Below is information provided by FDA explaining a bit more on the pet food testing study that found high incident risk of bacteria in raw meat pet foods. Also, perhaps why many pet food consumers remain skeptical.
A surveillance study was performed on pet foods over two years. FDA states “The goal of the study was to help FDA prioritize its future testing efforts, rather than to conduct regulatory action.” Thus, the results of this two year study would be used to guide FDA on what types of pet food to test in the future. This goal is significantly important. Recalls cost companies a lot of money. No company – big or small, kibble or raw – wants to experience a recall.
But this study raised some questions…the terminology in the report was a bit different with description of the kibble food portion (Phase 1) of the testing than the raw food portion (Phase 2). The study stated it was ‘blinded’ but (again) the way this was worded in the research description didn’t appear that Phase 1 and Phase 2 was handled the same. And the description of the research did not define if raw foods remained frozen and/or were properly handled before testing.
Of my questions if raw food samples remained frozen, the FDA stated:
Samples that arrived to FERN MCAP labs not frozen or with torn packaging were rejected from the study. The samples remained frozen prior to testing and were thawed according to the Bacteriological Analytical Manual to ensure that all samples were handled according to protocol: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/LaboratoryMethods/ucm063335.htm
Of my questions if kibble foods were ‘blinded’ to the researchers and raw foods were not, the FDA stated:
The labs in Phase 1 purchased their own samples as mentioned in the paper, and they submitted the results to FDA blinded. FDA was not told which products tested positive or negative. The goal of the study was to evaluate pathogens in various feeds to help prioritize potential surveillance testing efforts – it was not a regulatory assignment.
Also the FDA stated:
Phase 1 and Phase 2 were completed in the same manner – the FERN MCAP laboratories analyzed the product samples and submitted the results to FDA blind. To clarify, FDA was not told the brand names of the products, only whether the samples tested positive or negative. This was to ensure that any decisions about future testing of pet food commodities would be made on a scientific basis and avoid the introduction of any possible bias.
What most federal and state regulatory authorities don’t understand is that the interest of pet food consumers are never – NEVER – shown priority over the interest of industry. Never. For decades pet food consumers have been dumped on – ‘Your pet sick? We can’t investigate.’ Your pet died? Sorry, can’t help you.’
But for industry – ‘You need a cheap protein? Sure, go ahead and use rancid, decomposing 4D meat. We’ll ignore federal law.’ ‘You want to put pretty pictures on your labels of food ingredients when you are actually using feed (waste) ingredients? Certainly…go right ahead. We don’t have the time to enforce the regulations anyway.’ And it goes on and on.
Dozens of brands and hundreds of varieties of kibble pet foods have been recalled for bacteria contamination over the past couple of years compared to a handful of raw meat pet foods. So when a ‘study’ over the same couple of years finds a 100% reversal of those results…are we suspicious? Certainly we are.
Side note. Former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell has very recently been convicted of 11 corruption-related counts. An informant told authorities of gifts (totaling more than $150,000) were provided to the governor’s family from businessman Jonnie Williams, Sr. “who was seeking favorable treatment of his supplement Anatabloc – promoted as a natural anti-inflammatory. In exchange for supporting their lifestyle, McDonnell arranged for meetings with government officials and other access to help promote the product.”
If a natural anti-inflammatory supplement company (not nearly as powerful and financially packed as Big Pet Food and their respective trade groups) can provide ‘gifts’ in exchange for ‘favorable treatment’ helping to promote a product…Can anyone honestly believe that the same hasn’t been done in pet food?
What if?
The study could be completely accurate. It could be completely accurate that only two samples of kibble tested positive for bacteria when 88 different samples of raw pet food tested positive for bacteria. It could all be true. But you’ll have to forgive us if we are skeptical. We’ve been dumped on for many years…we don’t have much trust and confidence left.
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
Sandra Cole
September 19, 2014 at 4:17 pm
“But you’ll have to forgive us if we are skeptical. We’ve been dumped on for many years…we don’t have much trust and confidence left.”
Amen- Susan, amen. I’m right there with you!
When I switched my pup’s food this past May from a high-quality kibble diet to a raw commercially available product, I did a ton of research beforehand. I noted that the company I’d chosen for the raw food was established in 2001- well before the debacle of 2007. Shockingly, that company and its food was NOT on the recall list from 2007.
So frankly, I trust that evidence more than this new evidence the FDA is “selling” me.
Sandra Cole
September 19, 2014 at 4:17 pm
PS: Their link for how the raw foods was handled isn’t working for me….
Susan Thixton
September 19, 2014 at 4:20 pm
I just re-linked it – try it again.
Sandra Cole
September 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Hooray- it works now!! Thanks so much for everything, Susan!
Hope Williams
September 20, 2014 at 12:02 am
Well done and stated Susan! Nothing more to add.
Ellie
September 25, 2014 at 8:57 am
The number of raw food recalls are few in number in comparison to the number of processed pet food recalls. That is fact. People who have switched their pets to raw or even home cooked feeding have seen remarkable improvement in the health and well being of their pets. That is fact and there are a multitude of such testimonies to prove it.
Any nutritionist will tell you that you cannot substitute synthetic vitamins for the nutrition found in real fresh foods. Traditional foods from the pet industry are highly processed. They have to be because of the very nature of the ingredients and the fact that the feed must be able to sit on a shelf for months at a time.
Foods subjected to the high heats used in the processing of pet food lose any natural nutrition that they may once have contained so synthetic vitamins are added to replace what was lost in the process, much like our bleached flower used for making white bread the nutrition lost in the processing is “replaced” by adding synthetic vitamins…..NOT the true nutrition that was in the original wheat.
We have come to accept packaged “food”products as a necessity of life in the modern world but what exchange have we made? Although we are the most well fed nation in the world sickness and disease is rampant in our society.
Yet, here we have industry, veterinarians, and the FDA telling us that we must feed our pets highly processed low grade ingredient foods in order for our pets to have proper nutrition. Some would defer to the degrees of the people in these lines of work but the fact is that their declarations defy logic.
Highly processed food and synthetic vitamins are not healthy or nutritious for human or pet and have brought on a multitude of diseases in our society. Is it any wonder that our pets are now suffering the same food induced diseases that we humans suffer? Cancer, heart disease, arthritis, obesity, kidney disease are just a few of the diseases that have been linked to food and that our pets are now also suffering.
Thank God there are still some logical people in this country that use their common sense to make decisions and are not influenced by the “studies” of these greedy educated fools.
If synthetic vitamins cannot substitute for the true nutrition in fresh food then why are these people telling us we must feed this highly processed muck to our pets?