sued for false advertising?
Labels should be in clear, common English. NOT AAFCO and FDA speak that actively works to obstruct understanding. Their label sounds so reassuring and benign — unfortunately the reality doesn’t match the label. In most of society, other than government, politics and big business, that’s defined as lying.
I will now step off my soap box.
Dianne
October 28, 2015 at 3:21 pm
At the very least, this should be removed “This includes human grade materials if labeled with an animal food label.” To me this is nothing but an attempt to deceive consumers and frankly an admission on their part that their filfth would not sell if consumers really understood what feed grade means. If they insist that they must keep that phrase then they should also include a may include drug residues phrase. Just one of the many should get the point across.
Clearly their entire effort is to get FDA approval to lie to consumers.
To shift to a slightly different topic: About using grocery store garbage, if they won’t separate out the wrappings, then I very much doubt that they will filter out the onions, macadamia nuts, xylitol, raisins, grapes etc. that are known to be toxic to dogs. Obviously there is still the issue of the toxins from the moldy food.
If I understand, if a feed claims to be made with real eggs, then potentially it could include 3% rotted, spoiled eggs?
Dianne
October 28, 2015 at 3:25 pm
Also, aspartame turns into a toxin if heated and so do some pesticides.
Marie
October 29, 2015 at 1:38 pm
Yes! Aspartame turns into formaldehyde at 80 degrees. I bought a protein powder from a health food store and returned it for that reason, since our bodies are around 98.6 degrees. And yes again! If the FDA wants to label euthanasia drugs as a class 4 controlled substance, it should certainly not be part of any food! They can’t have it both ways.
Dianne
October 28, 2015 at 3:32 pm
If they complain about the cost off including the drug residue statement, point out to them that they could save the same amount by not printing “This includes human grade materials if labeled with an animal food label.”
B Dawson
October 28, 2015 at 3:28 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with the definition you and Dr. Hofve are proposing. There is no reason whatsoever to not use language that is simple, descriptive and straightforward in defining any government regulated product.
Those of us who have been working to educate consumers would have a definition in plain english to support what we have been saying for decades. Consumers have the right to make choices, but they cannot make the best possible choice if information is lacking or presented in subjective terms. “Safe” is a word that will be defined according to an individual’s perception and knowledge. Jargon used by a particular discipline is not necessarily defined the same by persons not in that field.
I have for 23 years been educating consumers about pet food quality, yet people STILL react with gasps and incredulity when I talk about the 3D/4D meat or the spoiled grains that are allowed for use in their pet’s food. Consumers assume that whole fresh food is being ground up and put in that can or bag, in no small part because labels present that imagery. Many in the pet food industry would rather perpetuate that illusion than have their ingredients fairly described. Some consumers may choose to feed by-products or rendered diseased beef to their pet; those of who believe this is not nutritious should have the information we need to avoid it.
From here on, Susan, my comments are to you only:
Changing the definition will still not be reflected on the label of any pet food. Consumers will only see that definition if they go digging into documents. I realize that changes must happen incrementally, especially with grumpy entrenched companies wielding too much influence over regulators. Too much too fast and they will dig in their heels and completely shut down. But looking forward, perhaps ingredients should eventually be listed as, for instance, “feed grade chicken” instead of “chicken”. This would align the ingredient more closely with by-produces and digests and perhaps trigger concern in consumers.
Susan Thixton
October 28, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Your comment to me…that is our hope for the future! We have our eyes on this target.
Marie
October 29, 2015 at 1:53 pm
Another total agreement with B. Dawson – great points! I just want to comment that I have stopped people at pet stores, telling them the label on their food is a lie. They don’t want to believe it. They look at their package, the pretty picture, recheck the label, and that’s what they believe. I insist that the label is lying, so they conclude something else other than it’s purely a lie. Denial and apathy. And OMG at the number of people who react in horror and get mad to learn the truth. People love their complacency, and I’m grateful for our advocates and all of us who support them!
JoAnne Rogers
October 28, 2015 at 3:31 pm
There are very few pet foods on the market that I will feed to my dogs. They will eat as healthily as I do. The definition of “feed grade” as defined currently is unacceptable as it is deceptive. Be honest enough to put what is going into that bag or can and see if the public thinks that is right. I think they will vote with their feet as they run away from such practices.
I am appalled that the very agencies that are put in place to protect us are in bed with the manufacturers who are deceiving us. For shame.
CAROL
October 28, 2015 at 3:36 pm
My cats live in my home. Sit on my furniture. Sleep in my bed. Browse my countertops. I groom them. Pet them. Hug them. Kiss them. We interact constantly. I don’t want them eating anything I wouldn’t want to eat. I make my home a healthy, safe environment for my human family and my feline family. I want my cats to eat healthy, safe foods. Not dead, sick, diseased, contaminated garbage. Keep up the good work Susan!
Wanda Priesemann
October 28, 2015 at 3:47 pm
Susan, your amazing, I share everything you post, and I’m thankful for your tireless efforts to hold the FDA accountable.
As it sits, you put beautiful pictures on pet food which is a fraudulent at best,to trick consumers into believing they are buying high quality food. Now if you posted the actual pictures of what really is in your pet food with definition of ” feed grade” which is the truth, millions of animal lovers would revolt as they would realize that this pet food companies are really no different than China. You don’t want to tell the truth because the FDA’s credibility will be shredded to pieces. Why are certain businesses held to a higher standard, charged with misrepresentation or Fraud because what’s in the product, or the fact it’s not real. Why should I trust anything backed by the FDA when you lie to benefit the biggest profit/company. No one I have ever known had any idea, what really goes into pet food.
