The official requests have been sent; let the battle begin. This is the best chance we’ve ever had to stop illegal waste ingredient pet food.
We’ve known that the FDA and each State Department of Agriculture has been openly allowing pet food to violate law; openly allowing the most horrendous (and dangerous) ingredients into pet food – those sourced from diseased and non-slaughtered dead livestock. We’ve known that industry is making billions in profits selling illegal ingredient pet food.
We’ve complained about it, we’ve had meetings with federal and state authorities about it, we’ve written letters and emails about it…for years. But nothing stopped them, federal and state authorities continued to allow pet food to violate law.
And then a little miracle was found…a Supreme Court decision specific to our concern; government agency interpretation of law. The FDA’s interpretation of law is the very foundation of illegal pet food ingredients. FDA believes they have the authority to interpret law anyway they see fit…but thanks to this Supreme Court decision, we have the highest legal authority in the country saying otherwise. We have the best legal foundation there is to stop the FDA’s allowance of diseased and non-slaughtered animal material in pet food.
The full explanation of how this Supreme Court decision will change pet food can be read by clicking here. The short version is…FDA has interpreted law completely opposite to the original law written by Congress; pet food has been allowed by FDA to be sourced from diseased and non-slaughtered/dead animals with no warning to the consumer even though federal law says this is not allowed. But thanks to a Supreme Court decision, we have the legal means to prove FDA is in violation to their authority over pet food; we have the power to stop the FDA in their tracks.
To change anything within government, proper procedure must be followed. With FDA, the proper procedure to request a change in FDA regulation is through what’s called a Citizen Petition. A Citizen Petition is not a typical petition where signatures are collected. Instead, the Citizen Petition that FDA requires for consideration is a formal document that outlines the request of the petitioner along with the evidence to validate the request. It is signed by one person, but can be submitted on behalf of many. And the Citizen Petition is submitted on the federal government website – Regulations.gov.
The battle with FDA begins. On behalf of pet food consumers a Citizen Petition has been filed requesting FDA to…
The undersigned submits this petition on behalf of pet food consumers requesting the Commissioner of The Food and Drugs Administration to revoke Compliance Policies 675.400 Rendered Animal Feed Ingredients and 690.300 Canned Pet Food, modify existing pet food/animal feed definitions related to these compliance policies, and ask the agency to clearly and actively prohibit the recycling of rendered diseased and non-slaughtered animals into pet food/animal feed.
To read the full petition, Click Here.
FDA has acknowledged receipt of our petition; our request was assigned docket ID FDA-2016-P-3578 (though it did take three tries for me to get the document in the exact form FDA wanted).
The FDA is required to respond within 90 days, but…that 90 day response might be a ‘we are still investigating’ response. A final decision could take a year or more.
Anticipating lack of action by FDA, a complaint was filed with FDA’s boss – U.S. Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. The very same interpretation of law violation decided by the Supreme Court was cited. To read that complaint, Click Here. This is my second complaint to the Office of Inspector General…this office refuses to give any updates. We won’t know if they will investigate or if they will completely trash our complaint without investigation (our tax dollars at work).
And anticipating lack of action by the Office of Inspector General, a similar request for action was sent to the AAFCO Board of Directors. To read that letter, Click Here. This letter was sent to each member of the Board.
All of the major decision makers have been contacted.
What you can do…
We can expect the pet food industry and their trade associations to take action against our Citizen Petition. Those that profit from illegal ingredients won’t be too happy with our effort, they will actively lobby their political allies to attempt to stop us/our action. How do we defend our petition? We must lobby our elected officials too. It’s not hard…it’s just sending a few emails.
If you want to see an end to illegal ingredients in pet food, pet food consumers will need to ‘lobby’ their state and federal government officials by sending an email or letter to your elected officials; example emails below. First example email is to federal officials, second example email is to state officials.
Example Email/Letter to your Federal Officials (those in Washington D.C.)…
Dear_____________,
I am asking for your assistance to request the FDA to stop allowing illegal ingredients into pet food.
Supreme Court Justice J. Stevens provided the following opinion (Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council) to government agency’s interpretation of law:
“When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
“If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.”
