Deconstructing
the Regulatory Façade: <=
/o:p>
Why
Confused Consumers Feed their Pets <=
o:p>
Ring
Dings and Krispy Kremes
=
Justine S.
Patrick
=
Class of
2006
=
April 2006
=
Combined
Course and Third-Year Work
Abstract
Americans own more than 130 million cats and=
dogs
and spend over $12 billion per year on commercial pet foods. The commercial=
pet
food industry faces minimal substantive regulation, despite navigating seve=
ral
layers of regulation from various groups including the FDA, the American
Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), and state regulators. The FDA
entrusts AAFCO to issue regulations governing ingredients, feeding trials,
labels and nutritional claims. But AAFCO’s
rules fall short of ensuring that America’s pets receive adequate
nutrition, or even foods that won’t cause chronic digestive, skin, ey=
e,
and coat problems. The influence by the pet food industry over AAFCO manife=
sts
itself through AAFCO’s irrational regulat=
ions,
including ingredient definitions which effectively prohibit organic chickens
and vegetables, while blindly permitting thousands of euthanized cats and d=
ogs
to make their way into pet foods through the unsupervised rendering industr=
y.
Trusting, but uneducated, consumers purchase these commercial pet foods und=
er
the assumption that the FDA or some other regulatory body has ensured that =
the
foods contain “balanced” meals, and “complete” nutr=
ition.
These consumers naively believe veterinarians that endorse and sell pet foo=
ds
from their offices while neglecting to mention that these “pet
doctors” are often “on the take” and can earn up to 20% of
their total income from such sales. This paper will examine the ways in whi=
ch
inadequate regulation results in confused consumers and sick, malnourished
pets. Ultimately this paper seeks to reveal that multiple parties, including
consumers themselves, share the blame for the current muddled state of
regulation.
I.
Introduction
Pet food is big business in the U.S. [1] Over fifty =
percent
of American households have at least one pet, these homes providing shelter=
to
60 million dogs and 70 million cats.[2] More than 60% of these animals eat comm=
ercial
pet food.[3] Most pet owners don’t think twice=
about
the pet food they buy. Some buy what the vet recommends (solicited advice or
not), others buy the most eye-catching bag found in the grocery store aisle,
and still others buy foods advertised on TV with frisky kitties scrambling =
into
the kitchen to scarf down adorable fish-shaped food bits. The fascinating t=
hing
is that very few pet owners stop to consider whether the food they’re
feeding their pet is nutritious. They assume that because the food is vet
recommended or backed-up by health claims scrawled on the bag and announced=
in
commercials, then it must be okay. After all, they figure, the FDA regulates
what we eat – don’t they regulate what our pets eat?=
The answer is neither simple nor short. Like=
most
issues of regulation, pet food’s history is long, complicated and, of
course, fueled by money. Pet food is a $12 billion industry in the <=
st1:country-region>U.S., with exports adding another $1 billion.[4] What is interesting is that despite mul=
tiple
layers of authority, the pet food industry has enjoyed relatively little
substantive regulation.
The purpose of this paper is not to point fi=
ngers
or serve as an emotional shock triggering pet owners to home-cook each of t=
heir
pets’ meals. Rather, this paper should serve as a comprehensive
examination of the pet food industry and reveal its inadequacies. The paper
begins with a brief history of pet food followed by a discussion of the var=
ious
regulatory bodies, their relationship to the industry, and the rules ultima=
tely
governing pet food. This section also considers the role of non-governmental
bodies and trade groups that significantly influence the regulations. Next,=
the
paper discusses the effects of the regulatory regime by examining pet food
labels, permitted ingredients, and the current state of pets’ health.
Finally, a discussion on why the industry fails =
America’s pets will be followed by possible solutions =
that
consumers, veterinarians and regulators can pursue in order to resolve the
industry’s shortcomings.
While there are many problems with the comme=
rcial
pet food industry, not all commercial pet foods are detrimental to your
pets’ health. Some pets are able to live for years on commercial foods
and never encounter any significant health problems. Nevertheless, thousand=
s of
pets develop severe allergies and diseases directly related to their
“regulated” diets. So who is responsible for our pet’s
declining health? The answer, is everyone.<=
/o:p>
II. A Brief History =
of Pet
Food
Before analyzing the regulation of pet food =
it is
worth noting the development of the industry over the last 100 years. Prior=
to
the introduction of commercial pet food, dogs ate table scraps salvaged from
their human companions. Cats, kept for their rodent hunting abilities, most=
ly
subsisted on their own kills.[5] Companion animals survived for decades =
on
these diets and while it is impossible to determine if those animals were
healthier than their modern day commercially fed counterparts, it is enough=
to
note that the current generation of dogs and cats inherited the genes of th=
eir
ancestors, complete with their digestive tendencies and capabilities.<=
/o:p>
An American by the name of James Spratt prod=
uced
the first commercial dog food, a biscuit, in 1860.[6] Spratt was a salesman in London when he noticed dogs on docks being fed left over bi=
scuits
from the ships.[7] Spratt decided to create his own biscuit
using “wheat meals, vegetables, beetroot, and meat.”[8] His product proved profitable and was s=
old to
English gentlemen who owned sporting dogs.[9] In 1890 his formula and production were=
taken
over by a large company which then began operations in the United States.[10]=
Soon <=
span
style=3D'color:black'>U.S. firms began entering different formulations of forti=
fied
dog biscuits and dry kibble into the pet food market.[11]=
Subsequent to World War I pet food
manufacturers introduced canned horsemeat, followed by canned foods for cat=
s in
the 1930s.[12]=
The industry diversified in the 1960s =
with
the production of dry cat food and semi-moist products.=
[13]=
This marked the beginning of the
“boom” for pet food companies.[14]=
Soon soup companies such as Campbell a=
nd
Lipton competed with cereal manufacturers like Post and General Foods to ad=
d pet
foods to their “human lines.”[15]=
Not to be outdone, candy companies (Ma=
rs)
and dairies (Carnation) also entered the fray, leading to the production of
over 500 pet food brands.[16]=
The industry managed to sow the seeds of
problematic regulation during the height of its power in the 1970s. During =
the
pet food boom, the industry and the <=
span
style=3D'color:black'>U.S. government were “especially close.”[17]=
The chairman of Ralston Purina’s=
board
of directors, Earl L. Butz, effectively swapped=
jobs
with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Clifford Morris Hardin.[18]=
Meanwhile, the national guidelines for=
pet
nutrition originated with Ralston Purina’s own research department.[19]=
No one seemed to mind the industryR=
17;s
self-regulation.
During the 1980s the pet food industry’=
;s
monstrous profits diminished when inflation combined with increased adverti=
sing
budgets started eating into earnings.[20]=
But the biggest blow came in the form =
of
newfound skepticism by consumers. During the 80s, the revelation that the
world’s food supply was lagging behind population growth attracted
substantial media attention.[21]=
Consumers began wondering why they were
paying so much money for their pets’ food when there might not be
sufficient food for humans. This forced a once booming industry to defend t=
he
need for its products. Ironically, this meant that instead of selling their
products as “fit for humans” complete with peas and carrots in
canned dog foods, the industry began insisting that their “principal
ingredients are not suitable for human use.”[22]=
Considering that the industry and its
regulators claim that pet foods are safe for human consumption, and =
indeed,
are ingested by some humans, any assertion that the main ingredients are not
“suitable” for humans appears hypocritical.=
[23]=
Unfortunately, the pet food industry survive=
d the
80s relatively unscathed and continues to thrive today. In fact, despite ne=
ver
reforming, the industry currently enjoys annual sales of $13 billion worldw=
ide.[24]=
But the success of the pet food indust=
ry
should not in and of itself trouble consumers, rather, consumer concern sho=
uld
focus on the inadequate regulatory regime that the industry has established=
and
maintained. Many commercial foods rely on sub-standard ingredients and yet =
bear
claims of “complete” and “balanced” with defenseless
pets paying the price and unsuspecting owners paying avoidable vet bills. <=
o:p>
III. The Current Reg=
ulatory
Structure
Several different groups at various levels of
authority regulate pet food. Pet food is regulated by the FDA at the federal
level under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. More specifically, wi=
thin
the FDA, the Center for Veterinary Medicine regulates “animal drugs,
animal feeds, food additives and ingredients.” A non-governmental
organization, the Association of American Feed Control Officials, sets
nutritional standards, label requirements, and feeding trial protocols for =
pet
foods. Additionally, each state may have its own animal feed regulatory agency which regulate pet foods sold or manufactured w=
ithin
their state.[25]=
The Pet Food Institute, a trade group
representing 97% of the U.S. pet food manufacturers, serves as the “voice&#=
8221; of
the industry to Congress, state and federal agencies.[26]=
With so many different groups regulati=
ng
what goes into your animal’s mouth, one would assume that commercial =
foods
are safe. How ironic then, that this over-regulation often results in
misinformed owners with malnourished pets.