I want REAL HEALTHY FOOD, for all animals .. Including the ones we eat! No wonder were all dying of cancer..
Cheryl Mallon-Bond
October 28, 2015 at 4:03 pm
I STRONGLY! disagree with the FDA, AAFCO, & the Rendering Co’s about their terms of what “feed grade” ingredients can contain. It is a blatant attempt to be decietful to the public about exactly what is in the pet “feed” products that are on the market being sold every day to unsuspecting consumers.
The description offered by Consumer Pet Food Advocates, Dr. Jean Hofve and Susan Thixton are proper and correct descriptions of what is EXACTLY in pet “feed”. These descriptions make it clear about what exactly is in the products being sold and allow consumers to make an informed decision based on these proper and correct descriptions.
If the FDA, or AAFCO, or pet “feed” manufacturer’s believe that these pet “feed” ingredients are supposedly safe for consumption for pets, than WHY would you all be in disagreement to the terms proposed by Dr. Hofve and Susan Thixton? It is, after all, exactly what the ingredients are!
You are all dillusional believing that the terminology proposed by Dr.Hofve and Susan Thixton about what pet “feed” ingredients are, do not reflect what will help consumers understand the differences in pet “food” and “pet feed”, helping to make an educated decision when making our consumer purchases. If any of you believe otherwise, than it is YOUR opinion and NOT the facts, nor the truth. Dr. Hofve and Susan Thixton are representing the unequivocal majority of consumer’s opinions and wants, not the minority as you all seem to think.
A special note to AAFCO: I feel that your agency is very misleading in what your role is playing in helping consumers decipher information to make informed consumer choices. Your disagreeing to the terminology of pet “feed” ingredients proposed by Dr.Hofve and Susan Thixton, makes it very clear that your loyalties are in the wrong place. The AAFCO “seal of approval”, if you will, makes it seems to us, that your role is to be an advocate for the consumer, and stand for what we want, what will help us, and not to appease industry, (the pet “feed” manufacturer’s, and the Rendering Co’s, If your role IS to protect the consumer, than you will agree on the terminology that Dr.Hofve and Susan Thixton have proposed, because it is a true, fair and accurate description of what the ingredients are in pet “feed” ingredients.
Consumers have the right to clear and accurate legal definitions of pet “feed” and “food” in order to make educated decisions in regards to our purchasing power. The definitions proposed by industry does NOT reflect what is in the best interest of consumers, plain and simple. It is ONLY what is in the best interest of industry, period.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Mallon-Bond
Jill Copenhagen-Greenan
October 28, 2015 at 4:06 pm
I knew pet food wasn’t good, but didn’t appreciate how totally ghastly it is. Our dog eats pretty much what we eat, except for a few carefully selected puppy cookies. Bone comes from our food. My sister’s 11 year old dog is now as frisky as her cousin since her diet has been changed. Took a few years to regain health she never actually had. Unless pet food is upgraded and the labels changed to reflect the change, we will never buy “pet” food.
Teresa Johnson
October 28, 2015 at 4:09 pm
I have to agree with Ava and others – if I wouldn’t eat it don’t put it in my pet foods.
Ingredients lists should be in simple easy to understand language and honest. If a less then human grade ingredient is used, simply say so. As for GMO’s, there is more than enough scientific and medical information linking GMO’s to allergies, asthma, cancers and other health issues in humans. It is idiotic to think there is any less risk for our pets and other animals.
sigh. Why is it only the really caring makers of any product go to the lengths to make sure their labels are clear, concise and honest? Why can this not be the way for all?
And another “food for thought” point – Once upon a time there was talk of many humans resorting to eating canned pet foods due to financial situations. Not too long ago a dear friend of mine, a senior citizen, was asked by a cashier if everything was OK with her as she purchased large quantities of chicken baby food. The cashier wondered if she was resorting to baby food as her staple protein source. In truth she purchased it for a special needs pet hedgehog. Nice that a cashier has more genuine concern than the industry providing food sources. But what if there are humans still consuming pet foods because of financial problems? Wouldn’t you think the industry folks – FDA, AAFCO, rendering and others – want to do good by all?!
Alida
October 28, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Bless you, Susan, for your extraordinary perseverance with this critical issue…
I wish the Committee would recognize that consumers don’t appreciate deliberate concealment and obfuscation. The proposed definition of “Feed Grade” is not just vague but seriously misleading and potentially dangerous. “Feed Grade” should be clearly defined, using language from the FDA’s Compliance Policy Guides. For example:
“Feed Grade: Material may come from diseased or euthanized animals, or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter. Ingredients may have been exposed to microbiological contamination and/or contamination by pesticides, industrial chemicals, natural toxicants, filth, and drug residues.”
(I would add: “Products labeled feed-grade should be handled in accordance with FDA’s safety recommendations.”)
Debra Long
October 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Hi Susan, I read your articles all the time and are grateful for all the information you share with all of us. I am the owner of a small dog food company. All of our base-mix foods are made with human food ingredients, every ingredient. That being said, I cannot label our foods as human grade, human quality or anything the like because I am a small independent company without the big dollars to build a human grade commercial kitchen. Never the less, our ingredients are all human food ingredients bought from the same suppliers that makes soups etc. So what does a small company like ours to do? Seems to me there should be something we can say that indicates our ingredients are human grade ingredients, however manufactured and packaged for canine consumption.