In complete opposition of the above Supreme Court Decision, FDA interprets law that is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ with pet food/animal feed. Pet food ingredients are openly allowed by all regulatory authorities to be sourced from diseased and/or non-slaughtered animals.
Law unambiguously states “A food shall be deemed to be adulterated- (5) 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.” Manifestly contrary to law, FDA states “Pet food consisting of material from diseased animals or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter… will be considered fit for animal consumption.”
And each State Department of Agriculture follows FDA’s lead also allowing pet food to be sourced from illegal ingredients. Per the above Supreme Court decision, a government agency does not have the authority to interpret law if it is manifestly contrary to the statute; yet this is exactly what is happening in pet food.
No consumer is warned; in fact the pet food regulatory ‘system’ is very intentional in keeping consumers in the dark. Should a consumer want to research/read the legal definitions of pet food ingredients (to determine which pet food ingredient definitions allow sourcing from diseased or non-slaughtered animals) – that research would cost them $100 a year. Correct. The legal definitions of pet food ingredients are not public information – they are privately owned by AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials). AAFCO charges $100 a year for access to the legal definitions of pet food ingredients (and all laws specific to pet food/animal feed).
So…we have a multi-billion dollar a year industry that federal and state authorities allow to violate law (federal and state law), and a regulatory system that intentionally prevents consumers from knowing if their pet food contains legal or illegal ingredients.
Consumers have filed a Citizen Petition with FDA requesting the agency to revoke Compliance Policies that allow diseased and non-slaughtered animals to be processed into pet food, modify existing pet food ingredient definitions that allow the same, and actively enforce federal law with pet food. I am asking you to support me and other pet food consumers by providing FDA your comment in favor of our Citizen Petition; docket ID FDA-2016-P-3578.
I also ask you to contact the FDA directly asking the agency to provide on the FDA website all regulations governing pet food including all ingredient definitions for public view.
Sincerely –
Example email/letter to State Officials (your Governor, Commissioner of Agriculture, State Senators and Congressmen/women)…
I am directly asking for your assistance to request the State Department of Agriculture to stop allowing illegal ingredients into pet food.
Supreme Court Justice J. Stevens provided the following opinion (Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council) to government agency’s interpretation of law:
“When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”
“If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.”
In complete opposition of the above Supreme Court Decision, FDA interprets law that is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ with pet food/animal feed. Pet food ingredients are openly allowed by all regulatory authorities to be sourced from diseased and/or non-slaughtered animals.
Law unambiguously states “A food shall be deemed to be adulterated- (5) 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.” Manifestly contrary to law, FDA states “Pet food consisting of material from diseased animals or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter… will be considered fit for animal consumption.”
Each State Department of Agriculture follows FDA’s lead also allowing pet food to be sourced from illegal ingredients. Per the above Supreme Court decision, a government agency does not have the authority to interpret law if it is manifestly contrary to the statute; yet this is exactly what is happening in pet food.
No consumer is warned; in fact the pet food regulatory ‘system’ is very intentional in keeping consumers in the dark. Should a consumer want to research/read the legal definitions of pet food ingredients (to determine which pet food ingredient definitions allow sourcing from diseased or non-slaughtered animals) – that research would cost them $100 a year. Correct. The legal definitions of pet food ingredients are not public information – they are privately owned by AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials). AAFCO charges $100 a year for access to the legal definitions of pet food ingredients (and all laws specific to pet food/animal feed).
So…we have a multi-billion dollar a year industry that federal and state authorities allow to violate law (federal and state law), and a regulatory system that intentionally prevents consumers from knowing if their pet food contains legal or illegal ingredients.
Consumers have filed a Citizen Petition with FDA requesting the agency to revoke Compliance Policies that allow diseased and non-slaughtered animals to be processed into pet food, modify existing pet food ingredient definitions that allow the same, and actively enforce federal law with pet food. I am asking you to support me and other pet food consumers by providing FDA your comment in favor of our Citizen Petition; docket ID FDA-2016-P-3578.
I also ask you to contact the FDA directly asking the agency to provide on the FDA website all regulations governing pet food including all ingredient definitions for public view.
I also ask you to contact the State Department of Agriculture directly asking the agency to enforce federal and state law with pet food.
