Being the Caped Crusader for Safe Pet Food can present some…challenging moments. Some of the most challenging is dealing with attitudes; the attitude of some pet food manufacturers and some regulatory authorities. Here is the summary of a few conversations I’ve had recently with those in the pet food/pet food regulatory business. It’s not pretty.
No – I’m not sharing the names. It’s the general attitude that is so concerning, not who said what. The attitude that it is the pet food consumer’s fault, that pet food just doesn’t matter – that’s the real concern. Some of the conversations below didn’t end well, but some conversations I or we have with regulatory authorities or pet food manufacturers (myself and fellow advocate Mollie Morrissette) do end better than where we started. Which tells me some of those in the pet food business can open their minds to the consumer point of view. Here’s a review from some of the most recent conversations…
A conversation with a pet food manufacturer turned to another request for them to provide consumers with their Pledge to Quality and Origin. I was told no. This company didn’t feel the Pledge was necessary. When I tried to explain that consumers want that assurance – that ‘pledge’ assuring us that ingredients are human grade. This pet food representative stated ‘pet foods aren’t required to be human grade’. And that’s when the argument started.
Me: Yes, actually the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires all food – and the legal definition of food includes pet food – to be of the same quality – human grade. There is no separation within the law to grade of human food and grade of pet food.
Them: Yes, there is.
Me: No, the FDA allows a separation between human food and pet food with Compliance Policies, but the law does not.
Them: But the law doesn’t require pet food to be human grade.
Me: Yes, it does. The law says a food is adulterated if it contains any part of a diseased animal or an animal that has died other than by slaughter – yet pet foods are allowed through Compliance Policies to use those very ingredients. The law is there, but it is not enforced.
Them: But it doesn’t mean pet foods are required to be human grade.
And this went on and on until we just agreed to disagree.
When I reported a couple of pet foods that were mislabeled (misleading labels) to a state regulatory authority (and this was after reporting the same foods to several other state authorities) the complaint fell on deaf ears. When I shared that I’ve reported these foods to other regulatory authorities and to the pet food manufacturers but no one has done anything about it – this particular State Department of Agriculture person said ‘Well then stop buying it’.
Me: I don’t buy the product, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the pet foods have misleading labels and that’s illegal.
Them: Well, if people wouldn’t buy the foods, then there wouldn’t be a problem would there?
Me: That isn’t the pet food consumers responsibility – that is a regulatory responsibility.
Them: Well then you need to go to the legislature of all the states and ask them to give us more money. Some of the states only have one or two people doing everything. They just can’t do it all.
Me: Well, the state needs to stop selling the foods then. Pet foods shouldn’t be sold if the state can’t oversee the safety of them or assure the consumer they are legally labeled.
(This would be one of those conversations that didn’t end well.)
And then there is the conversation with a regulatory authority that got side tracked to my age old complaint of FDA Compliance Policies allowing diseased animals and euthanized animals to become rendered pet food ingredients. When I mentioned these Compliance Policies are FDA’s way to allow pet food to violate federal law, this person said…
Them: No, they aren’t illegal because the ingredients are safe.
I bit my lip. Safe? This conversation ended with that statement. Anyone that would consider rendered diseased animals to be “safe” food…well, there is just no sense in continuing this conversation. Next time however, I’m going to ask them to try feeding their family this “safe” meat meal sourced from rendered, diseased animals. If they survive a month, we can talk about it again.
I’ve also recently had two different regulatory authorities give me guidance on how I should write my posts on TruthaboutPetFood.com, one even asked me to go back and change a past article.
That said, I can tell you with certainty that not all regulatory authorities and not all pet food manufacturers turn such a blind eye to the ‘truth’. Some have told me they think the consumer voice needs to be heard and one regulatory authority specifically told me to ‘not give up’. They shared they felt ‘we’ (and this we was the regulatory association) needed to be reminded of the consumer point of view.
Some are listening, and we are grateful for those few.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
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
2013 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
Mary Huber
September 23, 2013 at 11:21 am
This is absolutely infuriating, Susan!
You are an angel for stepping up for animals, and you are to be commended with the highest praise for what you do.