A. FDA
Pet food, like human food, is regulated unde=
r the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (hereinafter “FFDCA”).[27]=
The FFDCA defines food as “artic=
les
used for food or drink for man or other animals...” and requires that=
all
foods be free of adulteration and misbranding.[28]=
Without further analysis, one could co=
nclude
from this definition that all pet foods are regulated and approved f=
or
human consumption. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, the
website of the Center for Veterinary Medicine states that “animal fee=
ds
provide a practical outlet for plant and animal byproducts not suitable<=
/i>
for human consumption,”[29]=
a statement seemingly contradictory to=
the
regulations of the FFDCA, which apply equally to human and animal fo=
ods.[30]=
The FFDCA does not require pre-approval of n=
ew
foods, whether intended for humans or animals. Rather, the FFDCA merely
requires that foods not be “adulterated” or
“misbranded.” Adulterated food includes “food packaged or
held under unsanitary conditions, food or ingredients that are filthy or
decomposed, and food that contains any poisonous or deleterious
substance.”[31]=
The FFDCA also states that a food may =
be
deemed adulterated if it contains “any part or product of a diseased
animal.”[32]=
Misbranded food includes those with a false =
or
misleading label, or that fail to list required information such as the name
and location of the manufacturer or the net quantity of the package’s
contents.[33]=
The regulations regarding misbranding
require that pet food labels comply with the same labeling requirements as
human foods.[34]=
When a manufacturer desires an exempti=
on
from the federal labeling requirements, the FDA must be directly involved.[35]=
The FDA’s involvement also extends to =
the
processing and packaging of animal foods. All pet food manufacturing plants=
are
subject to FDA inspection.[36]=
Canned pet foods face further oversigh=
t in
the form of the low acid canned food regulations.[37]=
in addition=
, the
United States Department of Agriculture (hereinafter “USDA”) of=
fers
a voluntary inspection of canned foods through its Food Safety and Inspecti=
on
Service.[38]=
Manufacturers utilizing the voluntary
inspection service may attach a USDA “seal” to their product la=
bels
signifying that the product is a USDA Certified Product for Dogs, Cats and
Other Carnivora.[39]=
Manufacturers violating FDA regulations face
penalties ranging from prison and fines to product seizure and warning lett=
ers.
The FDA often sanctions companies through its informal enforcement powers s=
uch
as detention authority, recalls and negative publicity. The December 2005
recall by Diamond Pet Foods illustrates the speed with which a manufacturer
will recall its own product once harmful effects are discovered. In that ca=
se,
the manufacturer initiated their recall before the FDA even began an
investigation. The Diamond dog food was discovered to contain aflatoxin, a toxin produced by fungus found on corn a=
nd
other crops that usually develops as a result of hot, arid weather.[40]=
The risk of bad publicity and losing m=
arket
share is often enough to force manufacturers to right their own wrongs.
Unfortunately, even Diamond’s relatively quick recall came at the exp=
ense
of the lives of over 76 dogs, plus dozens of others left with permanent liv=
er
damage.[41]=
B. CVM
Within FDA, the Center for Veterinary Medici=
ne
(hereinafter “CVM”) is responsible for the regulation of
“animal food (feed) products.”[42]=
Although this sounds as though the CVM=
would
set standards for pet foods, AAFCO (discussed below), an organization almost
entirely independent of any governmental control, bears this responsibility.
The CVM, in fact, is only responsible for the regulation of animal drugs,
medicated feeds and food additives.[43]=
In relation to pet foods, this means t=
hat
unless a food contains drugs, additives, or proffers “health
claims” on its label, the CVM, and thereby the FDA, has virtually not=
hing
to do with whether that particular pet food can be sold to the public. Ther=
e is
no requirement of pre-market approval for pet foods.[44]=
Pet foods that contain drugs or medication a=
re
uncommon and the resources CVM expends in this area are generally limited to
medicated feeds for the nation’s livestock industry. Food additives
require pre-market approval and are defined as any substance not
generally recognized as safe by qualified scientists (hereinafter “GR=
AS)
if such substance results, directly or indirectly, “in its becoming a
component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food.”[45]=
Thus, any food additive designated as =
GRAS
is exempt from pre-market approval.[46]=
For non-GRAS additives the pre-market approv=
al
process requires the submission of a food additive petition to the FDA.[47]=
The petition generally contains, among=
other
information, a description of the chemical identity of the additive, the
manufacturing process and controls, human food safety data, target animal
safety data, and product labeling.[48]=
Interestingly, CVM “has used
regulatory discretion and not required food additive petitions for
substances that do not raise any safety concerns.”[49]=
CVM explains that since food additive
approval is time-consuming, regulatory action will only be taken if the lab=
el
is inconsistent with the accepted intended use of the additive or if new da=
ta
“received” raises concerns regarding safety or suitability of t=
he
additive.[50]=
One has to wonder how closely the CVM
monitors the “intended use” of the additive considering they ha=
ve
already chosen not to use their resources for pre-market approval as
mandated by Congress in the FFDCA. Moreover, it is unclear from where t=
he
CVM expects to “receive” data that calls into question the
“safety” of the additive. Certainly, it will not be provided by=
the
pet food manufacturer.
The result of CVM’=
;s
resource decision is that CVM’s involveme=
nt
with pet food regulation primarily consists of monitoring health claims. A
“health claim” is a statement that a product can “treat,
prevent or reduce the risk of a disease.”[51]=
Such statements are considered drug cl=
aims
and are generally prohibited by the CVM. Examples of such claims include
“improves skin and coat,” “hypoallergenic,” and
“treats feline lower urinary tract disease.”[52]=
In other words, any “food label =
bear[ing] a claim that consumption of the product will tre=
at,
prevent or otherwise affect a disease or condition or affect the ...body in=
a
manner distinct from what would normally be described as its ‘nutriti=
ve
value’ is considered to offer the product as a drug.”[53]=
However, the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act (hereinafter “NLEA”) requires that the FDA promul=
gate
regulations specifically permitting certain health-related claims on human
foods.[54]=
By incorporating the philosophy of the=
NLEA,
CVM attempts to allow “meaningful health information on pet foods.=
221;[55]=
Thus, the CVM now permits such claims =
as
“reduces urine PH to help maintain urinary tract health” and
“helps control plaque”[56]=
To illustrate how the CVM evaluates such cla=
ims,
consider their recent decision regarding hairball control claims. The CVM
stated that they would not likely take regulatory action for a hairball con=
trol
claim on cat food
provided the effect is achieved by ingredients already permit=
ted
for use in cat food, such as fiber sources. In this case we ask that the fi=
rm
submit information for review on the quantitative diet formulation, nutrient
analysis, and labeling, and discussion for the basis of the claim, i.e.
scientific studies or common knowledge of ingredients’ biological
properties. If novel ingredients are used to achieve the effect, then we
believe data demonstrating the ingredient’s safety should be obtained
prior to marketing.[57]=
The omission of a request for proof that the=
food
has undergone testing for effectiveness is striking.
One could claim that the CVM’s
requirements appear adequate, especially considering the number of health
claims that appear on human foods. Cereals, oatmeals
and dairy products have all begun aggressive advertising campaigns champion=
ing
the health benefits of their products. However, arguably the impact of pet =
food
health claims on pet owners is significantly different from the impact of a
health claim on a human food. To demonstrate, think back to the number of n=
ews
stories surrounding 2005’s study of the effect of dairy products on
dieting. Countless accounts of the study were discussed on television, in t=
he
newspaper, and in various editorials across the nation. Now consider the am=
ount
of news coverage allocated to hairball control in cats. Zero.
Thus, while humans are relatively informed and exposed to different views
regarding the accuracy of health claims on their own foods from the glutton=
y of
scientific studies advertised and discussed in the daily media – such
studies, if even reported, are uncommon in the case of pet foods. The absen=
ce
of information necessary to allow informed decisions requires that pet owne=
rs
rely on more effective regulation of the health claims made on pet foods. Y=
et,
under CVM’s aforementioned relatively sca=
nt
requirements, it appears pet owners receive less regulation, not more.
C. AAFCO
1. Overview of AAFCO
The FDA chose to fulfill Congress’ man=
date
of pet food regulation through cooperative agreements and partnerships, rat=
her
than forming its own binding regime of rules and regulations. One such
agreement exists with the Association of American Feed Control Officials
(AAFCO). As the FDA explains “continued partnership with AAFCO is vit=
al
to the continued regulation of pet food products because FDA has limited
enforcement resources that are focused on human food safety issues.”[58]=
In other words, because the FDA, like =
most
regulatory agencies, is understaffed and overworked, they are forced to rel=
y on
another organization for the majority of pet food regulation. It is importa=
nt
for pet owners to recognize that the FDA has made a choice: to focus its
attention on human foods, and leave the pet foods to someone else.
