How can regulatory authorities (federal and state) hate and attack 2% of the pet food market while openly allowing much of the rest (98%) to violate law and mislead/lie to consumers? The vendetta against raw pet food continues.
Raw pet food makes up less than 2% of the total pet food market in the US. Yet raw pet food is scrutinized (outright attacked) by regulatory more than the other 98% – much more. Authorities warn of the dangers of raw pet food, yet there is no documented human illness linked to raw. And raw pet food has been tested far more than kibble even though kibble pet food is the largest segment of pet food sales having the potential to sicken/harm many more people. Why does regulatory authorities hate this 2% of the market – raw pet food – so badly?
What ‘they’ (regulatory) have done to the raw pet food market…
The FDA has openly warned consumers NOT to feed raw pet food stating “FDA does not believe raw meat foods for animals are consistent with the goal of protecting the public from significant health risks, particularly when such products are brought into the home and/or used to feed domestic pets.”
On the page titled “Avoid the Dangers of Raw Pet Food” the FDA states “Compared to other types of pet food, raw pet food is more likely to be contaminated with disease-causing bacteria, such as Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes.”
Raw pet food is the ONLY style of pet food that the FDA has warned consumers about. There have been NO warnings against kibble pet foods. When you look at the actual statistics, it makes one wonder why FDA has ONLY warned consumers of the dangers of raw pet food. Over a five year period – June 2010 to June 2015 –
17,685 pounds of Raw Pet Foods were recalled for Salmonella
compared to
19,407,827 pounds of Kibble Pet Foods were recalled for Salmonella
Statistically, kibble pet food poses a much higher risk to consumers than raw. But again, no warning from FDA on kibble.
The Centers for Disease Control has recently chimed in on the ‘We Hate Raw’ band wagon with a warning of their own. The CDC tells pet owners “You may be considering a raw food diet for your pets because you have heard that it is healthier. But raw food diets can make you and your pet sick, and for that reason CDC does not recommend feeding raw diets to pets.”
Interestingly – the Centers for Disease Control’s website ONLY includes one case report of human illnesses linked to a pet food – and that was not raw pet food. In 2012, 49 people became ill confirmed to be linked to – caused by – Diamond Pet Foods, a kibble pet food. There are zero documented cases of human illness linked to a raw pet food. Zero.
The CDC openly tells consumers not to purchase raw pet foods, but the agency does not make the same bold statement on raw meats for humans. With meat for human consumption the CDC only advises consumers to keep raw meat ‘separate’ from other foods; “Even after you’ve cleaned your hands and surfaces thoroughly, raw meat, poultry, seafood, and eggs can still spread illness-causing bacteria to ready-to-eat foods—unless you keep them separate.”
Pet food raw – do not purchase.
Human food raw – keep separate.
This certainly doesn’t sound like a consistent safety message from CDC.
Regulatory authorities – both FDA and State Department of Agriculture (some states are worse than others) continue on an all out testing vendetta of raw pet food – and to my knowledge it remains ONLY raw pet food. They suspiciously forget the 19 million pounds of kibble pet foods recalled for Salmonella – and the other 98% of the pet food market.
Which makes more sense…
Frequently test a product that has a significant history of risk AND has the potential to endanger millions of consumers (98% of consumers)?
Or test a product that has the potential to endanger only 2% of consumers?
It seems common sense doesn’t prevail with regulatory authorities.
While state and federal pet food authorities are busy bee’s warning all consumers about a potential risk that is actually only a risk to 2% of consumers – they do absolutely nothing about the illegal ingredients used in much of the other 98%. As example…
Evanger’s Pet Food used a meat supplier that recycled dead animal carcasses. Recycled dead animal carcasses (non-slaughtered) into any food is a direct and certain violation of federal law (and state law in 14 states). The Evanger’s Pet Food and at least one private label they co-packed for (Party Animal) did not include meat from slaughtered animals as law requires, this meat supplier sourced beef from dead cows and horses – some of the animals were euthanized. While Evanger’s used this dead animal carcass meat supply, the pet food company touted on their website their ingredients were ‘human grade’ (for years).
