Pet food feeding trials are touted by Big Pet Food as ‘the’ standard every pet food consumer should be guided by. Many veterinarians make pet food recommendations based solely on feeding trials. Thanks to two pet food companies, the pet food feeding trial bar has been raised. Can Big Pet Food handle the new standard?
It is common within the pet food industry to tout pet food feeding trials; many (unknowing) veterinarians follow and believe in the propaganda. From the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) website: “Of all the education and resources that Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc. provides to veterinarians and their health care teams, the most potentially valuable for their patients are criteria for evidence-based clinical nutrition. Conducting high-powered clinical trials is not simply Hill’s approach to product development but another way the company gives back to the profession—by providing scientific evidence they believe veterinarians can depend on when arriving at informed clinical decisions.”
Although pet food feeding trials are touted as the ‘it’ means of proving the quality of a pet food, there are many drawbacks rarely discussed. Those that take issue with the validity of pet food feeding trials, most commonly cite concerns of length of the trial (only 6 months), simple blood work required to pass the food (four blood tests), and that it is common (standard until now) to use ‘purpose-bred’ dogs and cats tested in a laboratory setting.
The worst – purpose-bred dogs and cats. From the University of Cincinnati website: “Purpose-bred dogs are those that are specifically bred for biomedical research, most often by companies that specialize in producing such animals. Purpose-bred dogs can be either mixed breed or purebred. Purebred animals have the advantage of uniform size, body conformation, and genetic background. The beagle is a popular purebred because of its relatively small size. There are far fewer companies offering purpose-bred cats.”
Most dogs and cats used in typical pet food feeding trials are born, raised, and die in a laboratory kennel. They never have a home or a family to love them. They serve a purpose – to sell pet food – and that is all.
Most pet food companies that utilize pet food feeding trials perform them within their own facilities. Their own purpose bred dogs/cats participate in the trial, the trial is overseen and documented by pet food company employees. Other companies that have touted feeding trials hire private facilities to run the trial. Needless to say, pressure is on the private facility/lab to pass the diet if they wish to have a return customer.
Now to the good news. Two pet food companies have stepped forward and moved pet food feeding trials to a whole new level. To a humane and more accurate level.
JustFoodForDogs has recently completed a six month real-life AAFCO approved feeding trial. JustFoodForDogs hired University of Cal Poly Pomona’s Animal and Veterinary Science Department to develop a new humane and realistic feeding trial that met AAFCO requirements and to run the trial. “According to Dr. Broc Sandelin, PhD, Chair of the Animal and Veterinary Sciences Department, “The field method we developed takes significantly more effort than the standard ‘industry approach’,…the dogs are happy, and the data are scientifically valid.”
This feeding trial enlisted 28 pets – in family homes (real life pets, real life environment). Some of the pets were already eating a JustFoodForDogs diet, some were not. Of the 28 dogs that began the test, 26 completed. The two that dropped out (AAFCO regulations allow 25% of the animals to drop out), did so early because of personal/lifestyle (human) challenges, not related to the pet food. Dr. Oscar Chavez, house veterinarian at JustFoodForDogs, explained each pet completed “Comprehensive Blood Cell Count and Comprehensive Canine Chemistry Panel, looking at over 25 blood parameters” at the conclusion of the study; AAFCO regulations only requires four blood tests.
Dr. Chavez provided the following explanation of the reasoning behind JustFoodForDogs 25 blood parameters: “A typical AAFCO trial is required to measure parameters that look for anemia (low blood red blood cell count) and – indirectly – liver damage. Anemia is a potential end result of deficiencies that may occur if the food is severely deficient. In order to become anemic, the severe deficiencies must have been present for a significant amount of time, as anemia is usually a secondary sign of a more serious underlying disease. That is to say, the deficient food has to first make the dog sick (through malnutrition), then the dog has to become anemic in response to that illness, and all this must happen within the 26 weeks for the standard AAFCO protocol to catch it. The liver parameter AAFCO requires to us to look at ALP (Alkaline Phosphatase) is only one of many used by vets to evaluate the integrity of the liver, and could be normal even though there is insult to the liver. Vets agree that in many cases, using this protocol may actually 1) not catch problems even though the disease or deficiencies may be present, or 2) miss long term problems that did not become evident by this limited testing in the 26 week period. Lets put it this way – most veterinarians would never clear an older or fragile patient for anesthesia, for example, with only the results of the parameters required by AAFCO.”
“By measuring full blood panels, we were able to look for evidence of diseases directly and see – truly – if the food was making our dogs sick within the 26 week period.”
Current regulations guiding feeding trials require the ‘group’ of animal participants on a whole to pass the four blood tests; the 26 dogs participating in the JustFoodForDogs feeding trial each passed individually (and passed the 21 additional blood tests individually too). To read more about JustFoodForDogs feeding trial, click here.
Another raising of the feeding trial bar has been from Answers Pet Food. Though this feeding trial does not meet AAFCO requirements, it is none-the-less a huge step forward.
Dr. Amy Nesselrodt DVM was the volunteer owner of the dogs in this feeding trial (not an employee of the pet food company). The trial ran for one year on Dr. Amy’s four dogs (in real life conditions), unlike the AAFCO requirement of only six months.
Each dog was given a health exam prior to the transition to Answers raw pet food, at six months and at 12 months by an independent veterinarian. Detailed before and after health information is provided by Dr. Amy on her blog , below is a chart from her website.
All dogs passed the trial and experienced health improvement.
Real life feeding trials using pets in their homes are the ONLY way to do a feeding trial – the only way. Anything less is cruel and the results should prove to be inaccurate to meet the nutritional requirements of dogs and cats living in a family setting.
