…at least get your facts straight.
There is a new paper published about pet food: “Pros and Cons of Commercial Pet Foods (Including Grain/Grain Free) for Dogs and Cats” authored by veterinarian Sherry Lynn Sanderson. Dr. Sanderson’s paper is full of incorrect information, misleading readers.
After an introduction of the history of pet food, Dr. Sanderson (mostly) blames the Internet for confusing information about pet food stating pet related websites are “opinion-based information and misinformation that seems intent on evoking fear in pet owners regarding commercial pet food.” Unfortunately, Dr. Sanderson herself gives false information in her paper appearing intent on swaying consumers to trust all commercial pet food.
She states that one of those misinformed websites (that she claims is misleading pet owners) “incorrectly lists multiple things contained in animal by-products used to make pet food, such as hooves, hair, and feathers.” She explains that The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) “specifically excludes these in their definitions of meat by-products and poultry by-products.”
Not quite true Dr. Sanderson.
The AAFCO definitions of all by-product ingredients – with the exception of one (Meat By-Products) – allow hooves, hair, and/or feathers in those ingredients. Most of the by-product definitions make the statement ‘exclusive of any added‘ hooves, hair, and/or feathers. What Dr. Sanderson doesn’t seem to understand is that ‘exclusive of any added’ means exactly that – hooves, hair, and/or feathers can be included (on the animals processed), but no extra or ‘added’ hooves, hair, and/or feathers can be included in the ingredients. A veterinarian publishing a paper on the pet food industry SHOULD know this.
More false information from Dr. Sanderson includes her dismissing the possibility that pet foods could contain diseased animals or animals that died other than by slaughter. Dr. Sanderson mistakenly claims that pet foods ONLY source ingredients from USDA affiliated rendering facilities (integrated rendering plants) which would not process diseased animals or non-slaughtered animals.
If Dr. Sanderson was properly informed about conditions in pet food, she would have been aware that integrated rendering facilities (those attached to a USDA slaughter facility) process edible material such as lard for human consumption AND inedible material such as cancerous tumors cut away from carcasses and diseased internal organs. The 2004 Congressional Research Services Report to Congress “Animal Rendering: Economics and Policy” confirms most products manufactured at integrated rendering plants are sold for human consumption, not pet consumption: integrated plants “render most edible animal byproducts (i.e., fatty animal tissue), mainly into edible fats (tallow and lard) for human consumption. These plants also render inedible byproducts (including slaughter floor waste) into fats and proteins for animal feeds and for other ingredients.” The inedible materials – including slaughter floor waste – are sold to pet food with no warning or disclosure to consumers.
In her attempt to dismiss the well known fact that pet food is allowed to contain diseased animals or animals that died other than by slaughter, Dr. Sanderson states: “many of the same regulations that apply to the human food industry also apply to the pet food industry, including that the food produced is safe to eat, properly manufactured, contains no harmful substances, and is truthfully labeled.” She’s right that many of the same regulations that apply to human food also apply to pet food – BUT, she ignores the glaring fact that regulatory authorities don’t enforce those laws in pet food. The FDA – the highest regulatory authority of pet food – openly allows diseased animals and animals that have died other than by slaughter to be processed into pet food (with no disclosure to the consumer). FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine Director Dr. Steven Solomon stated in April 2019: “we do not believe that the use of diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter to make animal food poses a safety concern and we intend to continue to exercise enforcement discretion.”
This veterinarian goes so far as to tell readers that pet food is safer than human food. “Meat and poultry products meant for human consumption can contain pathogens, undeclared allergens, foreign material, or be produced without the benefit of inspection. As a result, purchasing foods meant for human consumption to use in homemade diets for pets does not guarantee that it is safer than purchasing cooked commercial pet food products.”
And once again, Dr. Sanderson has some of her facts wrong. Meat and poultry products meant for human consumption are required by law to be inspected and passed. Meat and poultry products used in pet food on the other hand holds no such requirement.
When veterinarians publish papers so full of false information, while accusing pet owners and pet websites as responsible for the false information – they are not only harming their own reputation, they are also damaging consumer trust in veterinarians in general. That is truly unfortunate.
And then we have a new article from several veterinarians that appear to be suffering with a serious case of raw pet food phobia. Published on Insider.com, is the recent article “Feeding your dog a raw food diet could be harmful and even life-threatening, according to vets“. Assuming it is meant to validate the information (misinformation)- this article also makes the claim it was “medically reviewed” by another veterinarian. As it turns out, these veterinarians twist the facts to suit their message.