So many violations of law, but…
FDA never stopped Evanger’s for using illegal meat sources, FDA never prosecuted Evanger’s for introducing an adulterated product into Interstate Commerce, and not one State Department of Agriculture ever once bothered to verify the Evanger’s human grade claim on their website.
All regulatory authorities simply ignored the illegal activity. But even more so – one regulatory authority gave a license to – it’s permission to an ingredient provider to sell illegal goods. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture – the governing state over the Evanger’s meat supplier (Bailey Farms) went so far as to issue a ‘license’ to the ingredient provider – a license to sell illegal adulterated product to pet food manufacturers. Meat sourced from non-slaughtered dead animal carcasses is a direct violation of federal law…but Wisconsin Department of Agriculture ignored that law and issued the company a license to commit a crime.
This is just one example. There are many more examples of outright illegal activities going on in pet food…but FDA and each State Department of Agriculture openly ignores all of it. As allowing illegal activity makes absolutely no sense, we have no option but to assume regulatory is openly protecting their ‘friends’ in pet food (the 98% – most of which are Big Pet Food making billions in profits each year selling illegal ‘pet feed’ to unknowing consumers).
No doubt about it – regulatory authorities hinder the raw pet food industry in every way they can (with legal and illegal activities). Why does regulatory hate raw pet food so?
It could be many of regulatory are ‘fuddy duddies’ (the fuddy duddies fought human grade pet food too). They are old school regulatory – and long for the ‘good old days’ when feed was simply feed – brown and round or in the can. The fuddy duddy hates change, hates that so many consumers are not listening/heeding to their antiquated words of warning.
Beyond the fuddy duddies, it could be regulatory hates raw pet food because of a territory issue. Raw meat is the territory of USDA. Many raw pet foods (but not all) are manufactured completely in another regulatory body’s turf – many are completely manufactured under USDA authority. FDA and State Department of Agriculture work well together (they are great at a coordinated plan of attack on raw and great at ignoring law together), but USDA does not participate in the AAFCO process (State Department of Agriculture and FDA). Perhaps FDA and the States attack raw – dislike raw – because they don’t have full control over raw. Perhaps they hate when they lose control.
Regardless as to why – what can consumers do?
Complain, complain, complain.
Contact your State Department of Agriculture – http://www.aafco.org/Regulatory – and ask for an accounting of what types/styles of pet food your state has tested over the last year. Ask them if your state issues licenses for dead animal processors or renderers of dead non-slaughtered livestock – if they do, ask them why your state ignores federal law. Ask them why there is no enforcement of illegal dead non-slaughtered animal products or diseased animal products in pet foods in your state.
Contact FDA – https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ContactFDA/default.htm – and ask for an accounting of what types/styles of pet food FDA has tested over the last year. Ask why FDA does not enforce federal law with pet food. Ask them why there is no enforcement of illegal dead non-slaughtered animal products or diseased animal products in pet foods. Ask them why they have not updated pet food ingredient definitions, established pet food ingredient standards and updated pet food labels as Congress required them to be completed by September 2009 (yet still not completed).
Ask them both – how many pets have to die until they will finally enforce law?
If you are a pet food retailer selling raw pet foods – make sure you don’t have old raw pet food stuck in the back of the freezer. Guess what regulatory authorities try intentionally to find? Almost every time – they are searching for almost expired pet food. If a regulatory authority comes into your store to purchase raw pet food for testing – ask them if they will be heading over to Petsmart or Petco next…to purchase an equal amount of kibble pet foods for testing.
Ask them. Question them. Until authorities hear from a significant number of consumers (not just the few consumer advocates) – they are not going to change their illegal ways.
Salmonella or Listeria or E.coli are dangerous bugs – no argument about that. But those bugs are just as prevalent in kibble pet food as they are raw. Regulatory authorities need to STOP the outright attack on the 2% and equally focus on the full 100% risk. Enforcing all laws on all pet food, not just on the 2%.
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 4,000 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
TwoSedonaBums
May 9, 2017 at 12:49 pm
Very simple… If Monsanto made raw pet food, everything would be cool.
