Although it’s absurd we had to, we once AGAIN asked FDA to enforce law in pet food.
In July of 2010, pet owners asked FDA to enforce law in pet food. Simple enough request, we aren’t asking for the moon. We just wanted FDA to enforce law in pet food, we asked them to stop allowing pet food to violate law.
FDA thought about our request for 4 years. In July of 2014 the long awaited FDA response to our request was “denied” stating in part “because your petition does not provide sufficient data and information to support this request“. In other words, the FDA didn’t feel we provided the agency with sufficient evidence their allowance of illegal material in pet food (ingredients sourced from diseased animals and animals that have died otherwise that by slaughter) was not safe.
Next we turned the tables a bit, and then asked FDA through Freedom of Information Act request for their evidence. We asked the FDA for their scientific evidence that proves pet food ingredients sourced from diseased animals and animals that have died otherwise than by slaughter are safe for pets to consume. FDA responded in 2016 stating they had no scientific evidence that proves these horrendous pet food ingredients are safe.
Wiser to their tricks, we tried again in October of 2016 and filed another legally appropriate document (our Citizen Petition) with FDA asking the agency to enforce law in pet food. And based on a face to face meeting with FDA, we added an Addendum to the Citizen Petition in 2017 asking for a ‘standard of identity’ of dog feed/cat feed be required of pet products that do not meet the legal standards of food.
On April 30, 2019, the FDA responded with a “no” to everything we asked for. ‘No’ – FDA will not enforce existing law in pet food. ‘No’ – FDA will not prevent the use of pet food ingredients sourced from diseased animals or animals that have died other than by slaughter. And ‘No’ – FDA will not agree to allow pet food consumers to make informed decisions.
On May 1, 2019 we contacted the mediation division of FDA asking for a discussion with FDA regarding their continued attitude allowing pet food to violate law. FDA agreed to mediation on May 20, 2019…but 20 days later on June 10, 2019 the Agency changed their minds. We were told we could file a “Petition for Reconsideration” instead.
Today – June 17, 2019 – we filed our Petition for Reconsideration with FDA asking the Agency to reconsider in full it’s decision to continue to allow pet food to violate law with no warning or disclosure to pet owners. Pet owners can read that document Here.
We argued every point we could (those allowed per requirements of Petition for Reconsideration), but one of the most telling arguments (personal opinion) we had was in response to FDA’s attitude that all pet owners are fully aware pet food is not food, and the Agency’s “belief” diseased animal material is safe – thus pet owners don’t need to be informed to what is actually in their pet’s food.
That one particular argument was:
We challenge the Agency, if these ingredients are so safe and the Agency is so certain the public understands what they are buying – why not label the ingredients on pet food labels with their true identity such as “diseased chicken” or “condemned beef”? We argue that we both (FDA and Association for Truth in Pet Food) know why these ingredients are used under the FDA facilitated cloak of secrecy; “diseased chicken” or “condemned beef” on a label would not sell pet food. By allowing these ingredients not labeled with their true identity (example ‘diseased chicken’ or ‘condemned beef’), the Agency is enabling pet food to be an illegal waste disposal system unbeknownst to the individuals purchasing these products (pet owners).
It is unknown at this point if FDA will allow pet owner comments on the Petition for Reconsideration. However in the meantime, if you agree with the position we provided – you can send your comments to FDA via email at AskCVM@fda.hhs.gov. Make sure to reference ‘Petition for Reconsideration Docket ID: FDA-2016-P-3578’.
Again, to read our original Citizen Petition Click Here.
To read the Addendum Click Here.
To read FDA’s response to Citizen Petition and Addendum Click Here.
And finally, to read our FDA Petition for Reconsideration Click Here.
Now we wait for FDA to decide if they will continue to allow the pet food industry to utilize illegal ingredients with no warning or disclosure to pet owners. It is unknown how long FDA will take to respond.
It is more than absurd that we have to ask for existing law to be enforced in pet food and have to ask that pet owners be provided the opportunity to make informed decisions when buying pet food. But we’ll continue to ask no matter how long it takes…because we won’t give up on our pets.
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.
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
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.
Duncan Ness
June 17, 2019 at 4:39 pm
You’re right: it’s absurd!
Cannoliamo
June 17, 2019 at 4:59 pm
I share your frustration(s) Susan. I’m old enough to remember when the FDA was true to their charter and took seriously the public health and safety consequences of food / feed contamination, and I have watched as this agency’s health concern has deteriorated to the point where food-borne diseases, whether acute or chronic, mean little to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) and certainly do not trigger any response from either an epidemiological or a regulatory intervention perspective.
In their public Agency Mission Statement, the CVM Division of Animal Feeds states ….
“A safe animal food (feed) supply helps ensure healthy animals and people. To that end, the Center for Veterinary Medicine:
monitors and establishes standards for animal feed contaminants, including those in pet food,
approves safe food additives for animal food use, and
manages the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) medicated feed and pet food programs.”
https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/products/animal-food-feeds
We all know this statement is a collection of empty words insofar as they do NOT perform ANY of the above tasks with ANY degree of reliability or accountability. I’m sad to say that, in my opinion as a multiple pet owner who purchases commercial pet food labelled under the AAFCO definitions, FDA CVM fails their stated mission of protecting pets against the inherent dangers of pet food / feed contamination in each and every category listed.