Under the headline “Is a raw pet food diet safe?” we find this incorrect statement “Compared to cooked diets, raw diets are more likely to be contaminated with bacteria like Salmonella and E. coli, which can make your dog seriously ill. But even if your dog doesn’t get sick, your pup could shed bacteria into your household, which could then get picked up by another pet or human.”
The accurate facts are: based on FDA Enforcement Reports, (and not including the recent Salmonella recall from Midwestern Pet Food) – almost 150 million pounds of kibble has been recalled for containing a pathogenic bacteria like Salmonella since 2012 when in the same time frame a little more than 2 million pounds of raw pet food has been recalled for the same cause. One hundred fifty million pounds to two million pounds…it’s not even close, kibble is much “more likely to be contaminated with bacteria” and kibble is more of a risk to sicken at risk individuals.
And the actual risk of a pet shedding bacteria? Quoting the study “Multilaboratory Survey To Evaluate Salmonella Prevalence in Diarrheic and Nondiarrheic Dogs and Cats in the United States between 2012 and 2014“: “Fecal samples (2,965) solicited from 11 geographically dispersed veterinary testing laboratories were collected in 36 states between January 2012 and April 2014. The overall study prevalence of Salmonella in cats (3 of 542) was <1%. The prevalence in dogs (60 of 2,422) was 2.5%.” In other words, the risk of pets shedding a bacteria infecting someone in your household is minimal – nothing similar to “life-threatening”, what the veterinarians in the article are trying to tell pet owners.
There ARE dangerous raw pet foods being sold to consumers, from companies the FDA allows to source ingredients from diseased animals and non-slaughtered animals. But, there ARE ALSO dangerous cooked pet foods being sold to consumers from companies sourcing the same inferior ingredients. It is discouraging to see veterinarians twist the facts to mislead pet owners away from a style of pet food. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but to publicly claim a style of pet food is “life-threatening” based on carefully excluded well known (and readily available) facts is reckless. (Perhaps quality raw pet food manufacturers should consider a slander lawsuit.) And it furthers the divide between pet owners and their veterinarians – benefiting no one.
Personal Opinion: The determining issue for me to trust the words of a veterinarian who publishes a post or a paper is this: does the veterinarian speak out against illegal waste ingredients in pet food allowed by FDA or does the veterinarian ignore this concerning issue of pet food? If the veterinarian ignores the problem, they become part of the problem and their words are meaningless to me.
It is beyond my comprehension how a veterinarian (including the veterinarians at FDA) can endorse allowing a pet to consume diseased and non-slaughtered animal material. These types of pet food ingredients are waste, and are not safe for pets to consume raw or cooked. I do not understand how any veterinarian believes it is safe for pet owners to bring these products into homes, sometimes storing illegal ingredient pet foods in the refrigerator next to their own foods.
My respect goes to veterinarians that stand up for not only what is right for animals, but for their owners too. These are the veterinarians that I listen to and take advice from.
One thing is for certain, misinformation is common about the pet food industry. The biggest cause of the misinformation is not solely due to some veterinarians or some websites – the biggest cause for all the misinformation is due to the lack of opportunity to fact check claims in pet food. Pet owners and veterinarians are denied public access to regulations, even the pet food industry itself is denied public access to the regulations that govern them.
Through an agreement with FDA, AAFCO owns and sells for profit the labeling laws of pet food, the nutritional requirements of pet food, and the legal definitions of pet food ingredients. Any pet owner or veterinarian that would want to fact check – as example, the definitions of by-products, IF they actually do not permit hooves, hair and feathers as Dr. Sanderson stated in her paper – that pet owner or veterinarian would need to purchase the AAFCO book of regulations (Official Publication) at a cost of $120.00 a year. Because most pet owners and veterinarians do not purchase the AAFCO book, they could easily be swayed into believing what a veterinarian or website told them.
Pet food regulatory meetings are pay to attend which as well prevents many pet owners and veterinarians from participating in the regulatory process and understanding how the process works.
In other words, the regulatory system of pet food encourages misinformation and discourages transparency. The result – tremendous amounts of false and misleading pet food information that benefits no one.