Sincerely –
If all authorities ignore our request – the next step will be a lawsuit. Considering the Supreme Court decision (and another lawsuit the FDA lost based on the same Supreme Court decision)…I’m confident we’ll win. ‘They’ can do this the easy way (now, through our Citizen Petition) or ‘they’ can do this the hard way through a lawsuit. Either way…we are not going away, not giving up on this. No pet, no animal should be fed illegal waste.
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
The 2016 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
The Other List
The List of pet foods I would not give my own pets. 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
Tracey
October 28, 2016 at 1:36 pm
Thank you Susan for all your time, effort and energy (not to mention money!) spent on this. It will be a tough battle but the truth is on our side and we WILL prevail! Now off to write letters….. 🙂
Brenda
October 28, 2016 at 2:15 pm
wow, impressive
Cheri Fellinger
October 28, 2016 at 2:16 pm
This is all great news BUT I think we’d better brainstorm the another solution for them……WHAT TO DO WITH THAT WASTE so it doesn’t end up in some other form of toxin to the environment. Let’s face it, its an ENORMOUS amount of dead, diseased, chemically altered junk that can’t contaminate ground or water sources.
Pacific Sun
October 29, 2016 at 1:58 am
You got to be kidding me. We figure out a solution … for ….. them??
Ahhh it would need to be incinerated. So why not make (just for a change) the owners of refuse responsible for their discards. In my city can’t just off-load weekly garbage to avoid the bill. . But pollution always seems to be put at the inconvenience of regular folks. Banning grocery bags. But selling case-loads of water in plastic bottles! Requiring used motor oil go to go back to AutoZone. Meanwhile people can’t (or couldn’t) drink the water in Flint, Michigan!
There’s something wrong with this picture. We’re doing the right things because we know better. But corporate responsibility always has some loophole. Like recycling food stuff for PROFIT!
Let’s call the subject of bad PF what it is. Manufacturing a “survival only” livestock grade feed made up of rehabilitated garbage-waste and toxic rendered protein is another form of animal abuse. Why? Because advertising is a lie. Which literally forces consumers to buy under false pretenses. Thinking reprocessed, artificially balanced, chemically corrected, dry dog biscuit bits, are actually better than fresh whole food for dogs. What their ancestral DNA requires!
The real lie is that PF manufacturers are selling only one thing. Which is pure and simply called convenience. They know it (and most people do) every step of the way. It isn’t better food at all. It’s EASY food. That’s the only “Truth About Pet Food.”
Lori S.
October 28, 2016 at 2:42 pm
Incredibly impressive work (and explanation of that work and of what we can do). Kudos to you, and thank you for all you do.
JaneeS
October 28, 2016 at 3:15 pm
I recently participated in a similar campaign to lobby our federal officials to take action in reference to a natural health supplement. It worked! In addition to emailing, calling your representative’s and senator’s offices was highly effective to bring attention to the matter. Often the official has little or no knowledge in reference to the issue you are contacting them about. Talking to someone in their office, giving facts along with personal stories of how this affects you and your pets gives them more insight as to why this push for change is important and necessary for a huge number of Americans. Many participants called and emailed over and over, even talked to the official directly. Emotional rants and pleas without facts aren’t that helpful, so whether you call or speak directly to an official or write/email them, please be prepared with the facts of what we want to do: actively enforce EXISTING laws, request the FDA to stop allowing illegal ingredients like 4D animals and other adulterated food and substances in our pet food, enforce legislation about truth in labeling pet food. To find your US Representative and Senator, go to the following website and enter your zip code. http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Susan Thixton
October 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm
Thank you for your comment – that gives us all some hope! And thanks for the link – I should have included that in my post.
JaneeS
October 28, 2016 at 3:27 pm
The link I gave in my comment above is only for US Representatives. This is a better link to find ALL your US Congress Members along with links to their websites to get email and phone numbers: http://www.whoismyrepresentative.com
Kathryn S
October 28, 2016 at 3:26 pm
may the Force be with you — but in an Election year, and this close to the election itself – not inclusive of ‘early voting’ states — this is probably not the best time to be sending letters, or to have even filed this — I’m sure it will be after November 8th before anyone in any governmental office is either breathing a sigh of relief, or is beginning to pack up their gear in anticipation of leaving office.