Susan Thixton
October 28, 2015 at 8:10 pm
For now Debra – we have to get this human grade definition passed as is – requiring that human grade ingredient pet foods/treats are manufactured in a human food plant. Once this is done, perhaps we can address your concerns – as I do believe there are more of you out there and consumers deserve to know who you are. One step at a time.
B Dawson
October 30, 2015 at 11:40 am
Debra,
Knowing that some raw food companies have a very cooperative spirit, is there a chance they might allow you to buy time at their human-grade manufacturing facilities? You’re probably paying someone now to process your formulas, so why not put that money into the pockets of folks who are like-minded?
Most of the commercial food is co-packed at large plants, so maybe it’s time for the raw food industry to form their own co-packing co-op.
Brenda
October 28, 2015 at 4:25 pm
Many thanks, Susan and Dr. Hofve, for fighting the good fight for petsumers. The proposed definition for human grade food is a tremendous improvement. Let’s get that passed and fight the frozen food battle later, lest we lose what has been gained in the human grade area. The feed grade definition as proposed is ludicrous. Dr. Hofve provided more than enough evidence that the garbage allowed under the Compliance Policy can NOT be made safe, rendering the definition completely invalid. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist with multiple degrees to recognize that this definition is not guaranteeing the safety of pet feed at all.
Kathryn
October 28, 2015 at 4:48 pm
I do not want any ingredient in a product intended for dog/cat consumption to be any less than what is available for me to purchase at a local green grocer or butcher shop, including any supplements. I do read labels, and I do understand what they mean ( or don’t mean! ). The USDA and FDA needs to stop lying to the consumer about the source, process and quality (‘human grade’ / USDA Approved for human consumption ) of the raw materials, and the FDA should do likewise with the finished products.
Susan K. Smith
October 28, 2015 at 4:52 pm
I own a pet supply store. I sell pet food. I talk this talk every day with” pet parents”. This is the new term, not “pet owners”. Would any parents feed garbage if there was a choice? According to yourdictionary.com “the definition of garbage is waste to be thrown out or anything worthless or offensive. An example of garbage is a plate of rotting food. 1. Food wastes as from a kitchen. 2. A place or a receptacle where rubbish is discarded.”
A large much awaited new supermarket opened two weeks ago in our area. One of their managers came into my store to buy his pet food and during his visit told of the wonderful way they are collecting their unsaleable food items for pick up. There was pride in this description of being “green” yet he must think or know otherwise because he buys premium food from me for his cats. I’m sure they sell rendered cat food.
Diane Ethridge
October 28, 2015 at 4:53 pm
If this isn’t corrected to make “Human Grade” as is stated and not a tiny portion human grade and the rest dangerous trash, it won’t be purchased by me. I’m tired of having to spend hours on the computer looking up the ingredients of different brands to try to find the safest food with a reasonable price. We are retirees and can’t afford the best of the best but these are our babies! We will do without ourselves in order to keep our beloved pets safe and healthy. Their love and devotion keeps us going and we intend to do the same for them. They depend on us and we refuse to let them down. Please stop putting the “bottom line” in front of everything else and do the right, honest and trustworthy thing to keep the innocent ones safe. You are also hurting yourselves if you don’t.
Valerie Noyes
October 28, 2015 at 4:58 pm
This makes me so angry. Please tell “them” that not all consumers of pet FOOD are as stupid as they seem to think we are. At this point, they are the ones looking pretty damn stupid. Many of us regular consumers are now watching not only our pet’s food but our own food very closely and we look upon those that would ply us with chemicals, GMO, adulterated and otherwise poor quality ingredients with contempt. I eat non-gmo, organic, non-processed real food and so do my 3 dogs. It’s expensive and I don’t care. I refuse to eat, or feed my dogs, garbage.
Nancy
October 28, 2015 at 5:12 pm
I disagree with the AAFCO definition as it masks the truth. It is not a definition that would allow a consumer to understand the actual contents of the food. With requirements elsewhere being so strong for full disclosure it is very upsetting that a body such as AAFCO is not willing to disclose the facts.
Gitta
October 28, 2015 at 5:13 pm
Well, how about asking the rendering industry to provide studies that provide unbiased proof that these ingredients are in fact safe? Just because one rep has an opinion means less than diddlysquat.
Of course they don’t want people to know. For the same reason consumers are being kept from knowing if their food contains GMO (and tons of herbicides). They do know that many consumers will read the label and put that toxic junk right back on the shelf.
OK – so how about the same approach as for milk: a voluntary statement on the label as to what is NOT being used. Works for milk and growth hormones, why not for pet food? Human foods are stating on the label that they don’t use high fructose corn syrup (consumers don’t want it).
Pet food manufacturers can use their websites to translate the definitions and make it clear to consumers that they do not use these ingredients. That should make the rendering rep happy, right?
If it is impossible to go through the front door, maybe push for a legal backdoor. One day the front door might become a reality, but in the meantime we may have to settle for a backdoor.
