Briefly put – the USDA definitions of pet food ingredients require them to be food (legal), FDA’s definitions allow pet food ingredients to be illegal feed. Something is very, very wrong – two federal agencies with two VERY different perspectives.
Two U.S. federal agencies.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA): “The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.”
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): “Our agencies help to keep America’s farmers and ranchers in business and ensure that the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled.”
The FDA is the official governing body over pet food, however the USDA governs pet food in a separate way – through their voluntary “Certified Pet Food” program; a program very different than anything FDA requires of pet food.
Here is a look at how each government agency defines pet food ingredients.
The FDA – through a “Memoradum of Understanding” – allows the independent, non-governmental organization Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) to write, own and copyright protect (not accessible to consumers) pet food ingredient definitions. The FDA/AAFCO definition of meat in pet food is (per the 2017 AAFCO Official Publication):
Meat is the clean flesh derived from slaughtered mammals and is limited to the part of the striate muscle which is skeletal or that which is found in the tongue, in the diaphragm, in the heart, or in the esophagus; with or without the accompanying and overlying fat and the portions of the skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the flesh. It shall be suitable for use in animal food. If it bears a name descriptive of its kind, it must correspond thereto.
The USDA defines meat in a certified pet food as (per Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Chapter 3, Sub-chapter A, Part 355) (bold added):
Meat means the U.S. inspected and passed and so identified clean, wholesome muscle tissue of cattle, sheep, swine, or goats which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, in the diaphragm, in the heart, or in the esophagus with or without the accompanying and overlying fat and the portions of skin, sinews, nerves, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle tissue and which are not separated from it in the process of dressing. It does not include the muscle found in the lips, snout, or ears.
These two definitions are night and day different. The USDA definition of pet food ‘meat’ assures the ingredient abides by federal law; “inspected and passed” just as the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act requires. But, the FDA/AAFCO definition – does not require the ingredient (meat) to abide by federal law. The FDA/AAFCO definition of pet food meat holds no requirement for the ingredient to be sourced from inspected and passed meat (as federal law requires of any food).
What about other pet food ingredients? Same thing. The USDA definition of poultry (bold added):
“Poultry means any domesticated bird slaughtered in accordance with the Poultry Products Inspection Act, Public Law 85–172, 85th Congress, S. 1747, dated August 28, 1957 (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.).”
Very unlike the FDA/AAFCO definitions, the USDA even requires by-products to be inspected and passed (human grade). USDA definition of meat by-products and poultry by-products (bold added):
“Animal food meat by-product means the part other than meat which has been derived from one or more cattle, sheep, swine or goats that have been U.S. Inspected and Passed and is fit for use as animal food.”
“Animal food poultry byproduct means any portion of carcasses of poultry slaughtered under inspection and passed in accordance with the Poultry Products Inspection Act which is fit for use in animal food.”
Opposite of the USDA pet food ingredient definitions, the FDA/AAFCO definition of poultry (chicken/turkey), poultry (chicken/turkey) by-products and meat by-products contain NO requirement for inspected and passed (human grade) meat; any of these ingredients can be sourced from diseased animal material or condemned material per the FDA/AAFCO definitions. These FDA/AAFCO definitions do not require the pet food ingredients to be legal, abide by federal law.
And there is one more significant difference between the FDA/AAFCO pet food ingredient definitions and USDA pet food definitions…
…the USDA definitions are part of public record – free for the public to read. The FDA/AAFCO definitions are not public record, they cost the public $110 a year to read.
How can this be happening?
It is beyond explanation, beyond understanding. But…let’s look at one possibility in an effort to understand why/how FDA could openly ignore law in pet food…
The answer could be tied to the lack of access consumers have to pet food ingredient definitions. Consider this…there will NEVER be a federal law that states it is acceptable for a ‘food’ to contain diseased animal material or material from a dead non-slaughtered animal carcass. This will Never happen. So to enable the current ‘system’ of illegal waste ingredients in pet food/animal feed – perhaps ‘they’ (‘they’ being FDA/AAFCO) worked out a system where these illegal ingredients are defined privately…through AAFCO. AAFCO owing the definitions keeps them as un-official…not actual law. They are used as “legal definitions” – but they are not officially law. Perhaps…they are not officially legal.
Back to the USDA definitions – these pet food ingredient definitions are officially law. They are public information published in the Code of Federal Regulations and the definitions adhere to the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Opposite of the USDA definitions – the FDA/AAFCO definitions are NOT officially law – as they are not published anywhere publicly and not published in the Code of Federal Regulations and they do NOT adhere to the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Maybe…this is how ‘they’ get away with their crimes. Don’t make the pet food definitions officially law, and hope no one will notice.
Pets are dying, pet food consumers are being lied to. Yep, we noticed.
Within federal law is the Administrative Procedure Act. This Act requires all government agencies to (briefly)…
- to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules;
- to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process, for instance through public commenting;
Currently, the FDA does NOT keep the pet food consumer public informed on pet food procedures and rules; these procedures, rules and ingredient definitions are owned by AAFCO. Currently, there is no “public participation” in the pet food “rulemaking process” as AAFCO charges $500.00 for anyone to attend these “rulemaking process” meetings.