I would suggest that anyone reading this COPY/PASTE/SAVE the letters into a ‘word’ document ( or whatever you use ), make some minor ‘personal’ changes — don’t mess with the legalese — just make it from your position as a pet owner who wants to know what you are feeding your animals; and after the election – send to any newly elected officials in those local position in your state, even if they won’t be taking office until after the first of the year. Outgoing individuals may be less than enthusiastic in taking on a new proposal.
In my state many of our State officials – Commissioner of Agriculture, Senators, Congressmen/women and Governor are up for re-election. Just an idea — you could always send more than one letter!
Pet Owner
October 29, 2016 at 2:19 am
Let’s pretend the candidates who we have, didn’t exist. I don’t want this to be a pointed political comment. The consensus of the Voters in 2016 is that they’re tired of Washington deadlock. Unfortunately I don’t think timing has anything to do with stagnation. Candidates will say anything to secure a new office or existing term. But they are never held accountable to promises made. Outgoing Politicians may no longer care, true. But new ones will be beholding to financial supporters, and looking towards their reelection, also true. When is there ever a good time to be responsive to regular Citizens. Or will priority always be biased.
The beauty of Susan’s initiative is to point out that a law exists. And it is not open to interpretation for convenience. This is a responsibility for every sworn representative to uphold. Enforce the law, or change it. I don’t get to drive 70 mph in a 50 mph zone just because it looks convenient enough. If there’s the CHP watching, then I deserve a ticket. It’s not a judgement call.
So why does business always get an exemption?
Pat Torlen
October 28, 2016 at 7:20 pm
Hi Susan,
Thanks for all the work you do on behalf of our beloved furry companions. What would you suggest that we Canadians do to help in this cause? Much of the pet food products available at retailers in Canada comes from the USA so we have a vested interest as well. Keep up the fight!
Jane Democracy
November 9, 2016 at 2:12 pm
Pat,
We need to fight for safe Canadian pet food as well. We are lagging even further behind than the US. Canada has no regulation regarding pet food. Zero, nada zip! Currently only packaging labeling laws apply. There is no watchdog, no one is checking unless the food is exported to another country, then the Canadian Food Inspection Agency conducts checks on behalf of that country, but those checks are announced and easy to “get around”. The FDA will be conducting random checks on companies that produce for export to the USA, which is good but we need regulation and checks. Under the labeling laws now, as a pet food manufacturer you have 6 months to change your packaging and that is if and only if you get caught. There are all sorts of lies on products, but the manufacturers are not worried because who is checking up on them?
Catherine E Cook
October 31, 2016 at 10:03 pm
I think you need to tweak the letters so no cut and paste is required. I would love to help you with this by writing letters the way you have it too difficult. I want to look neat and professional. How many letters do you want and just to my senators and representatives in my geographic location? Any hired ups like who give name and address and phone, email. Sometimes they write back so you need a simple way to download the form after putting in
Catherine E Cook
October 31, 2016 at 10:08 pm
your proper address
Go Susan go and pray you win big!
blowyourfunnyfuse
February 23, 2019 at 3:53 pm
How is this case going?
Susan Thixton
February 23, 2019 at 10:37 pm
In all this time, FDA has still not responded.
Don Naffziger
August 9, 2019 at 3:15 am
Thank you so much Susan and everyone who is involved. I had no idea all this was going on. My cat Grazee passed away May 3rd from a direct cause of what is going on with our pet foods. She became allergic to just about every kind of food she had been eating her whole life 13 years. We had to put her on a prescription diet and our veterinarian explained to me about what’s going on with pet food manufactures. To make a long horrible story short she starved herself to death. We tried medications to stimulate her appetite and stop her stomach from getting upset but I believe she just gave up and was tired of getting sick after she would eat.
I’m dedicating the rest of my life in her name to help put an end to this. I’m also going to take a animal nutrition course so that I can help other pet owners. I had no idea what is going on and I guess I thought we lived in a perfect society where people actually cared about animal like you would your own children. They are after all our fur babies!
Thank you again for all your hard work and dedication.
Sincerely,
Don Naffziger