The origin of AAFCO asserting its role in th=
is
area remains unclear.[59]=
Early animal feed regulation consisted=
of
laws governing only the weights and measures of the feeds.<=
/a>[60]=
These early forms of regulation were n=
ot in
place to protect the animal, but rather the consumer from a deceptive merch=
ant.[61]=
Later, when feeds were made with ground
grains, fats and protein, rather than the traditional whole grains, consume=
rs
needed additional regulation to ensure the new feeds met certain standards.=
[62]=
Feed control officials first met as an organ=
ized
committee in 1909.[63]=
The committee’s objectives inclu=
ded:
answering the industry’s questions with composite opinions, preparing=
a
uniform feed bill, formulating definitions and regulations, the acceptance =
of
new feed ingredients and establishing labeling requirements.[64]=
Today, AAFCO claims that protecting th=
e consumer
remains its primary goal.[65]=
Yet by falling under the overwhelming
influence of the $13 billion pet food industry, AAFCO turns a blind eye to
dangerous ingredients and the vagaries of the manufacturing process in gene=
ral.
AAFCO’s members include state and federal officers charged w=
ith
promulgating and enforcing animal feed regulations, heads/chiefs of agricul=
ture
departments and labs, feed examiners and state and federal researchers.[66]=
AAFCO does have some ties to the FDA: =
an FDA
representative serves on AAFCO’s board of
directors and staff from the CVM serve on AAFCO
committees and as investigators.[67]=
AAFCO issues model regulations for ani=
mal
feed, cat and dog food, and exotic pet foods.[68]=
AAFCO has no enforcement authority and does =
not
perform any analytical testing on pet food.[69]=
A pet food manufacturer is only requir=
ed to
comply with the pet food regulations of the state in which it manufactures =
or
sells its products.
In relation to its responsibilities regardin=
g pet
foods, AAFCO sets model regulations for pet foods including labeling
requirements, ingredient definitions and nutritional requirements. But AAFCO
does not determine permissible sources of protein or other essential
nutrients – AAFCO’s only requiremen=
t is
that the manufacturer comply with AAFCO’s
extensive list of ingredient definitions. This means that a pet food manufa=
cturer
could use rubber tires as its main source of protein so long as the
manufacturer is able to list this ingredient as one of the
“approved” AAFCO ingredients discussed in Section III.C.4 below . In addition, AAFCO establishes nutrient profil=
es for
pet foods and protocols for feeding trials. If a pet food manufacturer wish=
es
to claim that its product is nutritionally adequate, then the manufacturer =
must
comply with either AAFCO’s nutrient profi=
les,
feeding trial requirements, or formulate a product that consists of
substantially similar components to another food that has already passed an
AAFCO feeding trial.[70]=
2. AAFCO Members
As noted above, AAFCO members include offici=
als
from the FDA, CVM, and the cooperative states. But AAFCO also consists of
members from the pet food manufacturing industry. In 1994, the AAFCO Offici=
al
Publication listed a group of members charged with developing and reviewing
standards for terms found on pet food labels. Of the group’s six memb=
ers,
four were pet food company employees.[71]=
Discovering who works for pet food com=
panies
has become more difficult since 1994. But a close look at the current AAFCO
Official Publications reveals continued influence by the pet food industry =
over
the regulation of their own products. While the listings of committee membe=
rs
in the Official Publication do not reveal any organizational affiliation, t=
he
listings of committee advisors do provide such information. These
committee advisor listings are polluted with industry members. In 2006, the=
Pet
Food Committee Advisors consisted of twelve people.[72]=
Six of these advisors were associated =
with
pet food industry organizations such as the Pet Food Institute or the Ameri=
can
Pet Products Manufacturers Association.[73]=
This board of twelve directly
“advises” the Pet Food Committee which consists of only seven
members.[74]=
Apparently it takes twelve people to a=
dvise
a committee of only seven. Similar infiltration of industry members on the
advisor lists can be found on the Model Bill and Regulations Committee, the
Inspection and Sampling Committee, the Feed Manufacturing Committee and the
Feed Labeling Committee. Remembering that this is a $13 billion industry, t=
he
incentives for improving food ingredients or general regulations are not be=
st
served by allowing industry employees to influence the committees that write
the regulations. As one frustrated veterinarian put it:
“talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.”[75]=
The argument that advising committees serve
strictly as “lobbyists” to the AAFCO officials charged with wri=
ting
the model regulations ignores the reality that a non-profit organization su=
ch
as AAFCO does not have sufficient resources or time to conduct its own rese=
arch
or seek opposing viewpoints. AAFCO issues model regulations and ingredient
definitions for pet foods and livestock feeds. There are approximately 9
billion chickens, 60 million hogs, and 150 million cattle in this country t=
hat
subsist on domestically produced feeds requiring regulation and oversight.[76]=
Already not a priority for the FDA, pet
foods must compete with the livestock industry and its billions of animals =
for AAFCO’s limited time and resources. With the
multi-billion dollar pet food industry heavily represented among the lobbyi=
ng
contingency, consumers and the few veterinarians educated in animal nutriti=
on
stand little chance of influencing the feed control officials. <=
/span>
3. Feeding Trial and Nutrient Requirement Regulations=
To regulate claims of nutritional adequacy, =
AAFCO
established pet food nutrient profiles and feeding trial methods. A
manufacturer does not have to comply with both the profiles and testing met=
hods
before selling its product. Because the pet food industry found the feeding
trials too expensive and restrictive, AAFCO adopted Regulation PF7.[77]=
Regulation PF7 states that if the
manufacturer intends to represent that its food is nutritionally complete
(“complete and balanced,” “100% nutritious,”
“perfect,” etc.) they need comply with only one of the
following: establish that the product’s formula meets the nutrient
requirements of the applicable nutrient profile, complete an AAFCO recogniz=
ed
animal feeding protocol, or establish that the product is nutritionally sim=
ilar
to the lead product in the same product family. If a manufacturer intends to
rely on the product family method, they must also establish that the family
product “meets criteria for all life stages” and that the
nutritional similarity can be substantiated according to procedures establi=
shed
by AAFCO.[78]=
Thus, the options provided under PF7 a=
llows
a manufacturer to make nutritional adequacy claims by performing something =
as
simple as a standard chemical analysis proving that its product formulation
meets the AAFCO nutrient profiles.[79]=
AAFCO’s nutrient profiles are based on those created by the
National Research Council Committee on Animal Nutrition (hereinafter
“NRC”).[80]=
The NRC establishes minimum nutrient
requirements for growth based on diets with extremely high digestibility, y=
et
AAFCO modified the NRC profiles for practicality purposes. “Values for
specific nutrient requirements were added or modified...supported by recent
scientific publications, practical experience, and unpublished data.=
”[81]=
In other words, AAFCO believes that an=
organization
with close ties to the pet food manufacturing industry is sufficiently
qualified to alter nutrient profiles created by NRC scientists. One example=
of AAFCO’s tinkering is the reduction in the amoun=
t of
recommended protein from 22% to 18% for adult maintenance in dogs.[82]=
Considering that protein is among the =
most
expensive ingredients in pet foods, it’s w=
orth
questioning AAFCO’s motivation behind the=
se
“practical” alterations. According to a veterinarian within CVM,
“the formulation [testing] method does not account for...the avail=
ability
of nutrients.”[83]=
Meaning, that although the formulation
physically contains protein, the testing does not ensure that such protein =
is
digestible (and therefore available) by your pet.
As an alternative to formulating a product in
accordance with AAFCO’s nutrient profiles=
, a
manufacturer wishing to claim the nutritional adequacy of its food may cond=
uct
feeding trials in accordance with AAFCO standards. The trials for dog and c=
at
foods are relatively similar. Each requires a minimum of eight animals and =
the
trial must last 26 weeks.[84]=
The same formulation of food must be f=
ed
throughout the trial, although different production batches may be used.[85]=
AAFCO permits up to 25% of the animals
starting the study to be removed from the study for “non-nutritional
reasons or poor food intake.”[86]=
Data recorded from the dispatched anim=
als
does not have to be included in the final reports.[87]=
Finally, even if an animal loses 15% o=
f its
initial body weight throughout the course of the trial, the feeding trial is
still considered a success.[88]=
It is worth recognizing that there are=
no
limits to the amount of weight an animal can gain during the trial. =
This
is how AAFCO assures consumers that the pet food label exclaiming
“nutritionally adequate!” managed to sustain eight dogs for an
entire six month period. Growth food testing is similar to maintenance food
testing, except that growth food testing need only run for 10 weeks.[89]=
Never mind that most pet foods designe=
d for
growth recommend feeding such formulas for the first 49 to 52 weeks of the
animal’s life.[90]=
Manufacturers disagree as to which method, a=
nimal
testing or nutrient profiles, is superior.[91]=
Realistically, both methods have
shortcomings. The nutrient profile method does not test nutrient
bioavailability in the same way as the “feeding test” method. N=
or
does it test the palatability of the foods. In contrast, the “feeding
test” method doesn’t always test the actual product sold. Becau=
se
of the AAFCO “family member” rule, products that are nutritiona=
lly
similar to other products tested under the “feeding test” metho=
d do
not need to be tested themselves.[92]=
Since these family member products
aren’t directly tested, they suffer the same problems as those underg=
oing
the nutrient profile method: uncertain nutrient bioavailability and
palatability.[93]=
4. Label Regulations
To understand the impact of the gaps in pet =
food
regulation, it is necessary to review AAFCO’s
labeling requirements in detail. To comply with AAFCO Regulation PF2,
“Label Format and Labeling,” a manufacturer must list their name
and address, brand name, product name, quantity statement, species statement
(specifying for which species the food is intended), guaranteed analysis, i=
ngredient
statement and, if required, a statement of nutritional adequacy and feeding
directions.[94]=
While this sounds like a comprehensive=
list
of requirements, in reality it proves quite fallible. For example, the list=
ing
of the ingredient statement is not as straight forward as the moniker impli=
es.