Thank you to Just Food for Dogs and Answers Pet Food for taking pet food feeding trials into a more humane and realistic era. Your turn Big Pet Food.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author, Buyer Beware
Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
PetsumerReport.com
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
Are you subscribed to Truth About Pet Food Newsletter? Click Here to subscribe
Follow Truth about Pet Food on Twitter
Become a Fan of Truth about Pet Food, Dinner PAWsible, Buyer Beware on Facebook
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
km
December 1, 2012 at 12:34 am
Thanks Susan. For anyone who is interested:
http://beaglefreedomproject.org/
This is a rescue group that places Beagles who were previously used for animal experiments in a research labs into homes. I believe most of the dogs are used in cosmetic, household products, pharmaceutical or medical research vs pet food, but each case varies. Very sad.
Carol Anne Rayson
December 1, 2012 at 11:06 am
In many ways we Westernized humans and our pets are all victims of an ongoing experiment in modern Industrialized food – which we then all pay for dearly , with our ill-health – which then keeps Big Pharmas coffers overflowing – kudos to those who are taking the time to learn to think outside the big bag – kudos to Susan for providing a forum and a database – bringing the madness out into the open and kudos to those who work tirelessly to help bring awareness to the lives all those the poor lab animals many who give their lives for human profit and vanity
Peter
December 1, 2012 at 7:58 am
Big pet food will reject your challenge. It is too dangerous for them to acknowledge.
Until the late 1980s, nutritional standards for dog food used by the industry were set by The National Research Council (NRC) of the Academy of Sciences, “a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter.” The original NRC standards were based on purified diets, and required feeding trials for pet foods claimed to be “complete” and “balanced.” However, pet food manufacturers found the feeding trials onerous and expensive, and subsequently AAFCO designed an alternate procedure for asserting the nutritional adequacy of pet food: by testing the food for compliance with “nutrient profiles.” This provided a way to sidestep ethical standards for evaluating the foods. To establish these standards, AAFCO created “expert committees” for canine and feline nutrition. In 2006, the NRC published new values, which have not yet been incorporated into AAFCO protocols.
Consumers don’t realize how little the AAFCO standards suggest. The actual AAFCO feeding trial protocols (the more expensive alternative to nutrient profiling) for an “adult maintenance” diet dictate that a manufacturer must exclusively feed the test food to only 6 animals for 6 months; (8 animals are required at the start; however, 2 of them may be dropped from the trial for non-diet-related reasons). Foods intended for “growth and reproduction” must be tested for only 10 weeks. In lieu of these tests, however, a standard chemical analysis may also be used to determine that a food meets the profiles. AAFCO rules require a statement on the label stating which method was used. Many consumers would not consider this small sampling to be representative of the range of tolerance for a species as varied as dogs are.
Lori S.
December 1, 2012 at 7:37 pm
This is a really exciting and heart-warming development. Thank you for writing about it. I will definitely look into these foods!
Dr Amy Nesselrodt
December 2, 2012 at 7:08 am
Thanks so much Susan for bringing attention to this issue. I just want to add that in my trial we did complete blood chemistries and CBC’s and also urinalysis, plus body condition scores, dog weights and fecal weights. The chart you shared shows the same values that AAFCO collects, but like Dr. Sandelin, we did not stop there, I also think the AAFCO trials do NOT examine sufficient parameters. I have results on my web pages for all the data we collected for day zero, 6 months and 12 months. Thanks again, Dr. Amy
http://DrAmyRawDogFoodResearch.com/RawDogFoodResearch/
https://www.facebook.com/RawDogFoodResearch
Wanda
December 2, 2012 at 8:35 am
Thank you Susan for writing about this. Also thank you Just Food for Dogs and Answers Pet Food for taking this step forward. Already knew about Answers Pet Food but now even more interested in. Hoping it will come to a store near me soon.
Claire
December 2, 2012 at 4:37 pm
I’d have to question why a vet was in the trial. I’m very suspicious about that and would want to know exactly her relationship and the reasoning for having a vet as a trial participant, other than to examine the dogs. I remain cautiously, very cautiously optimistic…but as we all know, this commercial pet food industry has completely lied over and over and over to the public and STILL to this day admonishes raw fed diets. So until they prove to me, beyond a shadow of doubt of their integrity, this pet owner will remain one who will not endorse or ever buy a product that did not come out of my own kitchen.
Dr Amy Nesselrodt
December 8, 2012 at 6:15 am
Claire, please help, if the vet you are referring to is me, why are you suspicious or what are you suspicious of? If you are asking about me I don’t understand your concern. I did it because I was interested in it. Read my web site and blog–I explain it all. And I tell it all. Why does my being a vet seem a negative to you? Wow, I thought pet owners would be excited a vet had that much interest in raw. I don’t even know how to address your concern because I don’t understand it. I did have an another vet do the exams if that helps ease your mind. He also took the samples in case anyone questioned were they actually from my dogs.
Dr. Laurie Coger
December 8, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Claire,
As a veterinarian and veteran raw feeder, I am thrilled when another veterinarian is open to raw feeding! Having a veterinarian willing to do a trial with their own dogs is absolutely huge! I hear your concerns as this is a commercial food, but if you read more about Answers, I think you will find they have a good product line that can make feeding raw easier for owners. Many owners are not ready to take the leap and feed a more prey model (for lack of a better term) raw, and Answers is one way they can get started. Down the road they may become more open to feeding whole meaty bones and more, but giving them an easy way to start is a very good thing.
And just to be transparent, I do not feed Answers to my own dogs, as I feed mainly whole meats/bones. I have had the opportunity to test all their products, and have used their goats’ milk in raising a litter of pups, now 2 years old. There are very few dog foods I have trust in, let alone recommend. Answers is on that short list.
Like Dr. Nesselrodt, I am happy to answer your questions, just email me from my website, http://www.TheWholisticVet.com