Investigation documents provides concerning information about No-Hide Dog Treats.
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) on January 10, 2019. We asked for all records relating to the PDA investigation of Earth Animal No-Hide dog treats. The request was recently received – 100% paper documents (no digital) in an envelope that was 3 1/2 inches thick. In other words, a lot of documents were provided.
Before details of the FOIA are shared, I want to thank Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) for the detail of documents provided, the detail of their investigation, and the fair cost of this FOIA. Many states send very little information and charge exorbitant fees for FOIA documents (Missouri Department of Agriculture charged $323.18 for 10 fake pages of records and 14 emails in 2017). I appreciate your fairness in fees and the detail of information provided. Other states could learn a lot from Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Investigation
No-Hide dog treats and rawhide should be very different products. The potential similarities and differences between the products was the foundation of the PDA investigation. Is the No-Hide dog treat a basted piece of Chinese rawhide or is the No-Hide dog treat made from gelatin and rice flour (and a few other ingredients) as the label indicates?
Quote from Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture email to FDA (obtained in the FOIA):
…from the beginning we’ve treated this investigation as a misbranding investigation so our purpose was to determine if the no hide chews were being misbranded and instead the company was substituting all of these rawhides and just calling them no hide chews.
Click Here to read email exchanges between PDA and FDA received in the FOIA.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not find misbranding of the No-Hide dog treat. There was no enforcement action taken.
Thanks to this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), pet owners can decide for themselves – whether the No-Hide dog treat is rawhide or not – when they look at the evidence provided.
Manufacturing of No-Hide Dog Treat
Earth Animal is the company No-Hide dog treats are sold under. The treats are manufactured by Pony Express Foods which has two locations in Pennsylvania; 1016 E Main St., Blue Ball, PA 17557 and 121 Jalyn Dr. New Holland, PA 17557. The company manufacturers a human food jerky and the No-Hide dog treat for Earth Animal. Under the Pony Express Foods umbrella, multiple pet products are sold including bulk sales of rawhide imported from China (stated by Pony Express Foods).
The documents provided in the FOIA explain that No-Hide treats are made in two steps. One is mixing a dough of base ingredients, dough is rolled into treat shape, and baked. Step two following baking, the treats are “hand coated” with a meat slurry and baked again. (To read a full description of the baking process by a consultant to Earth Animal, Click Here. This same document was provided in the FOIA – provided to PDA by Pony Express Foods.)
The concerning issue is: Pony Express Foods also imports large loads of rolled rawhide from China. Emphasis – rolled rawhide from China. Received in 11 inch pieces that appear to be remarkably similar in appearance to un-coated No-Hide.
As evidenced by photographs provided in the FOIA, Pony Express Foods imports rolled rawhide from China. The Chinese imported rolled rawhide pieces are received in the exact same size – 11 inches – as the manufactured No-Hide treat.
To view the FOIA pages of the above pictures, Click Here.
Pony Express Foods explained to investigators that the similar shaped and size rawhide imports are sold in bulk at the Green Dragon Farmers Market, 955 N State St, Ephrata, PA (open 1 day a week – Friday). Pony Express provided multiple bulk sale cash receipts to investigators, however each cash receipt neglected to provide the purchaser’s name (for verification purposes). More than 50 pages of cash receipts were provided in the FOIA, some of those are provided here.
Some import documents were provided in the FOIA, including an invoice for $51,168.00 from Shanghai, China for 96,000 rawhide dog chews. Click Here to view.
From external import records (not provided in the FOIA), Pony Express Foods imported more than 900,000 pounds of rawhide from China during 2018.
Lab Analysis
PDA took samples of the No-Hide raw un-baked dough, finished No-Hide dog treat samples, and Chinese rawhide samples from the Pony Express manufacturing facility. PDA also purchased No-Hide dog treats from retail and from Amazon. And PDA purchased rawhide dog treats from retail and from Amazon for comparison testing.
Protein and Starch Testing
The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) protein and starch testing results of a raw dough No-Hide dog treat found the product contained 19.23% protein and 24.7% starch. In a pie chart those results look like this:
Comparing ‘apples to apples’, PDA tested a No-Hide treat that was baked – but with no meat coating applied. This test product would be the same type as the above dough No-Hide, only testing the product after it was baked (two different samples – one dough, one baked). The sample – ID: D201800406 – was “collected out of the bin at the batter adding station.”