Bonnie Kikl
October 28, 2015 at 5:17 pm
I agree with you and Dr. hove. The ingredients they advocate are disgusting and will surely make loved pets sick or dead
Jean-Pierre Ruiz
October 28, 2015 at 5:25 pm
Dear Committee Members:
Why is this even up for discussion? Would you feed this “edible food” to yourself or your kids? Why are you feeding it to an animal that, even the pet food industry, admits is a “member of the family”? FDA and AAFCO have been given a list of toxins that are NOT eliminated/destroyed/eradicated (whatever term you wish to use) by processing the “food” ingredients. Should that not be the end of the discussion? AAFCO, FDA and the pet “food” industry’s position is reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s position that smoking was not deleterious to the smokers’ health! Or the diesel industry advocating that diesel fumes were not harmful to health!
Moreover, the industry is not being asked not to use these ingredients. They’re simply being asked to inform the consumers that they are doing so.
I know “common sense” is not all that common. But this should be a no-brainer if it wasn’t for the industry’s attempt to maintain their cash flows the health of our pets be damned!
Need I remind this committee that, at the last committee, a pet food representative openly stated that these ingredients would harmful to the environment if dumped into a local landfill. How could they then not be harmful to our pets?
Sincerely, Jean-Pierre Ruiz, Esq.
Marie
October 29, 2015 at 1:55 pm
Bravo!!!! Extremely well written!! Thank you!
darcy flynn
October 28, 2015 at 5:26 pm
I do not understand or agree with their proposed definition. It is not clearly defined! I’ve lost 8 of our dogs to cancer. EIGHT! I want to know!
Holly
October 28, 2015 at 5:27 pm
First, let’s acknowledge that the FDA is controlled by politics, remains an organization of federal bloat and choses to remain impotent in terms of exercising the power of the agency. I’ve seen the same actions in human healthcare. Second, with the exception of you and Dr. Hofva, the members of AAFCO are the “foxes running the henhouse.” It’s a puzzle how this organization has such control rather than recommendations to another group that makes the final decisions on terminology, ingredients and labeling. It verges on criminal to allow this group to continue. Definition and ingredients for domestic and feed animals SHOULD be based on reliable, valid research that has a significant “N” for the studies. The standards SHOULD be defined by veterinary professionals, preferably those that have achieved board certification as veterinary nutritionists and representatives from the veterinary holistic membership as Dr. Jean Hoffa. I’ve for years been concerned with the actual involvement of the industry veterinarians that are being paid by the manufacturers. Certainly the knowledge that Dr. Hofva presented on the rendering process SHOULD be known by those veterinarians. We have significant studies in both veterinary and human health that provide data that disputes the AAFCO claims, PERIOD!
Additionally, the general public of pet owners is unaware of AAFCO beyond notation on a can/bag label or the interface with FDA, the latter “in their face” of human healthcare and not our furry family members. IMHO the ONLY remediation to these issues if to have you soldier on and for those of us that do know you to figure out additional marketing methods to make these issues national news. I would suggest that if the facts that you present from this meeting alone reported on CNN or one of the other journalism sites, to include PBS Newshour, that there would be greater pressure put on this corrupt industry that has projected ingredient growth of 4.5% for 2015 – 2020, which today is values @29.9 billion. http://bit.ly/1MUymtr
Thank you and Jean Hove, DVM SO much for your continued focus on this unconscionable issue.
Jude Gagner
October 29, 2015 at 12:03 pm
My husband and I wholeheartedly agree with you and what the others are saying. There is no excuse for the agencies that were originally designed to protect consumers, and those we love and care for, to be opposed to providing, in layman’s language, clear and important information – unqualified, integral and valid need-to-know information – that would protect us from poor quality or dangerous ingredients in our food or in our pets’ food. We were naive when first becoming dog owners, but we have done our homework and do not and will not ever again feed our beloved pets food that is unsafe to consume.
I believe that lobbying to buy the votes of various committee members to continue to provide unsafe products and food is against all that our country ought to stand for. “Truth in advertising!” ought to mean more than a slogan used to deceive the unsuspecting public and fill the pockets of big industry.
Boyhous
October 28, 2015 at 5:28 pm
Susan why can’y you be the head of the FDA and AAFCO because you are one person who DOES care and tells the TRUTH. Your definition is straight forward and easy to understand..it’s the TRUTH. ..period.
Susan Thixton
October 28, 2015 at 8:12 pm
I think FDA and AAFCO members would have a stoke if I was in charge. I’d be willing, but I doubt they would be.
Marie
October 29, 2015 at 1:46 pm
I couldn’t agree more!! Well said! HOW DO WE GET OUR MESSAGE OUT TO THE WORLD? We all need to spread the word, get more people on board and supporting Susan financially and with their votes. And Yes! I vote for Susan being in charge of the FDA and AAFCO! Let them have a stroke – good riddance! 🙂
Carla
October 28, 2015 at 5:33 pm
I understand the definition, but I do not agree with it. Firstly, the word “safe” does not mean to me “containing medications, heavy metals, fungal toxins,” etc.
Maybe I spoke too soon about understanding, because I am confused about the food grade ingredients becoming “feed grade” when a label is placed on it. This does seem that a manufacturer could claim their 97% feed grade and 3% food grade was “human food grade.”
Thank you for all your work and time in this important undertaking.
Susan Thixton
October 28, 2015 at 8:14 pm
No to 97% feed grade and 3% food grade. Food grade has to be 100% food grade. Even the slightest bit of feed grade makes the whole product feed grade.
