“It shall be suitable for use in animal food.” These nine little words are found in numerous places within pet food regulations, but they are not found within federal food law. These nine little words allow a multi-billion dollar a year industry to mislead pet food consumers. What – exactly – do these nine little words mean?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean – nothing more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice,
“whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
-Lewis Carroll
Federal food safety law (the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) is very clear. Food – defined as “articles used for food or drink for man or other animals” – is adulterated (and prohibited) “if it is, in whole or in part, the product of a diseased animal or of an animal which has died otherwise than by slaughter.” But…with pet food this federal law isn’t enforced.
Instead, FDA and AAFCO chooses to enforce their nine little words. “It shall be suitable for use in animal food.” You can find ‘the nine little words’ in FDA Compliance Policy 690.300 (Canned Pet Food) and within the legal definitions (AAFCO) of numerous pet food meat ingredients; meat, meat by-products, poultry, poultry meal, and animal digest. (Strangely enough, the ‘nine little words’ are not included in the legal definitions of poultry by-product meal, poultry by-products, meat meal, meat and bone meal, and animal by-product meal. But that’s a whole different problem. Lack of consistent/concise pet food ingredient definitions. Left for another day.)
The pet food ingredients meat (example beef or lamb), meat by-products (example beef or lamb by-products), poultry (example chicken or turkey), poultry meal (example chicken meal or turkey meal) and animal digest (explanation: cooked stew of various animal species and animal parts) are all legally required to be “suitable for use in animal food”. So…what – exactly – do these nine little words mean? I asked FDA and the Chair of AAFCO’s Pet Food Committee (Jan Jarman Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Chair of AAFCO’s Ingredient Definitions Committee (Richard TenEyck Oregon Department of Agriculture).
First…FDA.
I asked: “In various FDA Compliance policies the statement “It shall be suitable for use in animal food.” is listed. Can FDA give me an explanation of what this means?”
The FDA responded:
“The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires that all animal foods, like human foods, be safe to eat, produced under sanitary conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be truthfully labeled. Processed pet food, including pet food consisting of material from diseased animals or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter, goes through a kill step, such as heat processing, which is designed to kill harmful bacteria. In addition, canned pet foods must be processed in conformance with the low acid canned food regulations to ensure the pet food is free of viable microorganisms. Any by-product or other ingredient used in animal food must be listed on the product label by its common or usual name so that consumers can make informed choices about what they feed their pet.”
I responded:
“My issue is that the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act defines food as anything consumed by humans and animals (Section 201 f). The FD&C Act also clearly defines a food as adulterated if it contains any part of a diseased animal or an animal that has died other than by slaughter (Section 402 a – 5). So how can it be both ways? How can a ‘food’ be sourced from diseased animal tissues still be ‘suitable for use in animal food’ when the ‘food’ is defined by law as adulterated? I’m just trying to understand how it can work both ways. Consumers want to understand how FDA can allow pet ‘food’ to be sourced from diseased animals or animals that have died other than by slaughter when it is called ‘food’ – when it is not divulged on the label that the pet ‘food’ can be sourced from diseased animals or animals that have died other than by slaughter – and when the FD&C Act says this ‘food’ is adulterated and prohibited.
Consumers feel FDA is giving the pet food industry loopholes to avoid law. I’m sure the FDA doesn’t want consumers to have this perception – so can you help me understand this?”
And the FDA responded with:
Hi Susan, from the CPG: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074710.htm:
“The pet food canning industry utilizes undecomposed animal and marine tissues from various sources. These include products of the rendering industry such as various meat, poultry, and bone meals; meat scraps and offal from packing house waste, freshly boned-out animals; and occasionally meat from animals that may have died otherwise than by slaughter.
Before processing, many of these commodities may be considered in violation of *402(a)(5)*, however, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is aware of no instances of disease or other hazard occurring from canned packing house offal or the tissues of animals that may have died otherwise than by slaughter.