The FDA should withdraw their agreement with AAFCO, all pet food legal requirements should be published in the Federal Register just as human food requirements are, and all meetings should be free to attend, open to the public. Then and only then could we slow down the misinformation.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2021 List
Susan’s List of pet foods trusted to give her own pets. Click Here to learn more.
skyeyes
March 30, 2021 at 12:17 pm
You are truth telling Susan and socking it to the misinformation by supposed “learned” people who should know better, i.e. Dr. Sanderson. Appreciate you and so do my four legged friends.
Fifitrixiebelle
March 30, 2021 at 12:29 pm
Not to mention the way they gouge pet owners for medical care. It’s become absolutely outrageously expensive to get even minimal routine care for a pet, while serious pet care costs are off the charts. And while they try to suck every last cent out of you or drive up your debt, they frown upon any amount of knowledge you may have gleaned from the net. Yes, there’s lots of bad info on the net, so why don’t these vets qualify what their patients have learned instead of being so disdainful of any knowledge at all? Because their greed has corrupted them. Most vets have next to no knowledge about nutrition and constantly push Science Diet. I am so, so grateful to people like Susan, as well as others, who have given me the information and tools to provide proper nutrition to my beloved pets. There are SO MANY homeless pets that need a loving home, but greedy vets make it all but impossible for anyone but upper middle class people to afford their exorbitant services.
T Allen
March 30, 2021 at 3:42 pm
Amen to all that!
Joe
March 30, 2021 at 6:13 pm
Fifi, veterinarians have a suicide rate that is markedly higher than the general population. Their debt to income ratio is among the worst of any healthcare provider. Despite going to school for just as long, with just as much debt, and with just as rigorous curriculum as physicians, veterinarians make a fraction of the income. The cost of pet care goes towards the rent of the office, the utilities to power the office, the wages of the staff, the expensive medical equipment necessary to provide diagnostics and treatment, the materials necessary for operating that medical equipment, the materials needed for surgery and life-saving interventions, and, if there’s anything left after all other expenses are accounted for, a veterinarian’s salary. Veterinarians are not greedy. Veterinarians are business owners that have ot cover the costs of the medical care they are providing. Unlike humans, our pets are often not insured. However, pet insurance is available. It is not a vet’s fault that the materials and supplies necessary to practice medicine are so expensive. Despite that, they take home a miniscule wage compared to their physician counterparts, and their mental health suffers for it. Veterinarians are in the profession to help pets, but they deserve to make a living wage like any other professional on this planet.
Jas
April 3, 2024 at 7:33 pm
I know her, and trust me, she is rich from being a Veterinarian.
Madeleine Innocent
April 6, 2021 at 5:47 am
Pricing themselves out of the market may be a good thing as their treatment is so bad. I’m biased, but homeopathic treatment is far superior.
Jennifer
March 30, 2021 at 12:32 pm
Send this to the journal. She should have to address your issues and justify her arguments.
mary lee oliphant
March 30, 2021 at 12:40 pm
do you have an article that started the vets saying no grain foods cause heart disease?
Susan Thixton
March 30, 2021 at 12:51 pm
If you search that on the web – you’ll find lots of articles claiming grain-free pet foods are linked to heart disease. However, please know that has never been proven. It remains speculation at this point – available science gives two very different perspectives on the issue.
Sherri
March 30, 2021 at 12:40 pm
Disgusting display of plain, stubborn, ignorance. I have encountered vets like this as well who see nothing wrong at all with the pet food industry. I believe they have taken exactly no time to educate themselves, they simply choose to blindly believe what the reps tell them and what the packaging says and looks like! They love to sell the Science Diet after all! Again, stubborn ignorance. It astounds me. I have no hope for the commercial pet food industry, it is far too corrupt. The veterinary industry doesn’t impress me much more. Thank you Sue for calling them out. Your tireless work is much appreciated.
Amy
March 30, 2021 at 1:01 pm
I am astounded! Does this veterinarian, this author, truly think that human food is allowed to contain foreign material? What is she thinking? No way! This one mistake discredits her entire assertion!!
Nancy
March 30, 2021 at 1:38 pm
Thank you Susan, for this great article. Did you contact her and let her know her information is misleading?
Susan Thixton
March 30, 2021 at 1:45 pm
No – I did not.
LoveCats
March 30, 2021 at 2:01 pm
Amazing that at the beginning of last century dogs/cats fended for themselves or were fed table scraps which pet food companies et.al have scared consumers to death of feeding these days. Then it was decided that waste from human food could be processed and canned for our pets (which these days can include euthanized pets), all for our convenience of course. It has been reported more than once that while in veterinary school, a short presentation by PET FOOD COMPANIES is all the nutrition information they receive. Susan probably knows more about all this than anyone!