Debi
May 9, 2017 at 5:33 pm
So too true !!!!!! may be a problem getting the smart, informed throngs to buy it tho.
Amy
May 9, 2017 at 12:51 pm
Maybe the raw pet food manufacturers need to start buying the FDA lunch, talk, and make friends?
Terry L.
May 9, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Exactly! Apparently the only thing that matters is how those folks in regulatory positions respond to is wooing by lobbyists. It not only includes lunches, but other generous perks, campaigning for appointees and campaign contributions to those elected – – it’s all about quid pro quo. It sickens me.
It’s extremely difficult for my wife and I to find safe pet food.
Sharon Bilotta-Testa
May 9, 2017 at 1:07 pm
No point contacting FDA…waste of time no point contacting ANY pet food company..they will only tell you whay you want to hear…if you do not believe what Pet Fooled knows,says and is 100% accurate then no point of you trying to change what many of us have already done and that’s either making your own pet food or buying raw..if not for Susan and the documentary of Pet Fooled we’d still be wasting OUR money on the crap the pet food industry makes and the ridiculous myth behind ALL of them!
Bill McQuade
May 9, 2017 at 1:46 pm
Headline needs changing Susan. Swap “agenda” for the word “bias”
ROBIN WORL
May 9, 2017 at 2:06 pm
My pets look amazing and I have feed them Primal brand raw sincee they were tiny!!!
That speaks for itself…
9year old dog and cat!!!
Caron
May 9, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I agree with you, I think it’s the greed of big pet food and fuddy duddies.
The best thing that could ever happen is everyone make their own raw or cooked food or just buy raw.
One can only dream.
Reader
May 9, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Raw feeders are going to be coming out of the woodwork over this article. But here goes.
The point of the article is clearly understood! Required reading for the uninformed and unaware. Meaning, consistency in the regulation of any PF regarding safety and integrity must be enforced. No excuses. Personally, my dog eats raw for 1 of 2 daily meals. A brand well vetted from Susan’s 2017 List! In addition to having spoken with the product Rep, personally.
In terms of keeping our discussions here, fair and balanced, it’s easy to jump to a conspiracy theory. However doing that kind of thinking, is a disservice to the main message of this website, for the reason that it is already (and unfairly) accused of being alarmist. So, in terms of how “Regulation” views traditional PF versus the greater bioavailability of raw, there could be a couple of other factors at work here.
For example, knowing what “Regulation” already does about the PFI, applying those kinds of mistakes in the production of raw products, is even more dangerous! Granted, the ingredients are simplified. But just as much in need of quality AND sourcing integrity! As consumers, we’ve been very lucky so far, that a horrible bad batch of meat hasn’t gotten involved. And unless the company has been vetted by Susan, how sure can we be that raw meat is otherwise fit for human consumption? Just because the company tells us so … oh sure. Also a lot of raw food is cured in a manner reducing the ultimate benefit of uncooked protein. And owners who can literally throw a whole raw chicken leg into the feed bowl, certainly have more courage than myself. But I know it works especially for large breeds. And I know in the wild everything is consumed. The difference being, that all of it is virtually fresh and uncompromised.
It IS good that raw food is highly tested! It should be, it needs to be. Because an error would have a greater ramification. So my guess is, this idea is what alarms both “Regulation” and Vets. Statistically speaking non-raw poses a higher risk, because (by volume and purchasing) more of it is made and sold. While we understand those risk factors, somehow our pets have “survived” issues of salmonella. Though (and in perfect agreement) am not believing that doing so, is optimal course of ideal survival.
But the other side of this issue is all about handling! Really, … there is a difference between tearing off the cellophane from a package of chicken (hopefully rinsing it off in the sink) and throwing it into the baking pan or onto the grill! Good hygiene for the purpose of humans, has been taught by every responsible parent and caregiver! Because (quite frankly) a failure actually does make PEOPLE sick, and that’s what really matters, right.