– They do not monitor and establish standards for pet food
– They do not approve safe food additives for animal food use
– They do not manage the FDA medicated pet food program
Just as you so pointedly state, that
“We argue that we both (FDA and Association for Truth in Pet Food) know why these ingredients are used under the FDA facilitated cloak of secrecy; “diseased chicken” or “condemned beef” on a label would not sell pet food.”
we (the general public whose taxes are used to fund CVM) know that the reason CVM neglects to fulfill their stated mission is that it is inconsistent with their ACTUAL mission of allowing pet food / feed to be sold to us and fed to our pets without any protection for the ultimate consumers (whether this term is used figuratively or literally). Until such time as the agency decides to accept their mission and assume responsibility for mitigating the consequences of contaminated pet food / feed, this agency will simply “duck and cover” in response to any liability for the numerous deaths attributable to their regulatory neglect.
Thank you for your help in bring this matter to our attention.
~Pacific Sun~
June 18, 2019 at 12:04 am
The CVM should be our front line of defense! Without them, we’re handicapped!
~Pacific Sun~
June 17, 2019 at 11:58 pm
We take a lot for granted on the TAPF. We’re shining a light (truth) down on the mess that is below us. And the FDA & PFI is looking up and saying you’re shining a light in our eyes that’s blinding us!! The point being, is that they’re going to defend their line of defense like Gabriel does the Pearly Gates! For eternity.
Just to be devil’s advocate, there’s a big difference between something that “can” go into PF, and stuff that will routinely (as a matter of process) GO into PF. They are hashing over the semantics of 2 words (can and will). That picture of the dead cattle in the back of the truck sitting out in the sun (rotting) comes to mind. The FDA would say that’s a careless shipment that slipped past the manufacturer’s quality control (the exception). And YOU know that’s not an out of the ordinary situation at all. But you know that also because you have inside information.
As far as consumers go, they wouldn’t believe it’s routine. They can’t grasp the depth of criminal behavior. But to a lesser degree, they know their dogs eat roadkill and scraps (not in the best of condition). They’ve gotten into the garbage can. Eaten a piece of chicken beyond expiration. But they survive. And the FDA would counter that the BIG pet food company mistakes (pentobarbital and bacteria that creates endotoxins) are exceptions to the rule. So why would they warn the public about what “could” happen, as oppose to them defending what shouldn’t happen! That’s their slim line of “reasoning.”
So wouldn’t this matter really go back to testing? And the burden of proof has to be deeper than expecting mistake proof PF, especially of a product that is livestock feed grade, which is their only benchmark.Being that a level of defects is acceptable. Cattle aren’t dying from the food either. Of course it’s not meant to be a long term sustainable diet either!
So the frustration is in our effort to link the effects of bad PF in specific cases over the long term, right? The FDA “could” do it through they’re reporting system. Isolating the worst offenders. With the cooperation of Vets. Collecting consistent data, linked with specific diet. But if they cross over (to our side, and admit the failures) then they would be spending their time going after every single guilty party! And I think (they think) that’s just not a practical effort. They would become the “policemen” of a particular Industry. And be targets for retribution.
In terms of providing proof, wouldn’t endotoxin testing determine a high level of bacteria? If it’s present in every can of PF, then that’s one thing. Wouldn’t the percentage of pentobarbital in food be another signal? Wouldn’t the consistent presence of mycotoxins be another sign or dangerous quality? (Particularly after the mid-west flood season!) And as a matter of combining all these elements (together) demonstrate that the product is truly damaging!
Because that kind of a case, really does have to be made, to justify the warning label on the product. Just as they’ve determined that alcohol is a dangerous to your health, and post that label on the bottle. There is one other possibility, under California law is Proposition 65 (the declaration of known carcinogens) which requires all Sellers to post a warning label if those chemicals (elements) are in any product (food or material).
~Pacific Sun~
June 18, 2019 at 1:01 pm
I should’ve added, among the ongoing testing that needs to be done continuously to catch these crooks, is comprehensive species (DNA) testing. That would certainly call out mis-branded products!! And suggest the inclusion of euthanized animals. I assume a violation of labeling (?)
Paula Jacunski
June 18, 2019 at 6:02 am
Done! Email sent to FDA.
Starr3214
June 19, 2019 at 7:16 am
what email did you use. mine won’t go through with that email in the article. do you think the FDA has changed it?
Porgy
June 18, 2019 at 9:32 am
Good try. Why not file a class action suit against the manufacturer of such products? In addition, check the state feed laws and file misbranding claims with the states where the products are being sold.
Joanne
June 21, 2019 at 1:10 pm
It makes me wonder what all the FDA allows in human grade food. It has become another redundant federal agency using circular arguments, and not doing the job they exist to do. Not enforcing laws that already exist is indefensible.
MH
July 16, 2019 at 4:16 am
Anyone else thinks it does not matter? FDA is another overly inflated organization that is a drain on taxpayers…”mediation division” you have to be kidding me. They all get full pension on our dime and do nothing to help or protect the consumers that enable them to milk the system.
Seems that after 9 years of denials and lack of responses that the future is clear. Best to move on and accept nothing will ever change. Maybe if everyone gets together and hires a high priced lawyer, we will get somewhere but then again im sure they can outspend us and keep ppwk going until we give up and never see a day in court
They don’t care about pets, law or consumers.
Denise
June 25, 2021 at 9:16 pm
Tried sharing on Facebook, it wasn’t allowed! Ridiculous!