Arlene Dennistoun
October 28, 2015 at 5:38 pm
As a life long pet owner and consumer, I am disgusted by the pet food and rendering industries, the AAFCO and FDA. It’s insulting and egregious to be so dishonest in labeling and defining feed grade for consumers who are begging to be well informed. Why the resistance to transparency and truth? If consumers don’t care, or lack the resources to pay more for quality food, that doesn’t mean all consumers who have the right to know the truth, should have to go through lengthy research to find it. The truth should be on the label. Period. I disagree and do not accept the proposed feed grade definition (Material shall be safe or shall be made safe, nutritious and appropriately handled and labeled for the intended use in making specific species(s) animal food. This includes human grade materials if labeled with an animal food label.)
It’s absolutely repulsive to allow, and not to inform consumers, that sick, dying and euthanized animals and food contaminated by pesticides, industrial chemicals, microbiological and natural toxicants and unpermitted drug residues are used as feed ingredients for our pets. Safe and nutritious as a proposed definition is laughable at best; dishonest and greedy more appropriate. Please be mindful of the power of the consumer.
Arlene Dennistoun
Dawn Grace
October 28, 2015 at 5:43 pm
They are so deceptive… Long ago before I opened my eye’s and mind to what was going on in the world of dog food, I believed that Purina, Hills, RK etc. were good foods. Too this day I can’t believe I fed this toxic stuff to my beloved animals which now suffer from diabetes, CHF, Arthritis, Multiple Lympomas etc.
If I had known what they were actually putting into their food I would “NEVER” had fed this!! I would have made my own food. I believe there are so many people out there that would like to know but it doesn’t even cross their minds. I try to spread your word Susan as often as I can so people know what is in dog food.
My fur kids only get human grade raw foods now… Nothing less!!
Wouldn’t it be great to hand out flyers with this stuff written on it… What an eye opener that would be!!!
Anthony Hepton
October 28, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Sounds like the start of a good fight Susan, but I am afraid that at some point they will declare that the consumers have no standing in this debate.
The key component is this discussion is the position taken by the renderers, they want to sell what they make and we want them to make something safe before they sell it as an ingredient for pet food.
USDA, who oversees the meat side of the equation, has already published information that says rendered products contain endotoxins and these toxins cause illness and the pet food manufacturers do not test for endotoxins. FDA’s CPG Sec 675.400 states “Rendered animal feed ingredients which contain harmful microorganisms, TOXINS, or chemical substances may be considered adulterated under section 402(a)(1) or (2)of the act.” Let’s insist that they will consider these ingredients adulterated until they provide data that shows the products are safe and tolerances are established for these toxins, including endotoxins.
Johanna
October 28, 2015 at 7:07 pm
It is archaic that we still are given labels and food that disguise the thoroughly disgusting non-food that resides in these mislabeled ingredients. Then we spend thousands of dollars on our pets to try and save their lives after giving them love and the best care we possibly can for years only to find it was the food we were giving them all along that killed them. To hide what is actually in our pet’s food by deceitful mislabeling it so that consumers won’t know the truth has no other purpose than to attempt to sell us food that we would in no way willingly buy because we truly love our pet companions as members of our families. To not regulate and demand that they receive the same respect and ingredients that humans have, or at least let us be educated is an incredibly dishonest act and an attempt to keep the masses uneducated so that greed from despicable people is upheld. There is NO other reason other than the people making these laws have their pockets filled with payoffs to keep us ignorant. This is the reason I make my own pet food and will continue to help educate people. We will starve the bastards out by NOT buying this food if the laws don’t support healthy food for our loved ones-ALL of our loved ones!
Angie
October 28, 2015 at 7:21 pm
I would dearly love to buy an American product than Canadian. But as long as these guys have their way, Canadian, New Zealand, and Australian are the ones I buy.
Susan Sobel
October 28, 2015 at 7:23 pm
No, I do not approve of the industries’ (AAFCO, FDA, Rendering and Big Pet Food) definition which is allowed for Feed Grade, but I do understand it well. It is a cover-up. For them to use the correct and honest definition which was put by Susan Thixton and Dr. Hovre would turn the industry topsy-turvy. Consumers would demand higher quality processed pet foods and transparency in content. The pet food industry would lose business, and would have to make changes in order to stay in business, changes to the benefit of the animals their food is fed to. And that would cost them – their profits would be less. Rendering profits would be less. And because of that, while I truly wish they would make these changes, I don’t believe they will. It’s all about $$$$!
Susan Sobel
NRJ
October 28, 2015 at 7:25 pm
I continue to be appalled, disgusted, and disillusioned by most governmental agencies. I lost my beloved dog to cancer of the spleen at a young age. Can you imagine the heartbreak? I’m sure I killed him with the “food”.
And because I read the “labels”, can you imagine the guilt I feel?
Nora
October 28, 2015 at 7:38 pm
How do we stop these uncaring, cruel,misleading pet food manufacturers from putting garbage into their products? Boycott them all!? Start feeding our pets good, safe food that we make in our own kitchen? For so many it is not convenient. I do watch labels but most of them are very misleading. I try to feed my cat homemade when I can but sometimes it’s not convenient. I wonder what they feed their own pets when they know the truth about what’s in the can or bag? I bet they wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Thanks Susan for all the hard work you do. Keep it up!
Pam grimes
October 28, 2015 at 7:39 pm
I will continue making my three pups there food until the pet food is labeled 100% food grade and handled and sold in the food grade counters or freezers . The nuances of language will be pushed to the limit by their millionaire lawyers. They will make the label impossible to understand.