And yet, have you ever watched how average people feed their pets? These are the kinds of people still hauling out 35 pound bags of Ole Roy and the House Brand from huge discount stores! If they don’t care about their pet, at that level, regarding product quality and integrity, then they don’t care about their pet. Or more realistically, they are uneducated about the issue. Even more to the point, they are uneducated about pet nutrition in general. I wouldn’t want these naïve folks to be throwing raw chicken outside in the plastic food bowl, on a 90 degree day. Hoping it’s been readily consumed. Then forgetting about cleaning the bowl! And heaven only knows, what happens in between those steps!
The other concern is a dog eating a bowl of raw food, then handling toys and (potentially) licking the face and hands of some kid. From that health standpoint, it does seem plausible for warnings to be issued. And (apples to oranges) two wrongs in the world of PF, don’t make either one less of an issue. Good quality and the safety of any kind of PF should be the norm. All of it should be equally regulated. And raw PF food should be qualified with an understanding of mandatory handling instructions! It is all about education. Which (for some reason) Vets don’t even want to bother with. Because (IMO) a mistake with raw food can be far more serious, than a bad batch of kibble or canned. The result causing (so-called) 24 hour human or kennel flu (even though there’s no such thing).
Sharon Bilotta-Testa
May 10, 2017 at 6:10 am
The people who choose to buy cheapest pet food are either making too little having a difficult time just getting by or think that at least it’s better than nothing…considering how many of us saw Pet Fooled and know how decisive ALL the major pet food industries are at least there are close to 1 million that made drastic changes on what we will and are feeding are pets and us 1 million will inform every pet owner to watch Pet Fooled and decide to also make the same decision!!!
Reader
May 10, 2017 at 8:12 am
I think you meant deceptive instead of decisive, but no matter, point well taken!
Michael
May 10, 2017 at 12:23 pm
While you made some very good points, mandatory handling instructions and having the “average person” feed raw and how education is the key factor. However you are completely wrong about an “error in raw would have greater ramification” and the result of a bad batch of kibble causing only a ( so called) 24 hour flu. Perhaps you aren’t aware of the class action law suits filed against Beneful making thousands of dogs sick and die. I think if you spoke to those dog owners they would disagree about the seriousness or ramification.
It is very simple, the benefits of raw feeding far outweigh any slim risk that is virtually eliminated thru proper handling. This also depends on the raw manufacturer and their level of sourcing and handling. Which I believe needs to be tested and regulated , and is. The issue an focus of this article is the double standard of the FDA/CVM, and instead of educating coming out against the feeding of raw and that something is amiss.
so while you made some good points you also added to the misinformation being spread in these forums.
Reader
May 10, 2017 at 7:18 pm
Thank you for reading my comment. Most just skip over the long ones. You’re correct! I didn’t mean to dismiss any pet illness. But it certainly read that way! There is no “degree” of permissible risk in PF. Thank you for your correction. And yes, am aware of Beneful (and others). And while I’m the last person on earth to defend such an inferior product, at issue is a particular toxicity.
Raw (for a lot of reasons) can be an adjunct to rotational feeding. But it shouldn’t “need” to be the only alternative for other forms, JUST because other forms are of such inferior quality! There have been a few relatively higher quality brands (such as Mulligan Stew) but they couldn’t afford to stay in business. And were honest enough to not lower their standards for sourcing and processing!
The article is about the double standard of “regulation.” One aspect of the discussion includes the question of WHY the double standard exists.
Some would say, because the general PFI (and Vets) are squashing competition. And to do that, they unfairly lobby the FDA for permissions and exceptions that don’t apply to raw. (I get that). And yet, more manufacturers could (and are) entering into the raw PF market, because of growing awareness. So I suggested “regulation” focuses on raw PF, as they do on human grade raw food.
The question can still be asked. Which is going to make you sicker, more quickly. A handful of bacteria ridden raw meat or a handful of cereal with inferior grain? Which doesn’t mean there shouldn’t also be a requirement for safe handling instructions on raw PF packages, just like human food products. But it doesn’t fix the whole problem.
