Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Pet Food News

No-Hide Rebuttal Brings More Questions

Earth Animal has published two rebuttals – so to speak – of the post on TruthaboutPetFood.com titled Is No-Hide Dog Chews Actually Hide? While Earth Animal claims the research published on this website was/is flawed, there are some significant flaws in their research that should be addressed as well.

Earth Animal has published two rebuttals – so to speak – of the post on TruthaboutPetFood.com titled Is No-Hide Dog Chews Actually Hide? While Earth Animal claims the research published on this website was/is flawed, there are some significant flaws in their research that should be addressed as well.

Starting with Dr. Timothy Bowser’s digestibility study that Earth Animal published to validate the digestibility of their No-Hide chews. Click Here to read Dr. Bowser’s study of the No-Hide treats.

Of significance, Dr. Bowser just happens to own a patent for a process to make animal chews more digestible – a process that appears to be identical to the process used to make Earth Animal No-Hide. Patent no. US20110142993 A1, Method for Making Pet and Animal Comestibles. The patent claims (bold added):

A method for making ingredients for pet or animal chew products in a batch or continuous process, comprising:

preparing said base by cleaning and separating out said filth and unwanted portions;
saturating digestive enzymes into said base;
forming said base into product shapes; and
processing said product shapes to shelf-stable products that contain said enzymes, whereby said enzymes can aid in digestion of pieces or chunks of said products when consumed.

In one working example, rawhide base is layered, cut and wrapped by hand or mechanically pressed into forms.

In another working example, protein base is mixed with rice gluten and other ingredients to form a liquid base matrix that is molded into shapes.

In the second “working example” above – “protein base is mixed with rice gluten and other ingredients to form a liquid base matrix that is molded into shapes” – – this example is almost identical to the process described to make the Earth Animal No-Hide chew.

It would be a serious concern if Dr. Bowser – the Earth Animal ‘digestibility expert’ – is performing studies on a product he receives royalty on.

 

Next, let’s look at exactly how Dr. Bowser determines a No-Hide or rawhide is or is not digestible.

Q. What is the main risk of rawhide? A. A dog swallowing a large piece that can get logged in it’s throat or gut. So how did Dr. Bowser determine that No-Hide is digestible?

“Tests were conducted on 10 mm slices of the No-Hide from samples that were provided by the customer and as described in this report. The pieces were cut to simulate chunks that could potentially be swallowed by dogs.”

Ten millimeters is VERY small. As compared to an inches…

Related image

10 millimeters is less than 1/2 inch.

Would a 10 mm slice be a risk to any dog? Even the smallest Chihuahua? If tests were being done to truly “simulate chunks that could potentially be swallowed by dogs” – wouldn’t a larger piece – such as a 1 or 2 inch piece the size that an average size dog would swallow be a more appropriate test? Is a 10 mm slice the appropriate test for a digestibility claim for all dogs? Opinion: no, it’s not.

In Dr. Bowser’s patent – he verified the digestibility of rawhide prepared with “digestive enzymes” based on a 1 centimeter square piece. This gives you an example of how small that is. The brown square (cardboard) is 1 centimeter square – as compared to a dime.

It is concerning that digestibility studies of products dogs are known to swallow large pieces of are based on testing material smaller than a dime.

 

Earth Animal’s second rebuttal of the evidence provided on TruthaboutPetFood.com is analysis of manufacturing of the No-Hide treat, further DNA analysis of the treats, and formaldehyde analysis of the treats. This Earth Animal rebuttal was performed by Ryan M. Yamka, PhD, MS, MBA, FACN, PAS, Dipl. ACAS, Luna Science and Nutrition, LLC.

Dr. Yamka begins by questioning the validity of DNA results published on this website. “In the article, allegations were made that the majority of the No-Hide™ chew is made from rawhide, when it is not. Test samples, submitted by unknown individuals, to two labs showed the presence of beef DNA which was used to support their claim. There was a misinterpretation of that data in the article. Although beef was identified via DNA in both No-Hide™ chews, the DNA data is not quantitative (i.e. it does NOT measure the percentage of composition).”