The food grade animal food should not be sold on a pet feed isle. Or the food grade section should be clearly designated just as gluten free and organic food is now. I would think a brand would want to be labeled as fit for humans and food grade. And display and sell in the food section.
If the company wants to continue making garbage and poison for pet feed let that section be clearly designated with the definition in plain view by the consumer.
This way no one is being forced to change their feed grade consumables. Having 2 sections for animal food and feed products will help the buyer to be educated by himself. They are now doing that in stores for gluten free food and organic food. Let the stores make the decision about their placement, but require them to have displayed on the isle in 1 inch letters this pet feed is not fit for humans and is feed grade.
This may be easier than trying to get the thousands of pet feed companies to agree to change their product. Just inform the buyer. Since we already have laws about people food they can be used by responsible pet food makers.
Pam grimes
October 28, 2015 at 7:43 pm
I wrote a long response and tried 8 times to post and it would not!
Dianne
October 28, 2015 at 9:24 pm
I feel your pain. This has happened to, not just on this site. I recommend composing a long post in notepad or wordpad then copying over. Then at least you haven’t lost the post if the internet hiccups.
Julie
October 28, 2015 at 7:44 pm
I do not agree with the proposed “feed grade” definition. It is, to the average consumer misleading and untruthful. When I say “average,” I am referring to the pet food industry’s targeted consumer base. Those of us, in the “minority” which are millions, are informed and educated through solid science based truth. If any of these millions are like me, I share the truth with anyone who has a pet and is feeding them rendered dangerous garbage. I seek to “flip” those consumers to a healthier informed way to feed their pets. I completely get the push back and sarcasm when it comes to truthful disclosure. Who in their right mind would buy this trash if you were forced to be honest about the ingredients? The potential loss of revenue could be staggering. Bottom line for me and millions of other pet owners is this: my pet is my property, like my car. I own it. I will not use inferior gas, oil, ect. in my car because I want it to run well and last….same for my pets. I own them and they are my possessions. If I am being mislead by a company regarding what I put into my car or pets…that’s fraud.
This “minority” is sinking your revenue producing ship.
Debbie Peterson
October 28, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Take my vote for you and Dr Hofve with you. We should have the right to know what is in our pet’s food. I want to know what is in my food. We are the ones who take care of our loved animals, which includes keeping them healthy.
Nora
October 28, 2015 at 8:02 pm
Surely the vets we take our pets to know what is in the stuff they are encouraged to sell in their clinics. It’s not all good but I guess they get a commission on the products from the companies so they just go ahead and recommend it as better than supermarket which it isn’t.
Amanda B
October 28, 2015 at 8:34 pm
If I had known any of the things that went to feed grade pet foods when I first became a pet owner, I would have never have fed it to my cats. Their definition is an opinion. Your definition is fact. They just want too hide the horrible, unsafe and inedible garbage they put in pet foods from the consumer.
Charlie
October 28, 2015 at 8:46 pm
Ms. Thixton,
I agree that the definition you proposed is the definition that should be used in place of the existing definition.
I am deeply disappointed that the Government Officials that are supposed to represent the Citizens and Consumers of this country are not on your (& our) side of the fence. The Government is supposed to Serve the Citizens, not the other way around.
Problem is that there are so many companies that are “Influence Peddlers” that the Government people are not serving the Citizens but rather themselves.
Please know that the Citizens and Consumers are behind you all the way.
Thank You for your effort! It is appreciated,
Charlie
Tammie James
October 28, 2015 at 11:51 pm
Ms. Thixton, Thank you so much for all you do to help consumers and our pets. I have 4 dogs and to me they are a part of my family. I will not feed them ANYTHING that is not human grade. We definitely need labels on pet food listing what is actually in the bag or can. People have a right to know what they are purchasing with their hard earned money.
Duncan Ness
October 29, 2015 at 12:14 am
Just let us know what is in the can.
Lonni Ruskin
October 29, 2015 at 12:43 am
If dog or cat food contains diseased animals, or animals not the result of slaughter, such as road kill, it should be labeled so. I do not know of any pet owner that would not want to know this, and to keep these facts hidden & not labeled are to me & millions of consumers a criminal act!!!
I had an Aussie that was my heart dog, die of cancer. I often wonder what was in the food I feed her, and if it could have contributed to her death. I now only feed my cat & dog food that is labeled human grade, and will continue to do so.
Kitty Kat
October 29, 2015 at 1:05 am
I agree with everything you wrote! Also I read the 3 FDA Compliance Policies links you provided. I would love for the office responsible for these policies (FDA?) to write them in clear language, not legalize, AND to include examples when they say things such as……”animals that may have died otherwise than by slaughter”, etc.
How else are everyday pet parents going to know what it really says?
Why not start on line petitions to get these people moving to make this bureaucratic doublespeak plain English!!!
Jen
October 29, 2015 at 2:05 am
No. If I was the average consumer reading that statement I would assume it was safe food that may just not be what people would choose to eat not that they would out of safety refuse to eat. This statement is hiding the truth and deceiving consumers.
In general I don’t understand how food that is considered dangerous and toxic to humans is considered safe to any other living animal, unless it is a known natural food source.