Anyway, a lack of knowledge about nutrition requirements for pets and a general shrug that “they are after all only animals” prevails. Fortunately, more and more people are educating themselves re this subject and feed accordingly. Some may not believe it but there is little reason to always trust the FDA re human food much less pet food. The fact that they ONLY allow the AFFCO access to the book of regulations who in turn charges for it is IMO unconsciousable! Unfortunately, charging for an item that we should all have access to will dissuade many from doing complete due diligence when writing “pet food” articles. It is up to us then to find trusted sources for our pet food information.
Far too many of the pet foods being fed to our companion animals today provide little nutrition so that our pets are getting awful diseases at ever more younger ages such as diabetes, cancer and pancreatitis. Thank goodness Susan has made it her mission to keep on top of all things pet food on our behalf. Hopefully more and more of us will learn more about pet food requirements and feed better quality “food” rather than “feed.”
Sarahkate
March 30, 2021 at 3:31 pm
THANK YOU SUSAN FOR YOUR VERY HARD WORK IN REPORTING THESE THINGS. My experience: I personally was screamed at by a young veterinarian at the former clinic I used. Included in the yelling and screaming and name calling were profanities. Why? Because I REFUSED to feed my elderly JRT a commercial dog food made of mostly SOY and CORN and “animal byproducts” and a host of unpronounceable chemicals. I had been home cooking for my dog — a special diet designed by my former holistic veterinarian who also was a veterinary nutritionist and my dog needed this diet to help his kidney disease. The vet who designed the diet had moved away and I was left with this “traditional” vet clinic. I couldn’t have fired this new young “hotshot” vet fast enough and the only reason the clinic was paid was to prevent further nastiness (and they even refused to forward my dog’s medical records to the new vet I go to now). I now drive over 50 miles to the new vet who practices complementary medicine with a focus on nutrition and alternative healing including acupuncture. Most vets will charge you through the roof and push the pills and the commercial products they get a profit or kickback from – have to try really hard to find a vet more interested in your dog’s actual health and well being than in a quick buck.
T Allen
March 30, 2021 at 3:47 pm
Wow! He won’t be in private practice long. I’m glad you left and hopefully tell everyone you know your story to save other pets lives!
T Allen
March 30, 2021 at 3:48 pm
Thanks Susan! As is well said above several times, you rock!
Maria S.
March 30, 2021 at 4:14 pm
Ms. Thixton, Thanks for a great write-up. However, let’s cut to the chase. The alleged “Dr”. Sanderson that you cite, is apparently, like MANY OTHER equally ALLEGED professionals – in many different lines of work – “bought and paid for”. They will say ANYTHING that increases income – anything. Let’s face it, in today’s amoral and increasingly corrupt environment, our pets (which to us are family) are viewed as little more than “furry wallets”. And a “sick pet” is a “profitable pet”. This of course is just my perception and opinion. Once the public realizes that many (many) service providers and vendors and all sales people are probably NOT their friends and you are not a “customer” but rather a “mark”, we will all be better prepared to deal with “consumer life” – from a highly defensive posture. Wake-up America.
Caroline Snyder
March 30, 2021 at 4:36 pm
HA!! She is a Hill’s Schill!! AND Purina – AND Royal Canin. Check out the charts!! Probably one of Dr Lisa Freeman’s buddies too.. “A Special Interest in DCM” in her profile was the giveaway. I have NO time for these people…. LINK to one of her pieces!
BIO – Dr. Sanderson received her BS degree from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and DVM degree from the University of Minnesota. After a rotating small animal internship at Oklahoma State University, she returned to the University of Minnesota for a combined dual residency (small animal internal medicine and clinical nutrition) and PhD program, where her research focused on diet-induced dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs. She is currently an associate professor at the University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Sanderson has received the Faculty Recognition Award and the Zoetis Distinguished Veterinary Teacher Award. She has published more than 85 manuscripts, book chapters, and research abstracts. Her research interests include the use of nutritional management for preventing diseases in dogs and cats. Areas of particular interest include urology and nephrology, obesity, prebiotics, probiotics, diet-induced dilated cardiomyopathy, and the human-animal bond.
Susan Thixton
March 30, 2021 at 4:50 pm
Thank you Caroline. That was some good investigative work!