Dr. Yamka is correct that the DNA analysis performed by Eurofins lab was not “quantitative” – BUT…Dr. Yamka neglects to mention that another DNA analysis of the No-Hide treat (purchased directly from retail) published on this website was performed by the exact same laboratory that Dr. Yamka used — Authen Technologies.

Our results – which the lab did not want us to publish the full document publicly (but allowed Dr. Yamka to) provided this analysis…(below is a replica graph taken from data provided by Authen Technologies results)…

The above was testing performed on “No Hide Salmon Chew” purchased directly from retail. Ingredients of the Salmon No-Hide chew per the Earth Animal website are: “Salmon, Vegetable Gelatin, Brown Rice Flour, Organic Eggs, Olive Oil, Banana, Bromelain (Pineapple).” There is NO beef (Bos taurus) ingredient. Dr. Yamka offers the explanation that our testing found beef when none was listed was due to  “has multiple animal protein DNA likely because of protein migration” during manufacturing. However Dr. Yamka did not offer an explanation as to why/how our results of the Salmon No-Hide treat – which included no beef ingredient, purchased directly from retail – could test as majority beef under analysis – from the exact same lab. Majority beef in a no beef ingredient treat would be massive amounts of “protein migration”.

Next, Dr. Yamka scrutinizes PhD colleague Dr. Waldo Kallenberger who perform analysis for us on the No-Hide treat. Dr. Yamka states “If the investigator would have known that the product contained chicken (flesh) and gelatin (partially hydrolyzed collagen), I am sure he would have questioned his findings. Since this information was not provided to him or secondary scientific analysis was not performed, his findings become fatally flawed.”

Dr. Kallenberger DID know the ingredients of the product – he received a product directly from retail purchase with label included. Ingredients are listed on the product label.

Next we get into an area where two PhD scientists are experts in two very different things. Dr. Kallenberger provided this image in his analysis…

Note the top of the slide states “Flesh Side”. A PhD scientist familiar with skin/hide refers to the underside of the skin as the ‘Flesh Side’ – the ‘flesh side’ of the skin (hide). This is the common terminology within this realm of science. Dr. Yamka – clearly not informed in the science of animal skin/hide – mistakenly interpreted his PhD colleague stating the slide simply showed ‘flesh’ which Dr. Yamka explains would be typical of a product containing chicken flesh. But that is NOT was Dr. Kallenberger stated – he very clearly wrote “Flesh Side” – flesh side/underside of the skin (hide). Dr. Kallengerger PhD – expert in the science of skin/hide – further stated the material is absolutely rawhide split material.

To read the full rebuttal from Dr. Yamka, Click Here.

What consumers are left with is still a lot of unanswered questions about the No-Hide treat. Does Dr. Timothy Bowser have a financial interest (royalty) in No-Hide dog chews? Is a digestibility study appropriate for all dogs using material smaller than a dime? Why did quantitative analysis find a Salmon chew shipped directly from retail to the exact same lab used by Earth Animal that contained no beef ingredient to be majority beef?

We do know – with certainty – a few things…

  • The treat is still under FDA investigation; FDA will give no comment until investigation is complete.
  • As required by law – Earth Animal did NOT register the treat with Department of Agriculture in Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. It is unknown if the company failed to register the treat in other states. A “Stop Sale” order has been issued in the state of Georgia due to the lack of registration. Georgia Department of Agriculture is in the process of their investigation of the treat.
  • The treat removed from the throat of the dog that died in Georgia was a 4 inch chew – the chew swelled to 6 inches in length (as documented by the veterinarian that removed the treat from the dog’s throat and as documented by Earth Animal’s Dr. Timothy Bowser – patent owner – who later examined the treat).
  • A dog in Texas remains very ill after swallowing a piece of No Hide chew. Texas Department of Agriculture began their investigation/meeting with the pet owner yesterday (8/31/17).