The low acid canned food regulations (LACFRs) found in *21 CFR 113* are applicable to canned pet foods, *as referenced by 21 CFR 500.23.* When properly processed in accordance with these regulations, CVM considers canned pet foods, otherwise not in violation of the statute or regulations, to be safe and suitable for consumption by pets regardless of the origin of animal tissues used. CVM considers the retorting temperatures involved in the canning process adequate to destroy pathogenic organisms.”
Does this explain it better?
And my response:
I’m familiar with this CPG – but no, to me all this does is say what is done to these waste products. It still doesn’t define exactly what ‘suitable for use in animal food’ is. As it stands – with my limited understanding of the term, it seems like anything no matter how rancid and nasty is ‘suitable for use in animal food’. Is that correct? I hope not. This is why I want a real definition/explanation from FDA on exactly what this term means. It doesn’t appear to be defined anywhere.
The FDA was getting impatient with me – here is their final response on this issue:
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires that all animal foods, like human foods, be safe to eat, produced under sanitary conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be truthfully labeled. Processed pet food, including pet food consisting of material from diseased animals or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter, goes through a kill step, such as heat processing, which is designed to kill harmful bacteria. In addition, canned pet foods must be processed in conformance with the low acid canned food regulations to ensure the pet food is free of viable microorganisms. Before processing, these commodities may be considered in violation of *402(a)(5)*, however, when properly processed in accordance with these regulations, CVM considers canned pet foods, otherwise not in violation of the statute or regulations, to be safe and suitable for consumption by pets regardless of the origin of animal tissues used. CVM considers the retorting temperatures involved in the canning process adequate to destroy pathogenic organisms. LACF regulations define the process as adequate under the conditions of manufacture for a given product to achieve commercial sterility, either by 1) the application of heat which renders the food free of microorganisms capable of reproducing in the food under normal nonrefrigerated conditions of storage and distribution and free of viable microorganisms (including spores) of public health significance, or by 2) the control of water activity and the application of heat which renders the food free of microorganisms capable of reproducing in the food under normal nonrefrigerated conditions of storage and distribution.”
My interpretation of this lengthy FDA response is it is a non-response. The agency did not define or fully explain what the nine little words mean (It shall be suitable for use in animal food).
And…I also asked AAFCO. On October 16, 2014 I sent this message to the Chairs of the Pet Food Committee and the Ingredient Definitions Committee:
“In the OP (the AAFCO rule book), within the definitions of several ‘Animal Products’ definitions is the statement “It shall be suitable for use in animal food.”
Can someone provide me an explanation of this statement? What does ‘suitable for use in animal food’ mean?”
After 2 weeks with no response, I asked AAFCO if they had a response for me, Jan Jarman (Chair of the Pet Food Committee) stated “Your question is very broad and there are a number of regulations that address your question. Compiling them is just taking a little time.” At almost 3 weeks after my simple question was sent, AAFCO has still not responded.
Should AAFCO ever provide an explanation, it will be posted.
Another quote seems appropriate…
“I can’t be friends with a man who blows hot and cold with the same breath.”
– Aesop, Aesop’s Fables
Pet food consumers deserve much better. Consumers deserve a clear explanation of the nine little words – It Shall be Suitable for use in Animal Food. How can pet food consumers trust the pet food they risk their pet’s life with, without understanding what they are purchasing?
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 2500 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
2014 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
TerryM
November 4, 2014 at 1:12 pm
This wording causes me to question one vendor’s claims regarding its products being “human-grade.”
Dianne
November 4, 2014 at 1:26 pm
I would take it to mean, anything I won’t be sued over because I used it. Also, our limited feeding trials didn’t kill any animal, but then I expect that feeding trials use the best of the product, probably what is cooked up in their research labs, which will of course, be only mostly like the same product used in the feeding trials.
Jeanette Owen
November 4, 2014 at 4:05 pm
Well who wants to feed their pets, food from animals that is “other” than slaughtered? What a bunch of baloney!