IMO “regulation” doesn’t trust pet owners to be vigilant enough. Dogs are NOT treated like family. And the FDA is NOT in the business of education. Which includes what defines a quality product, how it should be balanced, what curing means, and how feeding in the home requires oversight. Period. If every raw food product was of the caliber as those on Susan’s 2017 – not problem. But we KNOW they aren’t. And a “safe handling” label on a package isn’t the equivalent of doing required research!
So in the interest of NOT misinforming readers of this site, they need to understand feeding raw PF is a responsibility! And a greater one than scooping out highly processed dry or canned stuff and forgetting about it!
Sharon Bilotta-Testa
May 12, 2017 at 6:18 am
And to think that Beneful Iams and several other brands of cheap crap made the list of Best dog food..I know several dog owners who believe this as they been only feeding this awful crap for years BUT wonder why their dogs have skin dieses cancer kidney stones and so many other ailments…
Em
May 10, 2017 at 10:44 pm
Just a small correction, but rinsing of poultry is now discouraged because of the spread/splattering of bacteria.
Acacia Rogers
May 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm
You may not be taking one important thing into account. Carnivores digestive systems are equipped to handle some raw-present bacteria. The safety standards of most raw brands, thus far, are far higher that that of most kibble brands. The pros vastly outweigh the cons. Regulation on everything should be stringent and safe raw handling practices should always be taken seriously, but these regulatory officials are wrongly saying “don’t buy raw” not “be careful with raw” or “research your raw” or “wash hands thoroughly when handling raw” or “keep raw frozen/refrigerated”. no. its “Don’t feed raw its not safe!”.. This is a fallacy and our carnivore pets are far healthier when raw fed basically 100% of the time. The only reason for this bias is for the benefit of big pet food, not the benefit of our pets. No. Question. About it.
Reader
May 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Speaking of opinion:
Having been introduced to a canine prey model diet 18 years ago, and both of mine greatly benefitted. The person who introduced me (responsible feeding many dogs) never delegated the task. Because the responsibility for handling the ingredients was very clear, and mistakes were detrimental.
So far it seems manufacturing raw food is safe. But limited. Though some forms of precaution compromise pure bioavailability. Even so, would we be comfortable with companies like Purina, Mars Petcare and Evangers selling truly raw food? When it costs more to manufacture, requires higher quality sourcing, stringent safety and testing standards. So far companies (like those mentioned) have demonstrated ZERO concern for pets and people. Why wouldn’t Regulation understand this same reality as well. And perhaps that is their real bias.
If Regulation can’t control (ensure) what’s currently on the market (and for more reasons than even the public understands) then why would Regulation encourage the expansion raw food popularity to be added to their list of concerns. It’s not their job to provide safe handling instructions. The message isn’t “don’t feed raw because it’s bad for your dog.” The message is “there’s not enough control over PF manufacturing as it is” and “the general public isn’t informed enough to compensate!” Practical, permissible and beneficial are separate issues. While the PFI may be avoiding competition, and Vets don’t want to see an increase in (poor handling) complications, Regulators don’t have time to be biased for no reason at all.. Right or wrong, they just don’t have the band-width to expand their oversight.
The fallacy is accepting as a “solution” that 100% raw feeding is the ONLY alternative to products using inferior ingredients and processing methods. Which is like saying, walking (much more healthy) is the only alternative to unsafe transportation, which is the result of insufficient oversight and penalties!
Michael
May 19, 2017 at 12:04 pm
Actually the message from the FDA clear “FDA does not believe raw meat foods for animals are consistent with the goal of protecting the public from significant health risks, particularly when such products are brought into the home and/or used to feed domestic pets” However they don’t have the confirmed cases/ statistics to back up or warrant the effort put forth for close to 30 recalls over the last 7 years. The FDA’s overzealous concern about Raw ( 2%) as big bad wolf, when Kibble has caused more fatalities of dogs and sick humans…( last time I checked kibble is cooked ).
Regarding whether its the FDA’s job to provide safe handling instructions… The USDA provides such instructions so why can’t the FDA? The USDA doesn’t even consider Salmonella an adulterant. Poultry farms are allowed to sell Poultry with over 50% positive rates while the FDA has a Zero tolerance. Figure that one out. Sounds like Pet food is under the wrong jurisdiction to me.