We all must wait for FDA and Department of Agriculture investigation – and for all of us on both sides of the fence on the No Hide treat – we will have to trust that FDA and other authorities will do a proper investigation and provide us with the full details soon.

 

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 4,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com

list-seal-xsmall

 

The 2017 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods.  Click Here

 

Have you read Buyer Beware?  Click Here

Cooking pet food made easy, Dinner PAWsible

Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here

 

27 Comments

27 Comments

  1. Michelle

    September 1, 2017 at 11:38 am

    You are grasping Susan.

    • Susan Thixton

      September 1, 2017 at 11:39 am

      Grasping at what?

    • T Allen

      September 1, 2017 at 3:07 pm

      Nope, she’s dead on and you are right to be concerned.

  2. JMC

    September 1, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    I assume Susan loves dogs. What would she gain by “grasping” at any product or at Earth Animal? what does she stand to gain? Is she marketing a competitive product? Or is she just looking for the truth? I for one am grateful for the work she does as it makes my life easier and my dogs life safer.

  3. Robin M.

    September 1, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Michelle, are you working for No-Hide? I mean seriously, that’s the best comment you could sputter out when someone’s dog is SICK from a product that has now been PROVEN BEYOND A DOUBT to contain ingredients it SPECIFICALLY claims it doesn’t. It is irrelevant how big or how small those ingredients are, and when an unbiased researcher describes salmon as MAJORITY BEEF in a NO-BEEF product, I cannot believe anything else they are trying to claim. That piece looks exactly like hide, it tested as hide, my dog (Great Pyr) inhales things as big as he can swallow, so dime size glued to a hundred other dime sized is bite size stomach twist for a big dog and potential death for a tiny one. Grasping??? Yeah, grasping…..but certainly not Susan. No-Hide is grasping…..desperately.

  4. landsharkinnc

    September 1, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    and just where did ‘DR’ Bowser get his degree ?? Do you really think his name is ‘Bowser’ ???

    • Susan Thixton

      September 1, 2017 at 1:11 pm

      That really is his name – and he’s with University of Oklahoma. The pet owner has spoken with him numerous times – and he never once disclosed he holds this patent.

    • Robin M.

      September 1, 2017 at 1:14 pm

      ROFLMAO!!

  5. FeedThemRAW

    September 1, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Clearly you didn’t read the title of the graph you posted where it states this does not represent volume of weight of the species. So the graph is not quantitative as you suggest. Also, is that really a replica? It looks like you simply cut and pasted it. Also, I read your previous blogs today. Are you not stating who sent in the samples because you are working with other pet food companies?

    • Susan Thixton

      September 1, 2017 at 1:53 pm

      I am not sharing who tested the product – no. I was asked not to. I don’t work for pet food companies – ever. I work for pet owners. The results were published on behalf of the pet owner in Georgia. Yep – the graph is a replica with the data from our results.
      The following statement appears above the graph on both our DNA analysis from Authen Technologies as well as Earth Animal’s analysis from Authen Technologies: “Species Identification Test Results. The Y-axis is the total number of sequences identified for each species; this value is not representative of weight or volume of the species. “Other” category (if applicable) represents sequences not specifically identified.” The exact same test performed at the exact same lab with two very different results.

  6. FeedThemRAW

    September 1, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    Did they state their information was quantitative? You clearly do above. Just saying it shows it’s there, right? Not how much. I just think you need to represent the data properly.

    • Susan Thixton

      September 1, 2017 at 2:07 pm

      Again – they stated the exact same thing stated on our results as well as Earth Animal’s.

  7. FeedThemRAW

    September 1, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    Then why do you state in bold letters multiple times above that the assay is quantitative. I just read their report and they state it is not quantitative. It just determines if the DNA is present or not. Usually, you are good about representing the data correctly and let the pet owner review. In this case I think you need to correct your statement.

    • Susan Thixton

      September 1, 2017 at 2:43 pm

      My point was that Dr. Yamka was dismissing our tests – when actually one of our tests was identical to theirs. That was the point. Perhaps it wasn’t stated clear – which I will edit now.