Pacific Sun
November 4, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Well there are a couple of different ways to take apart the basic question of ~ WHAT DOES ~ “It shall be suitable for use in animal food” mean. Clearly let’s ask 1) What is NOT suitable for use in animal food? So far we know animal (ingredient) sources come from slaughter or other than by slaughter which includes material from diseased animals but not from decomposed (assuming rotting) animals. [Wow that’s a pretty fine line isn’t it?] So that statement means the animal could be cancerous, still standing, and slaughtered, OR the animal died of natural means (diseased or not) before slaughter. However it’s been “scooped” up quickly enough so that it’s not lying around in some (aging) pile of dead, decomposing, decaying carcasses. Oh okay. Uhh and by-the-way 2) What’s the turn-around time for that rule? Is it used within a week, or within a month? Or before it turns gangrene?
Next we’re told not to worry because even if these animals are diseased, they are cooked at such a high temperature that the effects of the disease aren’t a risk factor (and do note) they’re referring specifically to a canned product. So 3) What does happen to the carcass of a highly tumor ridden animal cooked at high heat? What’s left of it? And 4) Does the high heat cooking process also apply to how the (kibble) mixture is made for extrusion? And if the high temperature kills all “bacteria” then 5) Isn’t that killing all beneficial enzymes too? If the answer is yes, but the mixture is being nutritionally compensated with external additives (vitamins, minerals, et. al) then 6) Aren’t PF consumers actually buying “sanitized waste and non-waste material” injected with supplemental nutritional elements that equate to whole food values? If that’s the case then 7) Why can’t PF consumers just serve (non-toxic) whole food scraps to their animals in the first place, supplemented with the same array of external nutritional elements being used in commercial products for which they’re paying $3+lb? And yet, we’ve been preached to by the PFI and Vets that PET FOOD is the only suitable, balanced, and nutritionally safe meal we can feed our animals. Hmmm, some really strange rationale is going on there. So it’s better to serve possibly compromised food material, than human edible food – just because a manufacturer has some kind of license to sell an artificially generated product? And by the way, raw food feeders, if your source is also commercialized then the same issues apply. Meaning nobody can be sure all the animals sourced are non-diseased and if HPP is used for the same reasons of killing all pathogens, you’re back to ground zero as well.
With all these safeguards and manufacturing regulations in place, I guess the REAL (and only) question to ask the FDA and CPG is simply this:
If it’s suitable (enough) for use in animal food then what is about that statement that means is it NOT suitable for human consumption? And why are suddenly talking about “animal food” instead of “pet feed?”
Ellie
November 5, 2014 at 1:01 pm
As far as the veterinarians know there is no animal that has become ill after eating diseased animal carcass??? How would they know?! There are plenty of animals sickened daily by pet foods while the owners are told by the vet they don’t know what is causing their pet to be sick!
The fact that most pet food is cooked at extremely high temperatures at least 3 times during the processing leaves the door wide open for the industry to use whatever they wish as part of the mix of goo they produce. They just plan on any harmful bacteria to be eradicated by the heat process.
This move by the FDA is a huge money maker for many. Those companies that once disposed of such garbage now can make money by selling their garbage to a pet food company. Pet food companies can use this cheap garbage to help bulk up their food and they calculate this garbage into the “nutrition” listed on the label. They just don’t bother to inform the pet owners that they are feeding their pets diseased animal carcass.
It appears to me that this is false advertizing. Withholding information from the consumer is just the same as lying to them. Why is this allowed? I have to wonder if the FDA allows this kind of subterfuge in the pet food industry how much of it goes on in the human food industry?
Jane Eagle
December 15, 2014 at 4:30 pm
Why? $$$$$$$$$
Pingback: “It Shall be Suitable for use in Animal Food” - Fox Terrier Network
Mike L
November 9, 2014 at 8:30 pm
Hey that was fun to read. Not the nasty content type stuff but the writing style and quotes. Well done.
I guess that any meat, regardless of source or condition, is fine for humans to consume just as long as it is processed at a high enough heat, time and clean facility. Maybe that’s how we get wieners, mock chicken and baloney and such.
Pingback: “It Shall be Suitable for use in Animal Food” | dogosearch.com
Jane Eagle
December 15, 2014 at 5:33 pm
This is a perfect illustration of that old corporate saying: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.” Lots of words that say zilch.