Dawn Petitti
October 29, 2015 at 3:36 am
No, I also DO NOT approve of the industries’ (AAFCO, FDA, Rendering and Big Pet Food) definition. If I wouldn’t eat it I don’t want my boxers to eat it. It is thouroughly disgusting what is considered “nutricious” ingredients–of course they are afraid to list what is really in the food as consumers would not buy it. THANK YOU for your efforts!!
Bertha Kunst
October 29, 2015 at 3:43 am
Dear Susan,
I am sure most of the pet owners are standing on your side. We pet owners definately want to know what is in the pet food.
Bertha Kunst from Germany
Mary
October 29, 2015 at 8:36 am
Thank you for the good fight. I agree with you and hope you keep up the fight for our pets. I won’t feed my pets anything that I wouldn’t eat. No commercial pet food, ever.
Linda
October 29, 2015 at 10:27 am
I do NOT agree with the definition. It is misleading and unfair to consumers. I understand why it was so difficult fir you to remain calm at the meetings. It is clearly frustrating to work with an industry that continually attempts to deceive consumers! I agree that the definition should be clear so consumers can make an educated choice about what they want to feed their pets. Thank you for taking on this very important fight. Our pets deserve better.
Marie
October 29, 2015 at 2:10 pm
I had to look up what denatured meat was: According to federal meat inspection regulations, fuel oil, kerosene, crude carbolic acid, and citronella (an insect repellent made from lemon grass) are the approved denaturing materials. The condemned livestock carcasses treated with these toxic chemicals can then become meat and bone meal for the pet food industry.
And if that’s not disgusting!!! Got the above from thecatsite.com And I learned denaturing is done to prevent human consumption. WTF??!!!
Dianne
October 29, 2015 at 3:22 pm
If I understand this correctly, it would mean that it is illegal to sell food safe for people to eat to anyone that plans to make it into pet food for sale. I wonder how many people driven to eat pet food out of desperation know this. Perhaps the label should say that this food has been deliberately modified to make it unsafe for people.
On the other hand, when I was working with a vet nutritionist, I was told to not overcook meat as that would denature the protein.
Susan Thixton
October 29, 2015 at 5:04 pm
It is not per se illegal – but USDA has requirements that any ‘food’ meat (whether it is food grade or feed grade) if it is going to pet food, they require it to be denatured. Other denaturing products are charcoal and food dyes. I do know that some pet food companies have made special arrangements with USDA to receive their meat un-denatured – but that is rare.
Laura
October 30, 2015 at 5:39 am
Which companies are allowed to get their meat without it being denatured?
Jo Singer
October 30, 2015 at 1:08 pm
I have a great idea written in my most creatively sarcastic style … If feed grade is so nutritious according to the FDA and has been made safe why not also use it in human food? After all it might then be cheaper and more affordable.
So if it’s safe for pets why is it not permitted in the food we eat? What does the FDA say about that? Oh. I know. Pets aren’t as valuable as human life. Duh
Anthony Hepton
October 29, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Susan, You have generated some worthwhile discussion with this post. I would like to offer my definition of feed grade in which I try to simplify the wording without loosing the clout.
FEED GRADE: Made with animal ingredients not fit for human consumption that have been denatured with chemicals and may contain toxins and chemicals that can cause illness.
I would not seek CMV approval as that would appear to legitimize safety.
The renderers obviously don’t want to have to divert any material from their money making process, the pet food manufacturers want to have the cheapest material source and FDA wants both of these parties to be happy. I hope you will have all the ammo you need for the next round, you have our support and thanks for all you do.
Penny
October 29, 2015 at 9:42 pm
Why is it so hard for these supposedly well educated individuals to understand that some things don’t belong in the food chain, human or animal. What is put into our bodies matters. There comes a point when edible becomes inedible and no amount of cooking or rendering will make it so again. When you have to add sugar, molasses and other sweeteners and spray digests and fats onto a product to encourage a pet to eat it doesn’t that say it all? In my opinion this is willful ignorance, encouraged by a quest for ever greater profits. Pet parents have a right to know and understand what is used to make the food their pets consume. How can an informed choice be made when there is deceit and trickery used at every turn. Complicit are the pet food companies that use these ingredients and continue to turn a blind eye while using junk science to justify what amounts to feeding garbage to our pets. I challenge the FDA and AAFCO to do the right thing and put the lives of future generations of pets ahead of profits. As someone I know always says, you can’t manufacture quality into a product. You have to have the highest quality from the beginning at where you source your ingredients from and maintain that quality throughout the manufacturing process or you won’t have that quality in the finished goods. And that’s food for thought.
Anita Holt
October 29, 2015 at 9:52 pm
We would never feed our two Maltese canines anything that we could not eat. Why in the world do these large corporations think it is okay to take such deplorable contents and feed it to companion animals? It is unethical.
Alex
October 29, 2015 at 10:37 pm
I may not be from America, but the fallout comes down here as well. Countries all over the world abide by aafco and fda regulations. The world follows your lead, America; set an example and we will follow. For better or worse. A human grade movement is huge step! Now we can have a new start with feed grade. A start that will begin honesty. This is not for every pet owner (unfortunate as that may be)
Alex
October 30, 2015 at 1:17 am
(Sorry page reloaded)
This is for the consumers who pick up a bag a bag in a supermarket or pet store and turn it around; for the consumers who stay up into the late hours of the night, reading ingredient lists, guaranteed analyses, contacting companies, searching for reviews, trying to much sure as little as possible could go wrong
Laura
October 30, 2015 at 5:54 am
Absolutely not, the definition itself reeks. And furthermore, I have to say that ya’ll keep a lid on your anger a lot better than I would. If this happened in person and I was there I don’t know if I could hold back from slapping the hell out of one of them and making the situation worse.