  8. paponypal

    September 1, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    I think it’s appalling. to infer Susan is on the side of the company, when she has fought vigorously to show both sides by being impartial. Should you truly believe this, perhaps this is not the forum for you. In this age of trash talk made easy I am glad we have a Susan. We need more honest folk like her. Especially when she advocates for our pets. She spends hours of her time to educate us.

  9. FeedThemRAW

    September 1, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    I reread it. He clearly states that the testing does not support the statement “majority is beef” since the test doesn’t support weight or volume. It only supports the presence of DNA not the amount of the protein source.

    • Susan Thixton

      September 1, 2017 at 3:22 pm

      We’ll have to agree to disagree.

    • Susan Thixton

      September 1, 2017 at 4:52 pm

      Our results from Authen Technologies state: “The sample was analyzed using a universal animal DNA test, which identified it as Bos taurus. DNA from other animal species was also detected in relatively low abundance.” This does support the statement the product is ‘majority beef’.

      • FeedThemRAW

        September 1, 2017 at 9:10 pm

        Not true. The lab clearly states on their website, ” **Please note that this is not a quantitative test and is not representative of the weight or volume of each species in the starting material”.

        For your reference:
        https://www.authentechnologies.com/resources/coainfo/

        • Susan Thixton

          September 1, 2017 at 9:39 pm

          So you’re telling me the document I have in front of me I can’t read? I copied it word for word. You can keep the argument going if you like – but I have absolutely nothing to gain for making information up. Think about it – why are the results presented in a graph if they are not somewhat representative of species found – amount found? Why not just present the data like Eurofins? If the graph represents nothing – why did the lab include it?

  10. T Allen

    September 1, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    Rawhide swells. A meat protein “matrix” would not swell. Nice sleuthing Susan! DR Bowser’s reputation just took a hit and Dr Yakima appears to be a “hired gun”. Too bad. Obviously a relatively intelligent guy but appears to be lacking in common sense.

  11. T Allen

    September 1, 2017 at 3:31 pm

    I’m NOT impressed with Dr Bowser’s testing methodology. You can tell from the pics that the strips of No-Hide chew are still swollen strips after 8 hours and he should have used strips of rawhide dog bone cut to the same dimensions. Sloppy work, OK for in house testing but not OK for a court case.

  12. Dianne & Pets

    September 1, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    And this is one of the reasons people with seriously allergic dogs end up switching to raw and or home cooked.

  13. Mr. Smith

    September 1, 2017 at 6:03 pm

    People, and apparently Dr. Yamka, Need to Re-read the report by Dr. Kallenberger. He clearly stated the No-Hides arrived in a 2 pack sealed bag. He also noted Blood Vessel “PASSSAGES”, Flesh Residual (In leather world, flesh or fleshings refer to the fat tissue clinging onto the cattlehide closest to the internal animal). Dr. Kallenberger noted the FIBROUS structure of the sample and, what should put this entire thing to bed, he noted the CORIUM FIBERS.. Look it up Dr. Yamka…. Dr. Kallenberger also noted the Blood vessel “Passages” , flesh fibers, and Corium Fibers were all IN TACT and impossible to come from a composite material of ground collagen or a paste. Dr. Yamka also incorrectly stated that Dr. Kallenberger made his conclusion because it contained “Flesh(blood vessels)” and Collagen……. This is entirely NOT what Dr. Kallenberger stated. Again, RE-READ his report. I’m shocked someone with Dr. Yamka’s resume – including his time a product R&D Director for Blue Buffalo, or his time as R&D at Hill’s,, or his time in product development at Hartz (including rawhides) would misinterpret Dr. Kallenbereger’s report so blatantly and obviously. Dr. Yamka also stated that Dr. Kallenberger did not know the ingredients. How did he know if Dr. Kallenberger knew the ingredients? If he received the 2 chews in an unsealed package, surely Dr. Kallenberger could read the ingredients…….. I hope all those who continue to defend EA and blindly agree with the so-called lab report by Dr. Yamka can take the blinders off and use their critical thinking skills to piece this entire thing together… I also hope Dr. Bob Goldstien reads this post, and every FDA inspector looking into this obvious and ridiculous attempt to concoct a dubious story about rice flour and gelatin and meat being extruded (surprisingly very white in color…)…….