After baking, a dramatic change in analysis occurred. Protein content increased in the No-Hide treat by almost 373%. Starch content decreased by 99%.
A dough – when cooked – will certainly change in analysis. A dough is heavy in moisture. Thus when the moisture is removed through baking, the ‘numbers’ change. But should the ‘numbers’ have changed so dramatically in the No-Hide treat from dough to baked?
For comparison purposes in protein and starch changes from dough to baked, the USDA Nutrient Database provided nutrient information on bread dough to baked bread.
Notice that the starch percentage changes from dough to baked on both products were similar. The puzzling difference is the protein percentage change. With moisture removed (through baking), the protein content of bread only increased 33%. The No-Hide baked (and un-coated) increased by more than 372%.
Was the un-coated No-Hide – ID: D201800406 that was “collected out of the bin at the batter adding station” actually a piece of rolled rawhide imported from China? Does this possibly explain the dramatic increase in protein?
Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Dept of Agriculture (PDA) FOIA documents gave no explanation for this dramatic change in protein content. But, PDA did analyze one of those rolled pieces of rawhide imported from China found at the Pony Express No-Hide manufacturing facility. Side by side comparison pie charts below: a baked No-Hide taken from the “bin” at the manufacturing facility and a rolled rawhide taken from one of the boxes in the trailers in the parking lot.
The lab analysis of a Baked No-Hide treat is almost identical to the analysis of the Chinese rolled rawhide treat removed from the trailers in the parking lot of the same manufacturing facility.
Click Here to read all of the protein and starch testing results provided in the FOIA.
Histologic Evaluation Penn State Animal Diagnostics Laboratory
PDA also sent two samples of No-Hide treats and two samples of Rawhide treats to Penn State Animal Diagnostics Laboratory for Histologic Evaluation. The lab analysis failed to find a difference between No-Hide and Rawhide. The “Conclusions and Summary” of this analysis stated:
The analysis performed was not able to determine whether or not animal hide (skin and related structures) is present in the samples examined. It appears that the commercial processing of the animal products has so badly damaged the integrity of the original tissues that they are no longer identifiable by this method.
To read the full report from Penn State Animal Diagnostics Laboratory provided in the FOIA documents, Click Here.
Histologic Evaluation Illinois Veterinary Diagnostics Laboratory
Also provided in the FOIA documents was a Forensic Pathology report from Illinois Veterinary Diagnostics Laboratory. One report was provided on No-Hide Salmon Chews and another was provided on “Dentley’s Rawhide Rolls”.
Dr. Adam Stern of Illinois Veterinary Diagnostics Laboratory report stated “Based on my evaluation of both products, I suspect that the product from #17-217 (No-Hide Salmon Chews) is composed to material similar to that of #17-279 (Dentley’s Rawhide Rolls).” The Illinois report provided these slide images comparing the two dog treats:
To read the Illinois Veterinary Diagnostics Laboratory report on No-Hide, Click Here. To read the Illinois Veterinary Diagnostics Laboratory report on Dentley’s Rawhide Rolls with comparison to No-Hide, Click Here.
Various Inspection Reports and other FOIA Documents
To read the 8/29/18 “Inspector Narrative” report, Click Here.
To read the 9/18/2018 “Inspector Narrative” with images of No-Hide ingredients, Click Here.
To read the 9/21/18 PDA inspection report, Click Here.
To read the 10/9/18 PDA inspection report, Click Here.
To read the 10/24/18 “Inspector Narrative”, Click Here.
To read the 12/4/18 PDA inspection report, Click Here.
To read emails between PDA and Pony Express Foods regarding the trailers that stored the imported rolled rawhide, Click Here.
To read email questions from Pony Express Foods (regarding inspection) to PDA and the PDA response, Click Here.
To view various images provided in the FOIA including more pictures of the shipments of rolled rawhides from China and pictures from the Green Dragon Farmers Market where (reportedly) bulk rawhide orders are sold, Click Here.
And after reading all of the details of investigation from Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (all of the above), Click Here to read the minimal FDA inspection report.
Opinion
Many of the documents provided in the FOIA are significant information for pet owners to be alerted to. One of the most significant statements made by Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture was the following (made to FDA):
“Our hypothesis is that the no hide chews are starch-based and will show a significantly higher level of starch when compared to the Rawhide samples and the histological analysis will hopefully show the difference between a no hide starch-based treat and a pure hide treat.”
