Purina Answers from Global Pet Show

I’ve read TAPF for 8 years, including virtually all comments. But never read one like yours. In the beginning, depending on the topic (especially when a Brand Name was mentioned) nearly 50%-60% of Reader responses were argumentative. People defended their opinions, attacked the Author’s and other Reader’s, like death! By contrast, our own “debate” here isn’t about who’s right or wrong. It is about expanding the discussion. And learning from both perspectives. As an Industry Insider, you taking the time to share personal experience and knowledge is important and considerate!

I concede to the complexity of manufacturing volume, mass production, evidence investigation, geographical logistics, cost, and how to justify the value of results for the effort applied.

So let’s individualize issues that “could” be addressed.

[I’m guessing the dog you mentioned with extreme symptoms to meat may have a tendency toward pancreatitis, IBD, or UC. Once intestinal inflammation starts, it takes its toll, weakening natural defenses, and very little irritation can set off severe episodes. I know from experience. Sadly, for this kind of dog, I would claim a heredity predisposition, and not PF as the main culprit. But keep in mind, that PF over time, can be a colluding factor in promoting internal deterioration.

So for the sake of progress in this discussion, we can say most dogs with severe reactions, have some contributing deficiency that makes them more susceptible than average.

Most PF Brands boast of comprehensive quality control procedures. Let’s assume what you describe is typical of major name Brands. From your description it would seem impossible for a dog’s issue to be tied back to a particular batch of food that tests negative. Again, we’ll classify that kind of dog with an existing deficiency or predisposition.

One question remains, does a “good” PF Company put relative weight on a cluster of complaints within a specific timeframe, focused on a single target? Does it escalate the speed and depth of research? How often CAN a cause and effect be established? And how do they communicate with Consumers? Another observation is, PF is virtually never recalled for worse than “Samonella.” Or is that an “umbrella” excuse for recalling PF with potentially far worse problems? So as not to alarm consumers?

We know, from common sense, that production mistakes can happen at any point. Fatal exposure to pesticide spraying, leaking chemicals, defective ingredients, dangerous storage and transport circumstances. Can you say companies are truly vigilant against such mistakes, while they are just as comprehensive in dealing with major mistakes prior to batch releasing? If so, why is a library of sample food necessary?

While testing isn’t a pleasant subject, it’s required for the greater good. It’s assumed that “Prescription PF” must go through rigorous testing to formulate a dependable remedy for a life threatening condition. But, as referenced earlier in my response, shouldn’t practical testing be done to show that long term feeding of a routine diet, won’t compromise a dog’s metabolism, digestive and intestinal processes, long term! Perhaps it shouldn’t be, but these diets ARE life-long. And the Animal Feed Industry has already admitted that livestock feed is intended for short-term maintenance of animals intended for slaughter. How much more quality goes into a PF to ensure its natural to extended lifespan? And compared to fresh, whole foods? That’s the kind of useful testing needed. But we both recognize that no company will incur added expenses, for less profit. BB’s claim of “Life Source” bits may allude to antioxidant nutritional benefits, but is it fair to lead Consumers on with that kind of suggestion?

If true testing were a valid premise, then in-house necropsy would be part of the discussion. Again, an unpleasant subject. But back to the idea of practical in-home tracking of PF nutritional effects. Career and Veterinarian Professionals (tracking household pets) offset by Objective Third Party participants. Performing end of life necropsy testing, that surely could distinguish between the “clustering” of kidney/renal failure, versus cancers, versus natural causes, and noting average life span reached. If we’re talking about who picks up the price tag, remember the PFI is a Billion dollar business! And because of Dept. of Ag fees, formulas don’t change frequently, nor are new Brand Names often added.

The PFI shouldn’t be a “crazy game” but well said. In terms of marketing, and AAFCO complicating ingredient definitions and misdirecting labeling. If good will (transparency) was truly intended, then proof and demonstration of “Best Practices” (in all areas) would be self-evident. This I say to contradict the idea that TAPF is a grass-roots conspiracy. And for what purpose. It’s non-profit (if not loss incurring) website helping to promote pet welfare. The PFI would (and should be) as open-minded as yourself, to explain what practices achieve what results. And yet consumers are treated as if knowing too much would be a detriment. Hardly a confidence building approach.

Actually “because” PF isn’t fit for human consumption, it can only be classified as a specially formulated version of livestock feed. And we know the purpose of that. No better, no worse. But it means a world of difference regarding quality regulation and assurances. And no, the problem isn’t a lack of PF regulation. (Please refer to FDA Compliance Policies already on the books). But understand that the PFI could very well be SELF regulating … if it chose to be! Currently there are Truth in Advertising lawsuit allegations amongst major companies. But how much more effective it would be, if there was a lawsuit against the use of illegal 4-D rendered protein. [See articles on endotoxins, etc.]. So shouldn’t there be a Policy established to make Renderers accountable for the ORIGIN (and condition) of protein sources and treatment practices?? That Policy should be demanded in partnership with the PFI! Again, if they truly wanted to be transparent and use Best Practices for the welfare of animals. Instead of solely focusing on profit.

The point is well taken that one difference is we don’t eat the same thing day after day after day…like our pets do. Therefore. even greater care should be taken in the formulation of PF.

I am glad you are advocating for accurate, truthful labeling. Because actually it’s the first step to improving what they’re labeling in the first place! The PFI being so highly competitive, could very well “take off” for the benefit of all pets, if it decided to be SELF regulating, and calling out all “Players” who cheat the system! Nobody knows better than Insiders how to catch a Cheat. And “Good Companies” shouldn’t be blamed for all generalized failures.

As to marketplace, the one kibble I really trusted was Mulligan’s Stew (dry). I paid double for it and it was shipped overnight. But the company rep admitted to me they couldn’t stay in business with their commitment to quality compared to what it was costing them to make it. But at least they were honest enough to admit that, and NOT sell out.