  14. Peter

    September 2, 2017 at 9:14 am

    I commented on another essay on TAPF about why (aside from this subject) I am personally convinced EA is not trustworthy: it is based on information from a one-on-one conversation with a former employee. It’s fine for some to be defensive of a company that they might personally like, but I am frustrated by the lack of understanding of the issues here, especially about why this controversy (about ingredients) was brought to public light in the first place. Now, there seems to begin a determined effort to improperly re-focus public awareness. I am beginning to associate EA with the excesses of Evangers…

  15. Janelle

    December 23, 2019 at 4:23 am

    It should also be noted here that when a comment about Timothy Bowser’s patent and the issue of conflict of interest was made on Earth Animal’s Facebook page from a November 2019 post, the status of the patent was promptly changed to “Abandoned” on Google Patents on December 23, 2019, hours after the comment was made.

  16. Mr.Jones

    August 23, 2021 at 3:04 pm

    Wow, this is unsettling, but unfortunately not hard to believe. I thought I had found a healthy, safe alternative to rawhide for my girl, albeit a pretty expensive alternative. It’s really too bad we’ve gotten to a point in society where you have to look below the surface for every product, and consider sneaky play-on-words scenarios. Especially when it comes to the health of our little furry loved ones with no voice to speak for themselves. There are too many companies intentionally taking advantage of people’s love for their pets, both financially and with subpar, far from healthy ingredients. Thank you, Susan, for taking the time to look deeper into this, and inform us of what you’ve found. The fact that the FDA has an open investigation into this company is enough to get me looking elsewhere. Am I the only one who thinks quality control for pet consumables should be much more strict? Very frustrating to find out I’ve been paying a premium for a product that isn’t likely much better than the cheapo grocery store rawhides. Very frustrating. If the investigation turns out to show they actually ARE selling plain old rawhide, there should be a class action suit to return all money they overcharged customers for years! Thanks again Susan! At this point, I’m resorting to feeding my girl nothing outside of what I put together with my own 2 hands! At least I know I can trust myself! Haha

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Learn More

Human Grade & Feed Grade
Do you know what the differences are between Feed Grade and Human Grade pet food? Click Here.

 

The Regulations
Pet Food is regulated by federal and state authorities. Unfortunately, authorities ignore many safety laws. Click Here to learn more about the failures of the U.S. pet food regulatory system.

 

The Many Styles of Pet Food
An overview of the categories, styles, legal requirements and recall data of commercial pet food in the U.S. Click Here.

 

The Ingredients
Did you know that all pet food ingredients have a separate definition than the same ingredient in human food? Click Here.

Click Here for definitions of animal protein ingredients.

Click Here to calculate carbohydrate percentage in your pet’s food.

 

Sick Pet Caused by a Pet Food?

If your pet has become sick or has died you believe is linked to a pet food, it is important to report the issue to FDA and your State Department of Agriculture.

Save all pet food – do not return it for a refund.

If your pet required veterinary care, ask your veterinarian to report to FDA.

Click Here for FDA and State contacts.

The List

The Treat List

Special Pages to Visit

Subscribe to our Newsletter
Click Here

Pet Food Recall History (2007 to present)
Click Here

Find Healthy Pet Foods Stores
Click Here

About TruthaboutPetFood.com
Click Here

Friends of TruthaboutPetFood.com
Click Here

You May Also Like

Pet Food News

Investigation documents provides concerning information about No-Hide Dog Treats.

Pet Food News

The District Manager of the Philadelphia District of USDA told TruthaboutPetFood.com "The pet treats are NOT manufactured under USDA inspection."

Pet Food News

A dog has died. The treat stuck in the dog's throat - which killed her - is sold to consumers as a "healthier alternative...