Pet Food giant Hill’s Science Diet has filed a complaint against Blue Buffalo with the BBB (Better Business Bureau) National Advertising Division (NAD). The Science Diet NAD complaint ‘challenges’ several advertising methods utilized by Blue Buffalo Pet Foods.
This article does NOT imply any pet foods discussed are high in quality or inferior in quality. The intent of this article is simply to report on the misgivings of regulations that govern pet foods in the United States.
In July 2008, Hill’s Science Diet (third largest pet food producer in the world), filed a challenge with the NAD against Blue Buffalo Pet Food. The NAD’s mission is “to review national advertising for truthfulness and accuracy”. “Policy and procedures for NAD are established by the National Advertising Review Council (NARC).” No agreement could be made between NAD, Science Diet, and Blue Buffalo; the advertising challenge has been referred to “the appropriate government agency” for possible law enforcement action” (The Federal Trade Commission).
As many pet owners are aware, pet food advertising is not known for its ‘truthfulness and accuracy’. AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) regulations allow dog food and cat food labels to “include an unqualified claim, directly or indirectly” (PF7a). Thus an advertising challenge from one pet food manufacturer against another, seems difficult at best to prove and quite the oxymoron (a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms). The Pet Food pot calling the Pet Food kettle black.
Science Diet Pet Food had several ‘beefs’ about Blue Buffalo’s advertising. The he said/she said banter between these two pet food makers is lengthy in documents provided to TruthaboutPetFood.com by the NAD.
The biggest issue challenged by Science Diet was Blue Buffalo’s claim of “No Animal By-Products” in their dog foods and cat foods. “The challenger (Science Diet) took issue with the advertiser’s express claims that none of its pet foods contain animal by-products. It also took issue with the implied claim that BLUE pet foods are healthier for pets than competitive foods that contain by-products.”
Here begins the mass confusion thanks to AAFCO ingredient definitions. AAFCO defines ‘meat’ to be exclusive of any animal material resembling by-products. However, AAFCO’s definition of ‘meat meal’ (such as ‘fish meal’, or ‘lamb meal’) allows any animal part to be included except ‘hair, hoof, horn, hide, manure, and stomach’. One more definition to add to the confusion is ‘poultry meal’ (such as ‘chicken meal’ or ‘turkey meal’); ‘poultry meal’ unlike ‘fish meal’ or ‘lamb meal’, cannot include animal intestines, poultry heads or feet. The term ‘meal’ implies, according to AAFCO regulations, the moisture is removed from the ‘meat’ prior to manufacturing of the pet food. Pet owners would think that a ‘meat meal’ is what AAFCO defines as ‘meat’ with the moisture removed; such is not the case.
In an attempt to explain this confusing ingredient definition mess…’meat’ is nothing similar to by-products, a ‘meat’ meal such as ‘fish meal’ or ‘lamb meal’ can include intestines which anyone in their right mind would consider a by-product, but another type of ‘meat’ meal such as ‘chicken meal’ or ‘turkey meal’ cannot include intestines but can include other internal organs that AAFCO defines as a by-product (liver as example).
Whew! Are you lost yet? Buckle your seat belt, it gets worse…
AAFCO defines ‘meat by-products’ (such as ‘chicken by-products’) to be completely exclusive of meat (“includes but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, stomach, intestines”). Despite by-products having their own definition, by-products can be (at the sole discretion of the pet food manufacturer and without the knowledge of the pet food purchaser) included in other safe sounding pet food ingredient names such as ‘fish meal’ and ‘chicken meal’.
One more twist…all of the above pet food ingredient definitions can come from animals rejected for use in human foods, again at the sole discretion of the pet food manufacturer. Each of the above AAFCO definitions includes “it shall be suitable for use in animal food”; any animal rejected for use in human foods, regardless of why, is ‘suitable for use in animal food’ per regulations. This does NOT mean that all pet foods that contain ‘meat’, or ‘meat meal’ ingredients includes animal intestines or is sourced from diseased, rejected for use in human food animals; it means that some do and some don’t. It also means that those pet foods that do use inferior sources of ‘meat’ and ‘meat meal’ ingredients, don’t have to tell you.
Back to the ‘challenge’ presented by Science Diet. Science Diet stated Blue Buffalo’s ‘no-animal by-products’ advertising is false and thus misleading. The NAD agreed. “NAD therefore recommended that the advertiser discontinue its ‘no animal by-products’ claims when made in reference to pet foods containing fish meal, lamb meal, and/or liver.”