Filed with FDA today (11/27/2017) was a Freedom of Information Act request for all pet food/animal feed ingredient definitions. If the agency provides those definitions – they will be provided to all pet food consumers on this website (and the request will be repeated each year as ingredient definitions change providing consumers with current definitions). If the agency does not provide those definitions, then we have foundation to violation of our rights as pet food consumers.
Over the next few weeks, The Administrative Procedure Act will be read in great detail. When these laws are fully understood, we (pet food consumers) are going to battle the powers that ignore law in pet food.
Taken from the movie Camelot starring Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave (I’m showing my age here): “Right is Might.” This is right. Pet food should be food, should be legal. Pet food consumers deserve a voice in the “rulemaking process” – law requires it. And we will battle whoever ‘they’ may be for that right.
And borrowing Rodney Habib’s hashtag – #PetFoodMatters.
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 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2017 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking pet food made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Paula
November 27, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Susan, I got an e-mail today from the FDA re “FDA working to address concerns about regulation of human food by-products used for animal food.” Wondering what the implications are. I tried to cut and paste from it but that doesn’t work. Not sure if you got it or if there is a way I can send it to you. Sounds like food companies want less regulation of safety procedures (what else is new).
Susan Thixton
November 27, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Yes – I got the same email. That email was about the Food Safety Modernization Act manufacturing requirements (manufacturing requirements of ingredients) – allowing anyone to provide comment to these regulations (industry and consumers). That is exactly what we are not provided in the pet food ingredient definition and regulation process; the opportunity to provide comment on each ingredient definition.
Kathryn
November 27, 2017 at 3:24 pm
I doubt ‘we’ will ever see FDA/AAFCO become transparent — I prepare my pets meals from food sourced at local grocery stores, farmers markets and meat markets … I do ‘basically’ trust USDA to assure that the products I purchase have been inspected and PASSED — and that’s were many pet feed mfgs mislead the buyer — they say the product ingredients are USDA Inspected — just don’t tell you they ‘failed’ the inspection!
There is a company now advertising on FB that advertises ‘Humanely Farmed/Raised’ and animals and shows beautiful photos of various livestock species — and tout ‘USDA Inspected’ — but have not seen fit to respond to my question about PASSING those inspections …
Hmmm. makes one wonder what they are doing with the ‘leftovers’ !! Making their own Dog/cat feed??
Cannoliamo
November 27, 2017 at 5:00 pm
Thank you Susan, but I have to say every time I read one of your articles, my stomach gets all knotted up. These wonderful agencies, … and the best we can say is that Pet food we buy is essentially animal feed for companion animals that may or may not contain the ingredients listed on the label depending on the state or country of origin. And of course they will deny any and all regulatory authority and liability if any (uncontaminated) food/feed ingredient causes any problems with the health of your cherished pet. I suspect FDA, USDA and AAFCO standards are all well-intended, but are like a lamb in a lion’s cage when it comes to regulating the pet food industry. By legal definition, pets are property and there are never punitive damages than can be awarded to aid in suffering their loss.
btw, do you know how very few veterinary schools have small animal nutrition courses included in their required core curricula?
Richard Stone
November 27, 2017 at 7:55 pm
I’m not sure if I understand this, but isn’t the FDA overseen by Congress. There has to be some oversight of the FDA?
Susan Thixton
November 27, 2017 at 9:38 pm
I’ve tried in so many ways with Congress – including going to Washington DC and explaining the problem directly to members of Congress (though staff). And I’ve sent multiple letters to the Inspector General over FDA. But once I learn more of the Administrative Procedure Act, hopefully I’ll learn how to better tackle the problem.
Ten Year Follower
November 28, 2017 at 3:26 am
Among PF Consumers, who are the only ones who can drive CHANGE, until we can convince consumers of the difference between manufacturers treating their pets like livestock or companion animals, nothing will happen.
Susan is attacking the problem effectively. Pet Food definitions need to be accurately communicated and available for public reference!
Consumers can’t yet see (understand) the difference between protein trimmings (excess meat scraps that have been cut from larger pieces of meat and are too small to be sold individually. These trimmed pieces are used to produce other meat products, such as sausage or ground meat, or they may be large enough to be cut into cubes for stew meat and kabobs. The trimmings must be free of bones, cartilage, glands, tissue, tendons, and skin) and UNHEALTHY, DISEASED animal protein!
Our dogs are NOT garbage cans!
Once consumers understand the difference, they’ll evaluate labels effectively. Choosing between whether the PF protein is human grade edible quality, or not!
I look forward to when these definitions are made public. We should all campaign our politicians for that right! To the Truth… that is.
Pingback: With a Name Like Smuckers, it has to be…GROSS! | Animal Medical New City
Pingback: Best Organic Kitten Food
Mary Anne Clark
January 17, 2019 at 9:13 pm
Is there an update on your 2017 Freedom of Information Act request?
Susan Thixton
January 17, 2019 at 9:20 pm
No, FDA has not responded. We continue to wait.