Pennsylvania found the complete opposite of their hypothesis. Starch was almost non-existent, and protein content and histological analysis was almost identical to rawhide. Repeating two images from above:
While I appreciate the depth of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture investigation (especially when compared to FDA), I remain baffled that the agency closed the investigation taking no action.
Regardless of PDA’s lack of enforcement action, the investigation of No-Hide dog treats performed by Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture benefits pet owners. From a wealth of Freedom of Information Act request documents, each pet owner can decide for themselves what this product is.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
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
The 2019 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking pet food made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Tracy Benson
February 25, 2019 at 11:19 am
Wow! Thank you so much for this information! I am pretty horrified because I’ve been giving my dog these treats for quite a while and actually recently she started to develop stomach issues. I just ordered three packages from Amazon and I will now contact Amazon and have them returned. My dog loves these chews but I am absolutely disgusted at the possibility that these are coming from China and are not it all what they are supposed to be! Thank goodness for your constant focus on discovery and letting us know the truth about what’s in our beloved pets food!
In my work as a wellness coach I am constantly doing what I can to educate my human clients but I rely on your information for my animal children.
Tracy Benson
http://www.tracybenson.com
Audree
February 25, 2019 at 11:55 am
Great Report. Thanks.
And how disappointing!
Laurie Raymond
February 25, 2019 at 12:17 pm
Why on earth did no one request to observe the manufacturing process? Or did they…? How about looking for a whistle-blower? What about verifying through consultation with another expert statements like “it was impossible to ascertain if skin or hide was in the treats subjected to forensic lab testing.” That seems inconsistent with what we know about the state of forensic science. Do you really believe that if the Pillsbury Dough Boy and a human body were charred in a house fire, no one could tell the difference?
Ms. B Dawson
February 25, 2019 at 1:26 pm
This gets curiouser and curiouser…This whole issue has me fascinated and leaves me wanting to know what the heck is going on.
If I read correctly, PDA took samples of ‘dough’ which establishes the fact that some sort of moist slurry IS involved in the manufacture of these treats. Earth Animal isn’t merely coating pre-manufactured rolled rawhide.
Is it mental to suggest that they are reducing rawhide rolls to powder and using that with rice for the ‘dough’? Frankly, anyone who has ever baked with rice flour knows that it doesn’t hold together very well. Gelatin in the epithelial layer used for rawhide would bind rice together, add flavor, protein and body.
If that’s the case, then the company may be playing games with terminology, an issue which has been raised before. If its not rolled up and solid, its not ‘really’ rawhide. Its been broken down into flour sized particles which would account for EA’s digestibility tests showing better results than rawhide. Wet sand holds together until you put it into a bucket of water. The hole in this theory is that digestion of the rawhide hasn’t necessarily taken place, the small particles are simply disassociated and pass out unseen in the stool.
The obvious difference in percentages shows just how much water is being lost in manufacture and explains why these no-hide treats expand so dramatically when caught in a drooling dog’s throat. Think kibble – we’re all familiar with swollen kernels left in the water bowl. This also would suggest no-hide isn’t a contiguous slab of epithelium.
And there’s still the questions raised by the tissue analysis. The Penn report states they couldn’t determine whether rawhide was present or not. This doesn’t mean there wasn’t rawhide, only that it couldn’t be identified. How is this grounds to determine there is no misbranding? If anything, PDA should have stamped this inconclusive, especially given the remarks in the Illinois pathology report. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
My take away at this point is:
1) Earth Animal will likely leverage PDA’s conclusions to shut down any further enquiry and,
2) Earth Animal has managed to create such an over-processed product that its ingredients defy identification even in a laboratory.
#2 would be enough for me to never use their product!
Elena B.
February 25, 2019 at 5:40 pm
I wish pet food stores would subscribe to your site and read the wealth of information you provide, before they stock up on anything they can sell to unsuspecting pet owners.