You touch upon the fact that the general public isn’t informed enough. You are correct, so the question is why not educate about safe handling and feeding, rather than put out a statement that includes “significant health risks”. Those are powerful words aimed at causing concern about feeding this type of diet. Are their risks, absolutely, however so minimal and with proper handling and education those risks are all but eliminated. The money, time and effort wasted on these recalls just doesn’t add up.
T Allen
May 19, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Make sure to emphasize “to handle SOME raw-present bacteria” because most people do not realize how many genetic mutations, due to overcrowding and toxins, have been created in the last 50 years! These super bugs, of all kinds, are capable of killing animals as well as people. Otherwise I heartily agree with the rest of your comment!
Catherine
May 9, 2017 at 6:17 pm
I think you should send this to the CDC!
Not that they would pay any attention, but it is a mystery to me what they have to gain from this HAZARDOUS misleading of the public.
I understand the FDA sorta – they get funded by the pet food industry (if that isn’t the most ridiculous situation ever…)
T Allen
May 9, 2017 at 7:30 pm
Part of the issue is liability. USDA requires warning labels for human meats. Keep it cold, wash your hands. and COOK thoroughly! The reason for those mandatory labels is that they know that the meat is contaminated with salmonella and listeria. They work to keep the numbers down but there is no such thing as zero bacteria raw meat! If that low bacteria raw meat is improperly handled or prepared people /animals can get sick, very sick. Knowing how the meat by products for pet food are mishandled they are rightly concerned that those products are potentially dangerous if the companies are not very careful. That said, if you can feed your family home prepared chicken without them getting sick than you have the skills to feed your animals raw meat as well.
Michelle Smith Unroe
May 10, 2017 at 12:21 pm
The FDA tolerance for bacteria is much higher in meats for human consumption than in raw for pets.
Michelle Smith Unroe
May 10, 2017 at 12:28 pm
Not only are inspectors looking for expired raw product at the retail level, they are pulling test samples from there too then holding manufacturers responsible for any excessive levels of contamination. This is after the product has been shipped to and from distributors and handled at the retail level as well, allowing multiple opportunities for the product to thaw, none of which are under direct control by the manufacturer.
Michael
May 10, 2017 at 5:16 pm
To Michelle… you are correct. USDA has a 3 tiered protocol for compliance and are allowed to sell chicken with over 50% positive rate of salmonella. FDA has a Zero tolerance. This is about Jurisdiction and Common sense and the FDA/CVM need to simply allow Raw Pet food to be labeled as Human Raw meat is labeled with common sense safe handling
and cooking ( if desired )
Reader
May 10, 2017 at 7:25 pm
Except … that we can’t be sure ALL raw pet food is suitable for human consumption, no matter what’s claimed.
Evangers just proved that.
Disclaimer: I do feed my dog raw PF. But I’ve known a couple to get exceptionally sick from it. sorry, I know you don’t want to hear that.
Acacia Rogers
May 18, 2017 at 5:20 pm
The veterinary industry has a lot to do with it too. Raw diets make healthy pets. Healthy pets don’t need veterinary services as much, and thus the veterinary industry looses money the more pets are raw or “human grade” fed.
Reader
May 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm
Would a doctor ignore your sugar addiction to protect his revenue stream. I agree Vets should be open minded about feeding, and judge the pet as the result of that success. But disagree that an ethical Vet doesn’t want to see a pet healthy. Much less needs to make money from an unhealthy one. Have you any idea what a Vet goes through consulting with a very distressed owner when a pet is failing.
Michael
May 18, 2017 at 6:47 pm
To “reader” Vets are required less than 20 hours of nutritional training. I don’t think its about ethics its more about the lack of self or furthering their education on nutrition. They are in the business of fixing and not preventive medicine. While many younger vets are now thinking outside the box ( or 40lb kibble bag ), its going to take another decade or two before we see real change with more
nutritional minded veterinarians.