“Federal regulations require ingredients be listed on the product lab=
el
by their common or usual name in descending order of predominance according=
to
weight. A common or usual name is one that accurately identifies or describ=
es
the basic nature of the ingredient.”[95]=
The FDA recognizes only the AAFCO ingr=
edient
definitions as the “common or usual name.” Thus, if an ingredie=
nt
is not recognized by AAFCO, then it has no AAFCO ingredient definition and =
no
common or usual name, thereby prohibiting use of the ingredient in pet food=
.
Such a requirement might seem logical, but
consider Dr. Wysong’s account of trying to
include organic ingredients in his pet food. Because A=
AFCO’s
list of approved ingredients excludes “organic,” attempting to
label a pet food product organic requires “third party confirmations,
affidavits, and proofs like those needed in some kind of criminal case.R=
21;[96]=
Costly and time-consuming requirements=
such
as these necessitate Dr. Wysong’s listing=
of
his organic ingredients as simply “meat.” These organic products
are then sold on the same shelf as a mass market pet food containing inferi=
or
ingredients such as chicken beaks and cow intestines, yet also labeled
“meat.”[97]=
AAFCO allows no distinction.
Some of the most common ingredients found on
commercial pet food labels, such as meat meal and animal by-product meal,
reveal almost nothing of their true nature through such cryptic, yet FDA approved, “common or usual” names. Meat me=
al is
“the rendered product from mammal tissues, exclusive of any added blo=
od,
hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and
rumen contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good
processing practices.”[98]=
Animal by-product meal is defined as
“the rendered product from animal tissues, exclusive of any added hai=
r,
hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and =
rumen
contents, except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good proces=
sing
practices.”[99]=
Rendering, the melting down of animal =
parts,
is discussed in detail below. But it is important to recognize that the AAF=
CO
definition leaves much to be desired. Until AAFCO defines “good
processing practices” in specific terms, it takes little imagination =
to
wonder how much hair and stomach contents are included in bone meals,
considering the time and cost it would take to remove such items in mass
quantities.
D. State Regulation
Each state, if it so chooses, has the power =
to
enact its own regulation regime for pet food manufacturing in the form of F=
eed
Control Laws, Food and Drug Acts, and Weights and Measures Acts.[100] If in plac=
e, such
regulations apply to all foods sold or manufactured within the state. This
includes foods sold in veterinary offices, feed stores and grocery stores.[101] Many states simply adopt the AAFCO
regulations in their entirety.[102] Other stat=
es adopt
parts of the AAFCO regulations while also enacting their own pet food
regulations for labeling and ingredients. Massachusetts, for instance, adopted the AAFCO ingredient definiti=
ons in
their entirety but enacted its own separate regulations for pet foods which
contain some distinctions from AAFCO.[103] For example, the Massachusetts pet fo=
od
regulations require that the labels of pet foods prominently display the wo=
rds
“Dog Food” or “Cat Food,”[104] but until recently the AAFCO regulati=
ons
proposed no such requirement. Massachusetts also requires that all manufacturers register with t=
he
Department of Food and Agriculture prior to distributing commercial pet foo=
ds
within the Commonwealth.[105] The Massachusetts regulations are fai=
rly
comprehensive and comparable to those of AAFCO, but not all states have bee=
n so
diligent. At least Florida, Alaska and Nevada have no pet food regulations at all.[106] Some states
without specific pet food regulations consider pet food to fall within their
general animal feed regulations. [107]
E. Pet Food Institute
The Pet Food Institute (hereinafter
“PFI”) serves as the “voice” of the U.S. pet food manufacturing industry.[108] Founded in 1958, PFI is “the in=
dustry’s
public education and media relations resource, representative before the U.=
S.
Congress and state and federal agencies, organizer of seminars and educatio=
nal
programs, and liaison with other organizations.”=
[109] Active members of PFI include every m=
ajor
pet food manufacturer in the country, from Natural Balance Pet Foods Inc. to
Nestle Purina PetCare Company.=
[110] PFI members constitute 97% of domesti=
c pet
food production.[111]
PFI lists laudable goals on its website, suc=
h as
supporting research in pet nutrition and informing and educating the public=
on
proper pet feeding and care.[112] But one of its mandates also includes
serving as the “voice” of the industry in front of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, FDA, FTC, AAFCO and Congress. Members of PFI suc=
h as
Steve Wawrzyniak and Angel=
e
Thompson serve on AAFCO advisory boards including the Ingredient Definitions
and the Pet Foods Committees.[113] Surely an
organization made up entirely of pet food manufacturers exists to promote i=
ts
own interests, namely, opposing potentially costly legislation. Indeed, PFI
claims to have been “instrumental” in opposing state legislation
that would have imposed taxes on pet foods.[114] PFI cites this as a victory for the
consumer, saving them from being “penalized.”<=
/a>[115] But such a victory depends upon the p=
urpose
for which the tax dollars were intended. If the tax dollars were meant to
provide increased resources for food sample testing and plant inspections, =
then
perhaps this was simply a victory for an industry seeking to avoid stricter
regulations. One has to wonder, if PFI is serving as the voice of the indus=
try,
who is serving as the voice of the consumer?
F. American Pet Products Manufacturers Association
The American Pet Products Manufacturers
Association (hereinafter “APPMA”) also founded in 1958, consist=
s of
over 850 pet product manufacturers, importers and livestock suppliers.=
[116] Unlike the PFI, the APPMA contains me=
mbers
from around the globe. This diverse group constitutes a not-for-profit trade
association dedicated to promoting the pet products industry and providing
“the services necessary to help its members prosper.”[117] Such servi=
ces
consist of conducting its own research and holding education seminars and
conferences which includes the Global Pet Expo, the largest annual pet indu=
stry
trade show.[118] APPMA also has its own Government and
Regulatory Affairs Department, dedicated to identifying and responding to
regulations and legislation.[119]
Similar to PFI, the APPMA places representat=
ives
on a variety of important AAFCO advisory committees. Gina Valeri,
the director of legislative affairs and general counsel to APPMA, is curren=
tly
serving on the Pet Food Advisory Committee as well as the Model Bill and
Regulations Advisory Committee.[120]
With so many regulatory bodies and
non-governmental organizations attempting to participate in the process of
regulating pet food it is no wonder that the resulting regime leaves gaping
holes and allows confused consumers to buy shiny bags containing the equiva=
lent
of junk food for their pets. If the CVM will not, or cannot, fulfill its
responsibilities regarding pet food and if AAFCO continues to lack enforcem=
ent
power, then the industry has no one to fear except the consumer. Unfortunat=
ely for
pets, the industry has proven effective at confusing their owners to the po=
int
of insuring that few consumers possess the information necessary to challen=
ge
the industry’s shoddy practices.
IV. How Current Regu=
lations
Result in Confused Owners and Diseased Pets
Despite the overabundance of labeling requir=
ements
and regulations, the majority of commercial pet foods fail pets and their
owners; the myriad of rules serving only as obstacles too easily cleared. W=
hile
the American public buys bags of pet food plastered with appetizing picture=
s of
chicken and fish, the contents themselves often contain anything but the
chicken and fish we envision. This section reveals the true contents of most
commercial pet foods, and proves that the current system of regulation is
slowly killing our nation’s pets via confusing labels, misleading
ingredient names, and inadequate regulation of the manufacturing process. T=
he
final portion of this section discloses how the missteps of AAFCO and the
industry result in malnourished pets suffering from a variety of diseases. =
A. Confusing the Consumer at Every Turn=
1. Pet Food Labels
Although AAFCO’s<=
/span>
labeling requirements appear modest, the complexities of the rules, such as=
the
different “percent” rules, often result in confusion over the
product’s ingredients. Consider the “95 percent” rule and=
the
“3 percent” rule. The “95 percent” rule applies to
products that primarily consist of meat, poultry or fish.<=
/a>[121] The rule r=
equires
that if an ingredient is to be used in the name of the product, such as
“Beef for Dogs” then the named ingredient must constitute at le=
ast
95% of the product.[122] Seems simple enou=
gh.
Compare the “3 percent” rule; originally the 3 percent rule app=
lied
only to ingredients highlighted on the food container, but not included in =
the
name of the product.[123] Under the “3 percent” rul=
e if
the manufacturer wished to include a side statement of “with
cheese” then at least 3% of the product must contain cheese. However,
recent amendments to AAFCO regulations now permit manufacturers to use
“with” as part of the product name. The res=
ult?
It is now perfectly legal for a manufacturer to name a product “Cat F=
ood
with Tuna” even if the product only contains 3% tuna. Even more
confounding, this product sits on the grocery shelf next to a product named
“Tuna Cat Food” which consists of 95% tuna.