Susan Thixton
September 23, 2013 at 11:33 am
Yep…I’ve bit my tongue on more than one occasion. Thanks for the support!
mikken
September 23, 2013 at 11:34 am
Wow. With those attitudes, it’s no wonder we’re in trouble.
Ken Kalligher
September 23, 2013 at 11:59 am
You are just like a terrier with a rat Susan, but as I have told you before, none of these conversations is surprising. Sad but true the attitudes, even of the regulatory agencies, are just, “screw you.” If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. As you note that’s not the point. If you have a law, enforce it! It is just so disappointing that these companies and regulatory agencies have colluded to the point that even their arguments are the same. We are in real trouble with our pet foods and it will only get worse.
Ann
September 29, 2013 at 11:41 am
“If you don’t like it, don’t buy it” leaves unsaid the problem facing the consumer to know what is in the pet food they are purchasing, esp if it is mislabeled. Years ago labeling was improved to allow the consumer to make a more informed choice because the average person has no idea and no way to find out all of the processes and ingredients contained in the food.
I always thought that was the reason the enforcement authorities existed. For them to say it is our problem, is absurd.
Charles Brengel
September 23, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Susan,
I commend you on your tenacity!!!
Every time I read one of your articles, I cringe at what the Government & Pet Food Manufacturers are doing. It’s a case of they are not just trying to pull the wool over our eyes, they are trying to pull the Whole Sheep over our heads!
That said, it’s all about the money. Until and unless we as consumers can hurt them in their 401k’s and paychecks, they will continue to do their thing in search of more and more profit at our expense.
Keep up the Good Work.
Charlie
Mary Huber
September 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Great comment, Charlie, especially about the sheep!
gumout
September 23, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Maybe a Facebook and/or Twitter portal ( Truth about Pet Food) to garner & educate the masses would help;
1) Gain critical mass, awareness, concern and movement Nationwide and Worldwide
2) Expose unhealthy Pet Food Manufacturers products, and lacking Fed/State Policy & Enforcement.
3) Allow for consumer protests of those Mfg’s not in compliance.
4) Reward via acknowledgement , compliant Pet Food Manufactures, and those who go beyond the call of Duty.
Consider how the Social Media portals (Twitter and Facebook)were used to spark Middle-East uprisings. Topple Governments, etc… . Power in People.
Food for Thought.
Susan Thixton
September 23, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Truth about Pet Food is on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/pages/Truth-About-Pet-Food/
Twitter – @TAPF
and Google Plus – Susan Thixton
You are right – social media helps a great deal.
Elizabeth Chalfant
September 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Susan, thank you so much for all that you do and for keeping us informed and educated. Change can be painfully slow. Thank you for your dedication and perseverance. I will revisit your website to see what we, as individuals, can do if we cannot attend the AAFCO meetings, and we are not buying commercial pet food.
Sean Coleman
September 23, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Worked for a rendering plant for 3 months in highschool in 1999. If anybody who defends the current policies of commercial pet food manufacturers set a single foot in one of these plants and saw the “meat” that was being rendered, they would be horrified. I did witness a horse that had been euthanized with poison from a vet being rendered along with road kill and other diseased animals. Yet you try to explain people that this is what is the Pedigree they are feeding to their dogs and they look at you like you are a nut job or wasting their time. I’ve given up but thanks for fighting the good fight that nobody seems to care about.
Robin
September 23, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Thank you for all that you do. You are definitely an Angel:)
Blessings
jennifer
September 24, 2013 at 12:15 am
If the legal definition of food includes pet food, why is pet food excluded from food stamps?
Debi
September 24, 2013 at 8:34 am
Until the “love of power” turns into the “power of love”, nothing will ever change.
“They” don’t care and are for de-population and I am pretty sure this involves our animals, so goes our animals, so go us.
Greed knows no bounds
Jay Smith
September 25, 2013 at 9:28 am
Here’s the definition that applies to “food” whether it’s for humans or for animals, directly from the “Sherman Food, Drugs & Cosmetics Act of 1980” which was passed into state law in California in 1980.
“Section 109935. “Food” means either of the following:
(a) Any article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal.”
The Act then goes on to long, long list of illegal acts of adulteration, mislabeling, and otherwise corruption of “food.” In California, if it’s illegal for humans, it’s also illegal for dogs & cats. Period.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/Documents/fdb%20Sher%20Law.pdf