Ms. B Dawson
July 23, 2017 at 10:10 pm
Here’s another angle of attack on raw diets. Tufts has long criticized raw diets, once even quoting one of their vets saying “raw diets aren’t natural for dogs” in their newsletter. They have just published a survey on Therapy Animal programs that says too many hospitals, nursing homes, etc. aren’t making sure the animals are not putting patients at risk of zoonotic diseases. They state the following in their press release:
“….This risk is especially high when health, grooming and hand-washing protocols are not carefully used. Another potential risk could come from therapy animals eating raw meat-based diets or treats, which are at high risk of being contaminated with bacteria such as Campylobacter, Salmonella and Cryptosporidium. These pathogens may pose risks to both humans and animals, and especially immunocompromised patients….”
The survey results state in part, “…70 percent allowed therapy animals eating raw meat diets to visit facilities and only 19 percent prohibited them (the remaining 11 percent chose not to answer)…”. Notice how this is written – ONLY 19 percent. Makes you think these are the only programs who are doing it right, doesn’t it? How long before some congressperson picks up on that and passes legislation banning raw fed animals from therapy programs?
The full survey can be found here:
https://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/could-therapy-animal-visitation-pose-health-risks-patient-facilities
tallen
July 24, 2017 at 8:41 am
Thanks for posting! I sent the authors a letter requesting the hard data they had to back up these “facts”. Along with a list of research references disputing their claim(s). 🙂
Pacific Sun
July 25, 2017 at 3:01 am
PF advocates (us) are already identified as being emotional extremists! Let’s not further promote the idea by assuming there’s a grand conspiracy against raw diets. There is (instead) a fear of people not doing it responsibly. And it’s not the Vet’s job to monitor the situation either, when there are too many variables.
Therapy animals are permitted in a medical setting on an exceptional basis. The primary concern is patient welfare, by understanding a range of circumstantial risk exists. But people over-generalize in their thinking, assuming that because feeding raw in the home poses no problems, it doesn’t anywhere else. Let’s say an owner feeds a raw meal, just before entering a medical facility, and the dog doing it’s therapy work with patients. Assume further, the dog has barely digested the contents. Not very likely, but theoretically “possible.” Doesn’t the facility own the liability for allowing Therapy dogs on it’s property?
Government should NOT be involved in prohibiting anything, pet wise. Or it will lead to a lot of unwanted situations! So to prevent that from happening, owners need to be proactive about taking extra precaution in the name of patient confidence. That setting is no place to try and “prove” a point at the expense of others. Dogs aren’t supposed to be licking the hand of a patient (but it happens). A child puts a hand in their mouth. Or a patient might have a skin lesion, even a blister. We assume pathogens from raw feeding don’t survive in a dog’s mouth. Yet as raw feeders (I am too), we advise exceptional cleanliness at all points. Personally I don’t want the remnants of a dog (that’s just chewed up chicken necks) slobbering on me either.
Medicine is science based, and would respond to a scientific study proving the predominant safety of raw feeding in the medical/patient setting. If such a report does exist, then let the that speak for itself. Keep the lawmakers at bay … using facts and proof!
tallen
July 25, 2017 at 8:06 am
I sent a comment stating that exact sentiment to the authors of the study. Asked for a reply but not holding my breath. This was soft science and we need hard facts (of which I can’t find any) to back up these claims. here’s some data I sent in the email, FYI.
1. More people have been sickened by salmonella from eating dry food than raw. https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/FAQs/Pages/Dry-Pet-Foods-and-Salmonella-FAQs.aspx
2. The FDA’s own data show more food recalls of dry kibble than raw for Salmonella. https://truthaboutpetfood.com/lets-get-the-facts-straight-fda/
3. ALL dogs have zoonotic bacteria in their mouths. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113512006384
4. ALL dogs mouths have zoonotic parasites and diseases due to fecal-oral contamination.
Here’s a 2012 Research paper that lists the microbiome of dogs mouths. 99% likelyhood none of these dogs were raw fed. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036067
Here’s the list of species they found, not including the 80% unnamed oral taxa. Table S4 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036067.s004
Pacific Sun
July 25, 2017 at 8:38 am
T Allen writes: “That said, if you can feed your family home prepared chicken without them getting sick then you have the skills to feed your animals raw meat as well.” Yes, responsible pet owners fall into this category!! I wholeheartedly agree!