After navigating the 95% rule and the 3% rul=
es,
the consumer then faces the perplexing 25% rule, or the “dinner”
rule. A manufacturer wishing to include an ingredient name in its product n=
ame
(i.e. “Chicken Formula Cat Food”) must comply with the 25% rule,
which requires that the ingredient constitute at least 25% of the product
(excluding water for processing) and that the label include a qualifying
descriptive term such as “dinner” or “formula”.[124] The purpos=
e of the
descriptive term is to imply to the consumer that the product contains other
ingredients.[125] Confusion arises due to the fact that=
the
“named” ingredient on the label can constitute as little as one
quarter of the ingredients. Moreover, such a rule permitting the product na=
me
to include something other than the primary ingredient results in a
confusing ingredient list. It is perfectly plausible that a consumer will f=
ind
that “Beef Dinner for Dogs” lists beef as the third or fourth
ingredient on the list, after corn, grain, and rice.[126] The result=
s are
even more perplexing when one considers the fact that “Chicken Formula
Cat Food” could contain salmon or beef or liver as its primary
ingredient. Since many pet owners do not understand pet food labels,[127] this 25 percent rule can have damaging
results if a pet has an allergy to any of these ingredients. For example, t=
he
owner of a cat with a lamb allergy could feasibly purchase Chicken Formula
under the logical assumption that the product contained only chicken. But u=
nder
AAFCO’s rules, it is permissible for a pr=
oduct
labeled Chicken Formula to contain 25% chicken, and 50% lamb or beef or fis=
h.
Past the product name, the consumer must dec=
ipher
the nutritional adequacy statements found on labels indicating for which li=
fe
stages the product is suitable. Examples include “for maintenance,=
221;
“for growth,” and “for all life stages.” While the
“for maintenance” and “for growth” claims must meet
strict nutritional AAFCO standards, the labels claiming that a product is
intended for “senior” animals or specific breeds of dogs have no
such requirements.[128] The result is that a consumer buying =
a dog
food “for seniors” could be buying something that is either exa=
ctly
the same formula as the “for maintenance” product at a higher
price, or even worse, something that is of a lesser quality and actually
accelerates the onset of related maladies such as arthritis and hip dysplasia.
2. Ingredient Names
All ingredients must be listed according to =
AAFCO’s “common or usual” names; la=
bels
list “poultry meal,” “meat meal,” and “animal
by-product meal” as ingredients, rather than poultry guts, feet and
beaks. These common and usual names leave consumers asking: what the heck a=
re
meals and by-products? Are they good or bad for pets? Are some of them bett=
er
than others?
According to the AAFCO ingredient definition=
s,
poultry meal is “the dry rendered product from a combination of clean
flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts of
whole carcasses of poultry...exclusive of feathers, heads, feet and entrail=
s.”[129] Notice this definition says nothing a=
bout
the muscle of the poultry; thus, “chicken meal” does not
necessarily contain even an ounce of chicken meat as conceptualized by huma=
ns.[130] Meat meal is “the rendered prod=
uct
from mammal tissues, exclusive of any added blood, hair, hoof, horn,
hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except in such amounts as
may occur unavoidably in good processing practices.”=
[131] Animal by-product is “the rende=
red
product from animal tissues, exclusive of any added hair, hoof, horn,
hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents, except as may occur
unavoidably in good processing practices...this ingredient definition is
intended to cover those individual rendered animal tissue products that can=
not
meet the criteria as set forth elsewhere in this section.”[132] Thus far, we know that each of these
ingredients comes from an animal, but what parts of the animal are actually
“rendered” and therefore comprise these meal and by-product
ingredients? Only about 50% of every food producing animal is used in human
foods.[133] All components not ingested by humans
(bones, blood, intestines, lungs, ligaments etc.) are used in pet foods, an=
imal
feed, and other products.[134]
However, before we blame the pet food indust=
ry for
selling our pets these rejected parts in glossy packages adorned with pictu=
res
of wholesome chickens (which arguably constitutes misbranding under the FFD=
CA),[135] consider that by-products might be go=
od for
your pet. The heart, liver, lung and brain of animals are considered high
quality food ingredients by animal nutritionists.[136] Furthermore, a cat or dog in the wild=
most
certainly eats these “by-products” every time it consumes its
meals. A wild cat doesn’t selectively remove the meaty muscle parts of
the mouse while carefully discarding the bones and liver.
Unfortunately, also included in these “=
;other
parts” are the so-called 4D tissues, or “meat that came from
animals that were dead, dying, diseased or disab=
led
before they reached the packing plant.”[137] Such anima=
ls are
rejected for human consumption and shipped to rendering plants where they a=
re
made into bone and meat meals.[138] More importantly, the inclusion of su=
ch
tissues in pet foods violates the FFDCA. Such items are diseased and theref=
ore
“adulterated” under 21 U.S.C. § 342. =
[139] So why
doesn’t the FDA bring an enforcement action for the industry’s
blatant violation of the FFDCA? Most likely, the pet food industry uses such
ingredients because they are cheap and while consumers remain oblivious to =
the
inclusion of these diseased ingredients into their pets’ foods, the
industry faces no opposition. Until the FDA feels external pressure, either
from consumers or the industry itself, the FDA lacks incentive to enforce i=
ts
own regulations. Comparatively, the FDA stringently enforces its human food
regulations where it faces informed and vocal consumers and industries fear=
ful
of negative publicity.
Beyond the issue of the quality of the ingre=
dients
is the processing of the “meat and bone meals” themselves. Dr. =
Wysong, a veterinarian who has researched pet foods
extensively and produces his own pet foods, notes that “processing is=
the
wild card in nutritional value...”[140] This is because the nutritional quali=
ty of
meat and poultry by-products, meals and digests can vary from batch to batch
due to the inconsistency of the raw materials used by rendering plants.[141] Even assuming that the by-products po=
ssess
nutrients pets need, there is no proof that modern pets are able to digest
these ingredients after the harsh rendering and cooking processes.[142] Thus, there is no proof that pets are=
able
to obtain any nutrients from these cooked ingredients.
Furthermore, rendering does not necessarily
destroy the hormones fed to livestock or the antibiotics, drugs, and even
barbiturates used to euthanize animals.[143] Over time defenseless Fido
ingests a significant amount of antibiotics and euthan=
ization
drugs. It doesn’t take a veterinarian to conclude that the presence of
such “extras” can’t be good for your pet. It is important=
to
recognize that AAFCO’s “common or u=
sual
name” regulations hide the truly dangerous components of your petR=
17;s
diet in benign sounding ingredients such as “meat meal” and
“animal by-product.”
Finally, listed after the protein sources an=
d grains
are the “chemical-sounding” names which are, incredibly, the
“common or usual” names for vitamins and minerals, as well as
artificial colors and preservatives.[144] Such ingre=
dients
are technically food additives that require pre-market approval under the
FFDCA.[145] However, the definition for food addi=
tives
provides that any substance generally recognized as safe (GRAS) under the
condition of its intended use, is not a “food additive” and
therefore is exempt from pre-market approval.[146]
But a “GRAS substance is GRAS only for=
an
intended purpose”[147] and the GRAS determination can only b=
e made
based on the views of “experts qualified by scientific training and
experience to evaluate the safety of the substance.”=
[148] An example of one such GRAS substance=
is
propylene glycol, commonly used in soft-moist pet foods for its ability to
retain water and provide the semi-moist foods with their unique texture.[149] Propylene glycol is a second cousin to
anti-freeze (a substance that is extremely toxic to pets),=
[150] and propylene glycol is known to cause
Heinz Body formation, or the clumping of proteins, in the red blood cells of
cats.[151] However, f=
or years
there was no evidence that Heinz Body formation caused anemia or any other
recognizable clinical effect.[152] But recent studies show that propylene
glycol “reduces the red blood cell survival time, renders red blood c=
ells
more susceptible to oxidative damage, and has other adverse effects in
cats.”[153] In respons=
e, the
CVM prohibited the use of propylene glycol in cat foods. A strong response,=
but
for many pets and owners the damage is already done. A dangerous, yet GRAS,
substance remained in cat foods for 15 years, causing countless health prob=
lems
and costly vet bills to owners.[154] Dog owners should not rest easy, as t=
he
debates over ethoxyquin, an antioxidant chemical
preservative, continue despite being linked to allergies, organ failure, ca=
ncer
and behavioral problems.[155]
B. The Rendering Industry – Exposing Pet Food
Processing
The processing of many ingredients used in p=
et
foods, a practice known as rendering, adds another layer of complexity to t=
he
confusion surrounding the common or usual names found on pet foods. By
including the word “rendered” in the official ingredient defini=
tions
of such items as meat and bone meal, AAFCO has approved the rendering
industry’s participation in the manufacturing of pet foods. But if AA=
FCO
intends to permit the inclusion of rendered products in pet foods, they bear
the responsibility of assuring pet owners that such ingredients will not ha=
rm
their pets. This section shows that such assurance is not provided, and that
the FDA, AAFCO, and rendering industry share the blame. <=
/p>
Webster’s dictionary defines rendering=
as
“to extract by melting; to treat so as to convert into industrial fat=
s,
oils or fertilizer.”[156] Basically,
rendering separates the fat soluble ingredients from water soluble and solid
materials. [157] The proces=
s kills
most bacterial contaminants, but the valuable natural enzymes and proteins
contained in the raw materials are also destroyed or altered.[158]
Rendering dates back to the days of the early
Egyptians, but today it has been reduced to operating in the “shadows=
of
polite society.[159] The render=
ing
process begins with a large machine slowly grinding a vat of raw materials.=
[160] After the
materials are shredded, they are cooked at 220 degrees F to 270 degrees F.[161] Cooking times vary depending on the r=
aw
materials and their intended use.[162] Once the m=
aterial
is cooked, the grease rises to the top where it is removed and used as a so=
urce
of fat in pet foods, soaps and personal care products.=
[163] The moisture is eliminated from the
remaining material by putting it through a press, and the finished product =
is
sold to pet food manufacturers as meat and bone meal.