Mel
February 26, 2019 at 12:08 am
We inadvertently ended up with one of these in our bag from the local pet store. Someone else had purchased it, but the sales clerk gave it to us on accident. I called the store and she said to just keep it. So I cut it in half (which was not an easy chore) and gave each of my dogs half. This explains why my healthy, raw fed dog, had horrible gastrointestinal problems after eating it, including diarrhea. Recently, the pet store was giving these away as a special bonus and I had 2 more in my bag. Imagine that! I JUST threw them in the trash after reading this story. This just goes to show that we can’t believe or trust everything we are told and we must be an advocate for our pets. I just purchased the 2019 food list last night and thankfully, the brands I am feeding my pets are on the list! I have removed all store bought treats from the pantry. No more of anything in a package disguised as ‘healthy’. THANK YOU for all you do to keep us informed Susan!
Peter
February 26, 2019 at 7:05 pm
I find the statement that “… commercial processing of the animal products has so badly damaged the integrity of the original tissues that they are no longer identifiable…” incredibly disturbing, and pity any dog given these to eat.
Kathy Billinge
February 26, 2019 at 9:41 pm
Wow, thank you for sharing this information.This is very disturbing that this sort of thing is going on & basically overlooked.
It’s hard to know anymore what’s real & what is not.
Thank you for your dedication to educating & helping put a stop to what’s going on in this industry.
Stuart Talley
February 28, 2019 at 2:18 pm
We are investigating a potential lawsuit against the makers of no-hide. If anyone out there has used this product, we would like to speak with you.
https://www.kctlegal.com/class-actions/current-investigations/no-hide-dog-chews/
Andrea
March 2, 2019 at 12:24 pm
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck…Thank you for the investigation Susan! The world needs more people like you who are brave enough to stand up to greedy and immoral companies. I always thought these things seemed too good to be true and the texture and look does not seem compatible with the ingredients listed.
Kupiki
August 29, 2019 at 7:56 pm
What an absolute joke that letter is from the Consultant Ryan Yamka, someone should yanka his PHd that letter is total obfuscation, as for testing for the presence of formaldehyde, despite internet lore that exists, Formaldehyde has not been used in the production of rawhide for 50 years…. Has anyone ever asked where all those containers of rawhide go to if not used in the NO-Hide product because Earth Animal doesn’t list them for sale on their website or Sales brochure…Biggest scam in the Pet Industry
Annie Moss
January 19, 2020 at 9:14 am
Why are all those cash sales receipts (firstly who pays $1665 in cash at a farmers market) all dated on a Thursday when the market is open on a Friday??
Hope
April 11, 2020 at 4:16 pm
OMG I have been feeding these stix to my dog for two years! I just got 6 bags from Amazon and now I’ll be looking for another treat and sending these back
Felicia
April 22, 2020 at 6:18 pm
I just bought my first 2 no-hide chews for my 5 month old puppies. One of them, Rosie, really liked it and chewed it until all the “filling” was gone and about 1/3 of the chew was gone. My other pup didn’t like it or chew it much. Rosie has been lethargic, no playing, and just not herself since about 2 hours after eating the chew. It’s been almost 24 hours, vet says to keep watching for the next 24 hours then bring her in if she doesn’t get back to normal. I know there are lots of things that can contribute to her symptoms, but we have a strict schedule and are constantly with her (especially with the quarantine). That chew is the only thing different about her routine and I’m really worried. I hope this passes and will not buy those chews again.
Tammy
July 2, 2020 at 3:01 pm
I soooo wanted to love this product. I conducted my own experiment. You would think that if this product were only made using the ingredients per earth animal website–(Chicken, Brown Rice Flour, Agar-Agar (vegetable gelatin), Organic Eggs, Olive Oil, Banana Powder, Bromelain (Pineapple), that if you submerged a no hide stix in a closed bottle or water that after 24 hours the product would disintegrate to at least some extent. Mine didn’t. However, when you open the bottle and smell it ( i know sounds weird) it smells like? RAWHIDE. You know what it looks like? RAWHIDE . Try cutting some pieces of the soaked product with some scissors. Cuts like hide. You could probably shingle your house with this stuff. NOT buying this product ever again, so guilty I even gave it to my dogs. Company appears to be using semantics and gray areas to sell their product which in my opinion is a regurgitated rawhide coated with enzymes to help with digestion.
Susan Werner
December 19, 2020 at 9:48 pm
I put a couple of these in a treat bag and gave to a friend who had gotten a new puppy.
Puppy chewed on one and within an hour had vomited six times.
Stopped giving them to my dog.