I get it, and your point is WELL taken. The fact that kibble is also a risk, is certainly a relevant factor as well! And we all know these companies should be held responsible. In that sense, there’s hardly a decent defense for saying the feeding of “kibble” is safer than feeding “raw” when your dog enters a medical facility, for therapeutic services! Point very well taken!! And should be stressed!
Still, we don’t want to discourage the use of therapy dogs. And we don’t want legislative intervention, citing ANY kind of risk that the dog naturally brings with it, by what it’s fed. I am saying that “RAW” feeding is just an added alarm bell! And I think that if kibble were equally examined, as is the expectation of raw food, it still wouldn’t help our cause. Except to recommend that the PFI clean up their act, for so many valid reasons!
The main issue, of which this discussion constructively plays into, is for advocating the merits of “human grade, edible” ingredients over “livestock” feed, period. You are correct, that the argument must be clearly stated. It doesn’t help at all, that the consumption of kibble is any more or less safe, than other diets! Exactly. And perhaps this IS the best opportunity for stressing that point.
I just know, that the last thing we want to happen, is banning the therapeutic value dogs bring into the healing/comforting process of medical recovery situations. Perhaps then, we need to broaden our argument, and make the facts (as you’ve presented them) even more widespread, in order to support the general reform of the PFI. Thank you for that post! And for making that point!!
Ms. B Dawson
July 25, 2017 at 2:01 pm
You’re points are well taken, PacSun, but…. I don’t see a grand conspiracy theory.
I see entrenched bias based on the information taught in Vet schools. If you trace the authors of the nutrition books used, you will find a large percentage have strong ties to major pet food companies such as Royal Canin and back in the day, Science Diet & Iams (I’ve been in the industry since 1992).
As a biologist, I was taught that bad data is worse than no data at all. I see bad data used in many, many fields today. The curriculum in colleges is often heavily influenced by political necessity to please those who donate or to avoid controversy. Veterinary & medical schools are heavily financed by the pharmaceutical industry who build labs and provide grant money for research; pet food companies provide scholarships. This shades what is taught just as surely as the victors write the history.
When surveys such as this are publicized by prestigious schools like Tufts, they will be taken as fact, not opinion. A survey merely collects the opinions of those surveyed and is a snapshot of what the respondents have done or believe. This was not a STUDY. The authors compiled the responses and put forth a hypothesis, i.e.. because 19% percent of therapy dogs eat raw food there is the potential for increased risk of transmission of zoonotic disease.
This is a valid HYPOTHESIS but it has no STUDIES to back it one way or the other, at least none that I know of. How many facilities who read this will see an out of proportion risk (and the potential for a lawsuit) even though to date the absence of widespread policies banning raw fed dogs would seem to indicate there is no increased risk. Dogs, after all, lick their butts, drink out of toilets and sniff all over potentially contaminated surfaces.
This survey adds to the growing list of unsupported concerns against raw diets. And THAT’s what bothered me. That’s not emotional or conspiratorial; it’s cold, logical analysis. This information was put out by influential people with delineated educations thinking absolutely that they are doing the right thing to protect people based on what they have been taught. Those with differing opinions need to respectfully challenge at every opportunity, lest something that is questionable be repeated so often that it becomes true.
Will Rogers once quipped, “There is nothing so stupid as an educated man…if you can get him off the thing he is educated in.”.
tallen
July 25, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Write to the authors and see if you can get a response!
Could Therapy Animal Visitation Pose Health Risks at Patient Facilities?
c/o
Taraneh Pettinato
Associate Director of Public Relations
Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University
(508) 839-7910 office
(603) 801-1677 mobile
taraneh.pettinato@tufts.edu
http://vet.tufts.edu/
Pacific Sun
July 25, 2017 at 2:37 pm
Appreciate your clarification which puts me In full agreement with PFI’s influence over Vet schools and veterinarians. Very unfortunate, and unfair. If only truly objective, independent third party sponsored science existed! We’d actually be making some progress for a change.