What goes into the rendering vat? The pet fo=
od
(and rendering industry for that matter) would have consumers think the
rendering plants are full of plump chickens, fresh fish and healthy cows. S=
uch
images are routinely depicted on pet food packaging. Unfortunately, this
couldn’t be less accurate of the true contents of a rendering vat. In
fact, rendering persists because it provides an essential service: disposin=
g of
millions of pounds of dead animals.[164] Proponents of ren=
dering
claim that there is no other way to dispose of these dead animals. D=
r.
William Heuston, formerly associate dean of the
Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, argues that disposing of
animals via landfills would create a “colossal public health
problem,” because dead animals are the ideal medium for bacteria.[165] Cost and potential air pollution prob=
lems
preclude burning the animal carcasses.[166]
Instead, United States rendering companies pick up 100 million pounds of
“waste material” every single day. This “waste
material” includes: heads, feet, stomachs, intestines, spinal cords,
tails, restaurant grease, feathers, bones, and dead or diseased animals
rejected from slaughterhouses.[167] Remember t=
hat
under FDA and USDA regulations half of every cow and at least one third of
every swine is not consumable by humans. Cancerous tissue, tumors, contamin=
ated
blood, injection sites and any tissues treated with a substance not permitt=
ed
by or in excess of FDA or EPA limits is also rendered.=
[168] The inclus=
ion of
such items in pet food violates the FDA’s requirement regarding
unadulterated food. Recall that foods containing “=
;any
part of a diseased animal” is deemed adulterated. [169] With an
understanding of the rendering process and its ingredients, it is then uncl=
ear
how AAFCO (and thereby the FDA) approves ingredients such as meat and bone =
meal
for use in pet foods.
In addition to the “waste material,=
221; six to seven million dogs and cats killed every year in animal sh=
elters
make their way into rendering vats.[170] The city o=
f Los Angeles alone sends 200 tons of dogs and cats to a local ren=
dering
firm every month.[171] Road kill that is too large to be bur=
ied
roadside, expired grocery store meats, and dead zoo animals are also thrown
into the mix.[172] Recall from the discussion of the AAF=
CO
ingredient definitions that meat and bone meal must exclude hair and stomach
contents “except as may occur in good manufacturing processes.”=
[173] Considering that a 40 lb bag of dog f=
ood
costs only $15-$17, that price cannot possibly cover the amount of time
necessary to remove all the hair and stomach contents from the thousands of
diseased and euthanized animals thrown into the rendering vats, not to ment=
ion
the Styrofoam and saran wrap packaging from expired grocery store meats.[174] In fact, it seems downright impossibl=
e. The
rendering industry readily admits that meat wrappers are mixed in with its =
raw
materials, their inclusion betrayed by the presence of polyethylene (used to
make saran wrap) in rendered products.[175]
Although pet food companies claim they don&#=
8217;t
buy meat and bone meal from rendering plants that accept cats and dogs, the
rendering industry acknowledges it would be impossible for a manufacturer
purchasing products from rendering firms to know the exact raw materials of
what they’re buying.[176] An employe=
e of the
rendering industry points out that cats and dogs can easily be included in
chicken by-product meals because of the similar protein content.[177] Moreover, a rendering executive claim=
s that
Ralston purchased meat meal from his rendering facility for years, which
included dogs and cats.[178] Although somebody at the rendering pl=
ant
finally revealed the true contents of the meat meal, the industry executive=
is
quick to point out that only Ralston stopped purchasing from them, implying
that the facility continues relationships with other pet product manufactur=
ers.[179]
The exact proportion of cats and dogs to cow=
s and
pigs in any given rendered production batch is difficult to determine. One =
rendering
company estimated that it “rendered somewhere between 10,000 and 30,0=
00
pounds of dogs and cats a day out of a total of 250,000 to 500,000 pounds of
cattle, poultry, butcher scrap and other materials.”=
[180] Some state=
s have
attempted to establish precautions against this quasi-cannibalism. For exam=
ple,
California<=
/st1:place> law requires that rendered dogs and cats be labeled =
as
“dry rendered tankage,” a product w=
hich
is rarely used in pet food.[181] However, due to the uncoordinated eff=
orts
of the pet food regulation system, such precautions are practically useless
when pet food manufacturers operate on a national and often global scale.
Consider that it is perfectly legal for tankage
shipped outside of the state of California to be labeled as meat and bone meal.[182] Moreover, California does not inspect meat and bone meals imported from o=
utside
the state.[183]
While the rendering industry and even FDA
officials defend the practice of rendering deceased pets as the most effect=
ive
way to dispose of the animals and just another form of recycling, [184] it is telling that none of the celebr=
ated
“benefits” seem to include nutrition for our pets. In fact, the
exact opposite appears to be true. Despite claiming that the “pets
probably constitute a very small percentage of a day’s production at =
a renderer and an even lower percentage of the ingredie=
nts in
a package of dry food,” the practice of the rendering industry (grind=
ing
the materials as soon as the vat is full) ensure that production batches va=
ry
significantly. Furthermore, although the actual percentage in each individu=
al
bag of pet food might be low – the industry ignores the impact of its
promotion of feeding pets the exact same product every day, 2-3 meals a day=
for
its entire life. How much, then, is a “small percentage” when
considered cumulatively?
Although “most scientists say the high
temperatures and pressures used in rendering kill any viruses and bacteria,=
”[185] this is not a risk that should be tak=
en
lightly. In 1996, an outbreak of paralysis in cats in Sweden and the Netherlands=
was traced to poultry intestines used in commercial =
pet
foods. Since poultry livestock is often fed medications (overseas as well a=
s in
the US
), the intestines contained all chemicals recently fe=
d to
the chickens, including Salinomycin which often
causes severe heart problems in other animals.[186] Despite high temperatures and other c=
ooking
processes, the Salinomycin had not been suffici=
ently
eliminated. Most alarmingly, sodium pentobarbital, the drug used to euthani=
ze
dogs and cats, has also proven resilient to the cooking process. A study do=
ne
by veterinarians at the University
of Minnesota proved that the drug survived the rendering process.=
[187] Despite their conclusion that the amo=
unt of
residue would be too small to have an impact on animals eating the rendered
product, the veterinarians based this deduction on the assumption that renderers mix the euthanized pets with other ingredie=
nts
throughout production.[188] The reality is that rendering compani=
es mix
whatever ingredients they have on hand, and the unregulated industry has no
incentive to follow formulas. This means that the amount of sodium
pentobarbital in any given batch of meat meal will fluctuate based on the
particular number of euthanized animals included within the raw materials. =
In
2002 the FDA acknowledged that they have found “’very, very low
levels’ of sodium pentobarbital...in some brands of dog food.”[189] Rest assured though, the FDA is
investigating whether the low levels are of any “significance.”=
[190] Pet owners should find it troubling t=
hat
experts see little health risk because “temperatures in the rendering
process kill most agents of disease,”[191] just not the agent directly responsib=
le for
euthanizing pets. It is difficult to see how the FDA can continue to allow
AAFCO and the pet food industry to self-regulate when they encourage pet ow=
ners
to buy their products because most of the disease
causing agents are dead. Shouldn’t the standard at least be a =
food
that contains no agents of disease? If they’re not going to se=
ll
the most nutritious product, it would be nice if they adhered to consistent
quality control regulations that protected our pets from disease.
C. Nutrition
1. Overview of the Nutritional Needs of Dogs and Cats=
Before analyzing the nutritional adequacy cl=
aims
of commercial pet foods, a basic understanding of the nutritional needs of =
cats
and dogs is helpful. Cats first. No need for pan=
ic at
the thought of a biology lesson, this can be achieved with simple logic.
We’ll start with cats. A cat’s mouth represents that of a
quintessential carnivore. Large fangs in the front,
and a mouth full of shredding little grippers. Notice the lack of flat mola=
rs
for grinding vegetation, found in cows and horses. Finally, consider the
digestion system of a cat. Compared to a horse or cow, the cat’s
digestive track is relatively short (consider the length of the body). This
means that the cat’s digestive system doesn’t have the
“time” to break down grasses and grains into the beneficial
vitamins it so desperately needs. Instead, wild cats get their vitamins from
the remnants found in the digestive systems of their prey. For example, a c=
at
in the wild would eat mostly rodents. Thus, his mouth is equipped to tear i=
nto
meats and virtually swallow his bites whole, while his digestive system is
designed to digest those meats while absorbing the already digested grasses,
grains, and nuts found in the stomach of the prey. Dogs are a little differ=
ent.