The following statement is provided in the fine print of the Blue Buffalo website (http://www.bluebuff.com/contact.shtml): “In addition, all BLUE healthy canned dog foods contain NO animal by-product, artificial preservatives, corn, wheat or soy.
As “by-products” are defined in The 2009 AAFCO Official Publication”
Another advertising ‘challenge’ presented by Science Diet regarding Blue Buffalo is the Blue statement “Because the leading pet foods did not meet our standards, we developed a two-part product that combined a nutrition kibble with our exclusive LifeSource Bits – active nutrients and antioxidants ‘cold formed’ to preserve their potency.” Science Diet claimed the Blue statement was implying Blue Buffalo Pet Foods are superior in nutrition than Science Diet Pet Foods.
The interesting aspect of this part of the ‘challenge’ begins with the following quote from the NAD report: “Although the claim does not explicitly state that Blue pet foods are more nutritious than competing brands, it is established NAD precedent that advertisers must not only substantiate their express claims but also those that are reasonably implied.”
While keeping in mind that Science Diet objected to Blue’s ‘superiority claim’, the Hill’s Science Diet website states the following as the home page title: “Superior Nutrition for the Quality of Life of your Pet.” I personally interpret this statement as Science Diet’s own ‘superiority claim’. Here are a few other claims from leading pet food brands that seem to be making similar superiority claims as Science Diet and Blue Buffalo…
Iams: “Iams is veterinarian recommended.”
Pedigree: “Really good food.”
Nutro: “Natural Super-Premium Dog & Cat Food.”
AAFCO regulations allow pet foods to make all types of ‘superiority claims’. Despite the NAD agreeing with Science Diet that Blue’s ‘superiority claim’ is not substantiated through clinical proof, this is one of countless in the pet food world. For one pet food manufacturer to challenge another pet food manufacturer on this particular issue, consider regulations allowing all to make “unqualified claims” seems…well…ridiculous.
Lastly, Science Diet challenged the Blue claim “Feed your pet like you feed your family”. The issue of concern is the implication of ‘human food’ quality; a big no, no in the pet food world. AAFCO regulations do NOT allow a pet food manufacturer to state the grade or quality of dog food or cat food ingredients. Just to be clear, AAFCO regulations ALLOW dog food and cat food labels to make “unqualified claims, directly or indirectly” yet do NOT ALLOW dog foods and cat food labels to state their use of human grade meats. These regulations, accepted by the FDA, keep pet owners completely in the dark as to the true quality of their pet’s food.
After closely looking at almost 1300 dog foods, cat foods, and pet treats, I can honestly say there are few to none that don’t market (advertise) to the pet lover’s instinct wishing to feed their dog or cat just like the rest of their family. All Pet food manufacturers are well aware of these human instincts and most openly advertise to this instinct.
Regardless of Science Diet’s challenge of Blue Buffalo’s advertising, pet owners continue to be misled by most pet foods advertising and label claims. AAFCO ingredient definitions would be laughable if the issue wasn’t so serious. Top that off with a government agency (the FDA) not enforcing Federal law where pet foods are concerned. In other words, pet owners are left defenseless.
Some pet foods use only the finest ingredients, the very same ingredients you WOULD feed to any member of your family. The pet food that I provide my gang, uses only human grade chicken breast in its chicken meal (no bone, no skin, no by-products, only breast meat), yet they are NOT allowed to tell customers this on their label or in their advertising. Another pet food can imply all types of unqualified health claims on their labels, when they use intestines and diseased chickens in their chicken meal. It doesn’t seem fair does it?
This isn’t quality of potting soil or house paint, this is quality of nutrition that is supposed to enhance the lives of our furry family; family that solely depends on us to provide them with quality nutrition.
Truth in pet food labeling and advertising doesn’t exist. Existing regulations do not require it.
Our pets on the other hand, do tell us the truth. Recently a pet owner shared with me her experience of changing pet foods (from a well known pet food brand to a lesser known brand that uses human grade meats – but can’t advertise they do). As recommended, she slowly introduced the new dog food and cat food; mixing only a partial amount of new food in with the old food. Her cat “ate around” the old food, eating only the new food. Her dog politely spit out every kibble of old food all over the kitchen floor, eating only the new food. When this ‘mom’ followed instructions and did not provide her dog and cat more of the new food for this meal, both animals refused to eat the old food and thus had only a small portion of their regular meal – all new food.
This dog and cat get my vote as President of AAFCO and Director of Pet Food Safety at the FDA. If they were in charge, things would be different.
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
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