Eigenstein
October 30, 2015 at 8:19 pm
Human grade is what I want to feed myself and my pets. 100% human grade. I propose the members of AAFCO and the rendering rep define “safe” by identifying the percentage of pesticides, bacteria and toxins allowed in “feed.”
Of course, if they were willing to EAT what they propose as “safe” for a year, I might believe them.
Sadie
November 4, 2015 at 1:04 pm
If you have to play with the wording in a definition to make it sound more appetizing, then the ingredient shouldn’t be used. The average pet owner should be able to look at a pet food label and tell exactly what is in it.
Shelby
November 5, 2015 at 4:16 pm
I believe that if they are going to allow diseased animals, toxins, chemicals or other ingredients in feed grade, then it should be explicitly described so that those who choose to buy the feed grade product have an idea of what they are putting in their animals. I believe your definition more closely represented truth in advertising than does the industry’s definition. As consumers, we should have the knowledge and clear representation on the product in order to make clear choices.
Mike H
November 6, 2015 at 8:54 am
Great human being alert…..Very informative article by someone who really cares about other people and their best friends. Unfortunately, I fed my Golden Retriever, Sam, and English Bulldog, Wally, (both 10 years old currently) regular cheap dog food from the supermarket for 9 years of their lives. Two years ago, Wally developed a cancerous cyst and Sam suddenly lost his vision in one eye and was had arthritis. I sought out a well respected Vet to care for my boys and remove Wally’s cancerous cyst and Sam’s lame eye. I asked him what I could do to ease their pain and make the remainder of their lives as great as it could be. He told me very plainly that the food I was feeding them was “garbage and caused disease”. He said, it is simple as it sounds….you are what you eat. If you eat fast food, candy, and drink soda all the time you will get fat and have a lot of health problems. If you eat a sensible diet with fruits and vegetables included you will most likely lead a healthy life…..Simple, you are what you eat. I learned that in grade school but I failed to apply it to my pets diet.
Long story short, I now cook for my dogs. Ground turkey, fruits, and vegetables, vitamins, in a natural beef/pork neck thickened broth paste. I have been feeding them this diet, which my vet helped me create, and both dogs are doing great health wise. They have made dramatic turn around comebacks and they behave like they are the happiest dogs on Earth. They start doing silly pet tricks around lunch and dinner time. After meals, Wally likes to lay on his back and kick his legs into the air while drilling himself in to his bed. He is a clown and his clown like behavior is back in full force. This makes me very happy.
I am retired now but I recently felt the need to return to work and this is the reason. I am creating a website to sell healthy, human grade dog food. My website will be ready in a few weeks and my business will be up and running soon with a goal to provide excellent and healthy food for dogs. I am not advertising my business and I am not including my website info because that is not what this is about. However I may try to advertise on this site at a later date when I am up and running in a few months. That is my story and thank you to this website for getting the word out.
Jill
November 7, 2015 at 8:01 pm
I’m shocked by my recent discovery of pet food ingredients. I started really looking into ingredients due to the fact that one of my cats developed struvite kidney stones… He’s only 2 years old. The vet removed the stones(not cheap) but he is ok now. The vet said he needs proper nutrition to prevent stone formation happening again. So thats how the research started.
Prescription food was not an option after I read the ingredients. Not good food for a carnivore I thought. Well, 2 months later.. 8 books and 100s of websites later. The truth I now know about the pet food industry sickens me. In the process of my research I started weening my cats off dry food, since it is apparent that struvite stones form from dry commercial pet food. I have successfully weened my cats off dry food and am giving them wet canned. It’s a start. But now that I know the real ingredients of ALL processed pet food. I am working on weening off the canned food to homemade food with proper vitamins.
I am truely disturbed by the pet food makers and the meat industries for allowing this all to happen. Greed is an awful disease. I am now jaded towards the pet food industry. I personally will never trust in them again regardless what their labels say.
But In my opinion, the longer the pet food industry waits to put the proper ingredients.. Labeled honestly .. on their packages the angrier people are going to get when they do find out that processed food is poisoning their pets. Then the pet food industry will have millions of non-customers.. like me.
After all.. once you figure out how to make homemade food for your dogs and cats it’s really not that hard, your pets are happier, healthier and less vet emergencies due to bad processed food.
When I was a little kid our pets lived to 20 years old now they live to 8 or 10. Somethings wrong here!! People will find out. Pretty labels will not fool everyone forever.
Jill R.
November 8, 2015 at 10:59 am
Wow, just found this website via another site (was suggested) and it’s incredible. NO I do not like AFFCO’s definition of Feed Grade and feel it’s EXTREMELY misleading. It makes me as a consumer feel that the ingredients are SAFE when they’re not. What does “made safe” mean? Irradiated? The author’s suggested definition is truthful and easy to understand.
Dorinda Cosgrove
November 9, 2015 at 2:45 pm
Perhaps those on the AAFCO committee, the representative(s) from the FDA and the rendering industry representative should eat this stuff they are trying to pass off as food. If it has been made safe for pets, it should be safe enough for them to eat as well; there should be no problem then with them eating it. We should be allowed to make INFORMED choices. To do this, we need to know what is really in the food being offered for sale. Are they afraid the truth shall really make us free?