Unlike cats, they prefer a little more variety in their diets. Dogs’
mouths contain a variety of teeth (both canines and molars), so while they =
are
able to enjoy their meats, they also have some teeth designed to crack into
bones while chewing grains and veggies.
Now use this background knowledge to analyze=
their
current commercial diets. The ideal cat food should contain mostly meats al=
ong
with some pre-digested grains and vegetables. Dog food should contain meat =
but
with a higher percentage of grains and vegetables. The key is balance. A wi=
ld
animal instinctively knows when they’re lacking a certain nutrient and
will seek out foods containing the deficient nutrient.
Look at the label of a commercial pet food.
Labeling rules require that the ingredients be listed in descending order of
predominance by weight (not overall % dry matter content) so that the heavi=
est
ingredient, determined before the ingredient is cooked or processed<=
span
class=3DGramE>,[192] is listed first.=
[193] This means=
that
even if a label lists “chicken” first and “corn”
second, it is possible that the product contains far more corn than chicken.
This is because chicken is very high in moisture (75% water) and therefore
heavier than corn. Thus, despite all the labeling rules, the average consum=
er
has no idea how much chicken serves as the main protein source for the prod=
uct.
While some AAFCO officials and even veterinarians would argue that it doesn=
’t
matter if the protein source is true “chicken” as opposed to
“meat meal” or “soy” – this issue is hotly
debated and far from resolved. For now, it is sufficient to recognize that =
not
all dogs and cats will do well on soy as their main protein source, and tha=
t,
as stated above, the nutritional adequacy of “meat meal” will v=
ary
significantly from batch to batch. Never mind that “soy-fed animals a=
re
prone to diarrhea and of course the room-clearing prope=
rties
of their flatus is legendary.”[194]
The rise in the use of grain and carbohydrate
products over the last decade further contributes to the nutritional imbala=
nce
in commercial pet foods.[195] “Once considered a
filler by the pet food industry, cereal and grain products now repla=
ce a
considerable proportion of the meat that was used in the first commercial p=
et
foods.”[196] Why the change? C=
ost.
Corn is a much cheaper energy source than meat.[197] But the change in pet food formulas h=
as a
real impact on a pet’s health. “Dogs have little evolved need f=
or
carbohydrates and cats have no need for this source of energy.”=
;[198] Moreover, =
although
dogs and cats can almost completely absorb the carbohydrates from some grai=
ns
such as rice, the nutrient availability of wheat, beans, and oats is poor.<=
sup>
[199] Other ingr=
edients,
such as peanut hulls, have absolutely no significant nutritional value and =
are
used strictly as filler.[200] This news =
is even
more disturbing where two of the top three ingredients in dry pet foods is
almost always some form of a grain product.[201] The result=
of
ingredients with low nutritional value is a pet that is slowing starving to
death and at the same time consuming more and more food. Also, since cats a=
re
true carnivores, one must wonder how pet food manufacturers justify feeding=
them substantial quantities of corn as part of their
“balanced” diet.
The buying habits of pet owners exacerbate t=
he
problem. Most pet owners select one pet food and feed it to their pets for a
prolonged period of time, if not for the pet’s entire life.[202] This means=
the pet
is eating a diet consisting primarily of carbohydrates (some of which they
can’t digest) with little to no variety. “[U]ndigested
food arriving in the bowel provides nutrients for a teeming population of
harmful bacteria.”[203] Thus, “chronic digestive proble=
ms,
such as chronic diarrhea, and inflammatory bowel disease” often result
from such repetitive and indigestible diets.[204]
Some pet food manufacturers would argue that=
since
grains contain protein, they provide a valuable nutrient to pets. But
“the protein [in cooked grains is] low in quality to begin with, then
further degraded to a variable degree by cooking...”=
[205] Feeding low-quality commercial pet fo=
ods
for a pet’s entire life is comparable to feeding a child McDonaldR=
17;s
three meals a day, every day, for the child’s entire life. No parent
would believe that this is a nutritious diet, or capable of sustaining a
child’s health. Yet regulatory choices made by FDA, CVM, and AAFCO,
combined with efforts by the pet food industry to avoid stringent ingredient
and processing regulations result in pet owners unknowingly feeding junk fo=
od
to their furry friends.
2. The Fallacy of the 100% Complete Claim<=
/span>
AAFCO permits a pet food manufacturer to cla=
im
that its product is “100% complete” provided that the manufactu=
rer
has complied with AAFCO’s feeding trial
protocols or nutrient profiles.[206] AAFCO’s
feeding trials last 6 months and are conducted, at a minimum, on a group of=
8
animals. Yet, AAFCO holds this isolated and short-lived study sufficient pr=
oof
that the tested product can sustain all similar-species for the dura=
tion
of the animal’s life. In other words, a food tested on 8 poodles for 6
months is considered 100% complete for all dogs. According to AAFCO, this s=
ame
dog food can sustain Beagles, Bull Mastiffs and Boxers for their entire liv=
es.
That’s quite an amorphous dog food. As Dr. Wysong points out, this “food could cause disea=
se and
destroy long term health, yet not be harmful and be 100% complete”
because it managed to sustain a dog for 6 months.[207] Shouldn’t
the sustainability goal of the pet food industry be much longer than 6 mont=
hs?
Shouldn’t the foods be tested on various breeds taking into considera=
tion
each breed’s varied nutritional requirements?
It is impossible for any pet food to be truly
complete and balanced or 100% complete. To illustrate, consider the followi=
ng
example. [208] For the sake of simplicity, assume an
animal needs only four ingredients to have a “complete and balanced
diet.” If half of ingredient 1 is eliminated, the diet is still
technically complete but is no longer balanced. If the animal is no longer
getting enough of ingredient 1 in its diet, the animal’s instinct is =
to
eat more (of whatever food is available) to make up for the perceived defic=
iency.[209] Thus, the imbalance of nutrients in p=
et
foods often results in obesity.[210]
The proof that commercial pet food is not
necessarily balanced is found on the packages: consider the high level of
carbohydrates (as discussed above) and the “wild card” of the
rendering process. Plus, each time regulatory agencies meet, they debate all
over again how much of which nutrients will constitute 100% complete.[211] If this is=
so,
then how could the previous balance of nutrients have been 100% complete? T=
he
most honest solution would be to cease the “complete and balancedR=
21;
claims and start to educate the consumers about nutrition and their pets=
217;
specific needs. But this would not sell pet food; the American public is
addicted to the convenience of commercial pet foods and judging by the
reluctance to eliminate fast food from our own diet, our pets will likely f=
are
far worse.
Today, one simple word can strike fear in the
heart of the pet food manufacturer claiming that its product is “100%
complete”: taurine. =
Taurine
is an essential amino acid found in most animal protein sources.[212] Taurine r=
egulates
the amount of calcium entering the heart tissue. The calcium then triggers =
each
heart beat.[213] Thus, taurine
deficiency can cause heart failure.[214] Few mammals are unable to produce taurine, but cats and humans are among them.[215] While the =
National
Research Council did not issue a guideline regarding the minimal amount of =
taurine to be included in cat food until 1981, taurine was considered an essential nutrient a=
s
early as 1976.[216] In August of 1987, researchers at the
University of California at Davis, reported in Science Magazine that=
a taurine deficiency in commercial cat foods had result=
ed in
the deaths of thousands of cats before manufacturers began supplementing th=
eir
products with taurine.[217]
Upon the discovery of the link between the d=
ying
cats and their taurine deficiencies, pet food
companies, such as Ralston-Purina and Hill’s Pet Products, began
reformulating their products to include additional tau=
rine.[218] Ralston Purina produces Purina Cat Ch=
ow,
the best-selling brand of cat food.[219] While no one will ever know exactly h=
ow
many cats died as a result of eating nutritionally-inadequate pet food, the=
re
is little doubt that at least one (if not all) of the =
taurine-deficient
brands bore the label “100% complete.”
The upsetting death of thousands of cats ser=
ves as
proof of the pet food industry’s ignorance regarding what constitutes=
a
100% complete diet. The commercial pet food industry has been around since =
the
early 1900s. Yet an apparently essential nutrient went undiscovered until <=
span
class=3DGramE>1976, and even then, only accidentally by an academic
outside the industry.[220] So why had=
cats
not been dying of taurine deficiency in such la=
rge
numbers prior to this discovery in the early 1980s? The answer lies in the
industry’s shift from animal protein sources to an increased reliance=
on
carbohydrates in their formulas. In other words, as long as the pet food
industry included a significant amount of animal protein in their pet foods,
the pets ingesting these products had no risk of developing a taurine deficiency.