Mary
March 30, 2021 at 8:07 pm
Someone needs to get this information to 60 minutes!!!
Mary
March 30, 2021 at 6:16 pm
You mention that there are raw pet foods that use dead diseased and dying animals. D you have the brands? I want to make certain that I am not using those!
Diane
March 31, 2021 at 6:33 am
Thanks so much Susan, for an article most likely published by a Hill’s financed vet. Gee, she makes the commercial FEED sound so nutritious, maybe she would be willing to eat some herself. I doubt it.
Jodi Cohen
March 30, 2021 at 8:30 pm
Thanks again Susan for a well researched and informed article. Sad we can’t trust our own vets.
Will Falconer, DVM
March 31, 2021 at 7:24 am
The capper for me was when the poor doctor declared that human foods might just be MORE risky than those well cooked pet foods.
I had book marked her article to read and share with my readers later, but you’ve done this better than I could have, Susan. I’ll instead link to your expose of this misinformation in Vital Animal News in its April 4th edition.
Thanks, my dear. You are a true resource to us all.
Dianne & Pets
March 31, 2021 at 11:19 am
I wonder how she explains the presence of pentobarbital in pet food. Or if she thinks it would be better if people also only consumed highly processed food. I think marketing people deserve their own spot in the pantheon of “evil” people.
Lisa Messina
March 31, 2021 at 2:04 pm
Thank you very much for your continued (and no doubt, exhausting) efforts to educate the public, hold dog food companies accountable for their actions and change legislation in order to protect our pets.
I am saddened that misinformation ~ no scratch that ~ I am going to call it what it is, I am saddened that these lies continue to be perpetuated and that otherwise good people believe these lies and continue to poison their pets and feed them food that is void of nutrition.
Keep up the good work, you do make a difference!
Marcus Herrera
April 4, 2021 at 8:40 am
Great work on this.
Joy Metcalf
April 5, 2021 at 10:11 pm
While most of what you say is great, you have misstated a couple of things.
1. “almost 150 million pounds of kibble has been recalled for containing a pathogenic bacteria like Salmonella since 2012 when in the same time frame a little more than 2 million pounds of raw pet food has been recalled for the same cause.”
While those number are wildly disparate, what is more relevant is how many pound of each were recalled compared to how mush was sold, iow, what was the ratio of recalled to produced? Raw food does not make up the bulk of pet foods, so the number would be quite a bit smaller to begin with.
2. “This veterinarian goes so far as to tell readers that pet food is safer than human food. “… As a result, purchasing foods meant for human consumption to use in homemade diets for pets does not guarantee that it is safer than purchasing cooked commercial pet food products.”
She didn’t say pet food is safer than human food. She said using foods meant for human consumption does not GUARANTEE that the home-made food is safer than commercial products. Having bought what turned out to be some pretty sketchy meat at the supermarket, I can attest that she may, in fact, be right.
Just for the record, I feed my dog raw, and I buy from a local Halal butchery. I wouldn’t eat supermarket meat myself.
Susan Thixton
April 6, 2021 at 9:49 am
With recalls – since 2012, kibble pet food has been about 67% of pet food sales, 68% of all recalls. Raw, refrigerated, frozen pet foods have been about 2% of pet food sales, 0.6% of all recalls.
Diana Brown
June 16, 2021 at 6:36 pm
If its so damn safe as much or more than human food, then she should damn well eat it for breakfast lunch and freaking dinner! There has to be a serious revolution in this country. Every crooked AAFCO/FDA/USDA/EPA/ politician/and corporate head needs to be taken out in a public square and tar and feathered. And the public needs to wake the hell up and give a damn. A lot of vets are very crooked also, some are just ignorant and dont train in nutrition so they believe what the feed reps tell them. They are killing our pets making them sick through disgusting greed. I try to home cook as much as I can for mine. But im disabled and very poor, so I try to find the best cleanest food to give them. I do spend 60 dollars for a 30 pound bag of food, and i try to rotate out. But its all i can do, and many are in the same boat as me. Very poor people who try to save and help animals but get ripped off the worst.
Ash
April 23, 2023 at 12:29 pm
Well, I’m just so happy that a PhD Vet Nutritionist, such as yourself, has done all the necessary research and had the courage to talk about this. Fortunately, you aren’t selling a book to make money either! Thank you so much for all your hard work to discredit these people – whew. I mean what would do if we just let people live peacefully and make decisions in their own home – We must inform!