Not all animals suffer fatal disease from
malnutrition – that much is obvious from t=
he
evidence of pets surviving for years on just one pet food product. But this
doesn’t mean that these other pets suffer no effects. On the contrary,
such pets often suffer from allergies, obesity, or a host of other ailments,
not to mention anything invisible to the owner’s eye.[221]
D. Diseases
1. Mad Cow Disease
The same quasi-cannibalism that results from=
pets
eating rendered products lies behind the British outbreak of bovine spongif=
orm
encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease as it is known to the general publ=
ic.[222] Scientists generally believe that BSE
resulted from cows eating rendered feed products made from the brains and
spinal cords of sheep suffering from scrapie.[223] Scrapie i=
s a
degenerative brain disease found in sheep.[224] Scrapie c=
auses
severe itching in sheep to the point where the animal actually scrapes off =
its
hair and wool.[225] Scrapie i=
s caused
by prions, an infectious protein that has no
detectable DNA or RNA.[226] Alarmingly=
, prions are virtually indestructible and can survive
freezing, cooking, radiation, sterilization, bleach and formaldehyde.[227]
Scientists believe that scrapie
crossed the species barrier and infected cows.[228] While some argue that it is unlikely =
the US
will experience a mad cow epidemic because few ranchers “feed meat and
bone meal to young cows,” there is some evidence that the cow epidemi=
c in
Britain may have had nothing to do with scrapie=
or
the processing techniques used by British renderers
which did not break down the scrapies-causing <=
span
class=3DSpellE>prions.[229] Take for e=
xample
the outbreak of mink encephalopathy, a malady similar to mad cow disease, i=
n Stetsonville, Wash=
ington. A mink farmer fed his mink meat from a fallen cow t=
hat
could not get up, also known as a downer cow.[230] Dr. Richard F. Marsh, a veterinarian =
at the
University of Wisconsin in Madison notes that it is possible that the downer
cow had a spontaneous case of mad cow disease that was passed to the mink.[231]
Why should pet owners worry about diseased m=
ink
and a single downer cow? Because Dr. Joseph Gibbs, a leading expert at the
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) in <=
st1:place>Bethesda Maryland, points out that spontaneous cases of mad cow may oc=
cur as
frequently as one cow out of every million cows each year.=
[232] While the odds might seem favorable, =
there
are 150 million cows in the US alone, which means that according to the NIN=
DS
calculations, 150 cows can develop spontaneous mad cow disease without even
eating tainted feed.[233] For pet ow=
ners,
this means that 150 downer cows can find their way into rendering plants ev=
ery
year.[234] While the
Agriculture Department attempts to test downer cows for mad cow disease, on=
ly a
sample of downer cows are actually tested.[235] As if cows weren’t enough to wo=
rry
about, deer and elk are also prone to a spontaneous mad-cow-like disease.[236] Such anima=
ls can
be killed on roads and sent to rendering plants. Although there is no evide=
nce
of mad-cow-like disease in domestic pets, it is disturbing to remember that
there is evidence that the disease twice before crossed the species barrier:
once from sheep to cows, and again from cows to mink. If renderers
continue to accept downer cows without testing each for mad cow disease, the
risk of introducing the disease through its indestructible agent, the prion, into the animal feed and pet product industry
remains significant.
2. Obesity and Other Diseases
While not as emotionally charged as the deba=
te
over mad cow disease, obesity is currently the most common nutritional prob=
lem
among domestic pets.[237] Over half =
of dogs
are overweight, though significant disagreement exists over what constitutes
canine obesity.[238] The currently accepted cure, is placi=
ng the
pudgy pooches on the “diet” version of whatever pet food the
owner’s veterinarian recommends.[239] This appro=
ach
seems somewhat more logical considering that the “cure” used to=
be
putting the dog in a hospital and starving it.[240] Shockingly=
, this
practice is “rarely done” today because “it’s now k=
nown
to be extremely dangerous.”[241]
Obesity often results from animals overeatin=
g to
compensate for a nutritionally deficient diet. Recall from above that an an=
imal
that is not getting enough of a nutrient in its diet will overeat to compen=
sate
for the deficiency. Thus, all it takes for a dog or cat to overeat is the
exclusive feeding of a commercial pet food that lacks one essential nutrien=
t.
Given the variation of production batches, the risk of a deficiency is
significantly higher than many pet owners might think. Moreover, placing the
animal on a nutritionally inadequate diet food will not rectify the
animal’s problem, if anything it may exace=
rbate
the underlying problem of incomplete nutrition. If the regular version of t=
he
pet food is nutritionally deficient, why would the “diet” versi=
on
containing fewer calories be any different?
Countless other diseases can result from
commercial pet foods that have excess levels of sodium<=
/span>[242] (used to increase palatability), or d=
eficient
levels of essential nutrients such as taurine.[243] Feline urological syndrome (FUS) is c=
aused
by excessive amounts of ash, phosphorus and magnesium in pet foods.[244] FUS is extremely common and can be fa=
tal if
left untreated for even a short period of time.[245] Other diseases linked to commercial p=
et
foods include gum disease, arthritis, eye and ear problems, dry and dull co=
ats,
heart disease, diabetes and cancer to name a few.
E. Toxins in Pet Foods
The danger of the rising use of grains goes =
beyond
simple malnutrition. Contaminated grain ingredients have resulted in at lea=
st
three dog food recalls in the last ten years. In 1995, Nature’s Recipe
pulled thousands of tons of dog food after discovering the presence of a fu=
ngus
that produced the toxic substance vomitoxin.[246] In 1999, Doane
Pet Care recalled dry dog food made at one of its plants, including the Walmart Brand, Ol’ =
Roy,
after discovering another fungal toxin that ultimately killed 25 dogs.[247] Most recen=
tly,
Diamond Pet Food recalled several brands of its dog food in 23 different st=
ates
after at least 76 dogs were killed and dozens severely ill after ingesting =
aflatoxins caused by contaminated corn ingredients.[248]
Poisoned and diseased animals are not the pr=
oduct
of an effective regulation system. Pet foods containing excessive amounts of
grains, inadequate protein and euthanized animals serve only to starve our
pets, not sustain their health. Minimal testing methods provide unwarranted
assurance that commercial pet foods are nutritious, while convoluted pet fo=
od
labels confuse owners unfamiliar with the truths hidden behind common or us=
ual
ingredient names.
V. Failing the Pets:=
Who is
at Fault
The current system of pet food regulation pr=
oves
ineffective at informing consumers and protecting pets. The question is, how did it go wrong? Some consumers point to the FDA=
for
its lack of oversight regarding the manufacturing process and setting
nutritional standards. While the FDA rightly bears some of the blame, by no
means are they the sole contributors to current regulation’s
disappointing state. The industry’s influence on AAFCO, the billions =
of
dollars involved, the structure of the veterinary industry, and the lack of
consumer involvement are at least as blameworthy as the FDA’s lack of
concern.
A. FDA Missteps
The FDA regulates 25% of every dollar spent =
in the
American economy. In addition to food regulation, the FDA also oversees
cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. And in contrast to food and cosmetics, drugs
require pre-market approval.[249] The averag=
e time
it takes to formulate, test and obtain FDA approval for a new drug is 7 to =
13
years.[250] This sprea=
ds the
FDA’s limited resources and 8000 employees thin before food and cosme=
tics
become a concern. Imagine then, how far down pet food falls on the list of =
priorities.
Statements by CVM reveal the low priority
allocated to pet food regulation. CVM states that although some ingredients=
and
food additives used in pet foods “may not meet the criteria needed to=
be
recognized as GRAS” the FDA “has not objected to the listing of
[these] ingredients in the AAFCO Official Publication...provided there were=
no
apparent safety concerns about the use or composition of the ingredient.=
221;[251] In other words, until the threat of s=
uch
non-GRAS ingredients is revealed, probably through dead or dying pets, the =
FDA
will not devote the time necessary to enforce its own rule that all foods
contain only food additives recognized as GRAS.[252]
While some pet owners might find this
unacceptable, this passionate group would be well served to take a step bac=
k to
acknowledge the concerns of the “non-pet owners” of the world, =
lest
they become no better than their adversary. Although over 50% of American
households have at least one pet, [253] this means that almost 50% of American
households do not own any pets. However, the FDA seems to forget that pet
owners pay taxes too. By making a choice that the non-pet owners deserve th=
eir
time and money more than the pet-owners, the FDA has effectively told pet
owners (over 50% of the country) through their inaction that they’re =
on
their own.
Most pet owners believe that the FDA regulat=
es all
commercial pet foods. While most consumers have never even heard of AAFCO (=
the
only regulatory body mentioned on the labels of pet food) those who have he=
ard
of AAFCO assume that it is part of the federal government. Although the FDA
didn’t exactly drop the ball by forming a partnership and entrusting =
pet
food regulation and standards to AAFCO,[254] they certainly didn’t keep AAFC=
O on a
short leash.
B. AAFCO, Again
AAFCO’s deficiencies regarding label regulations, feeding tr=
ials,
and ingredient definitions have already been discussed at length in this pa=
per.[255] AAFCO’s
decision to recognize the existence of the rendering industry while not
requesting FDA enforcement of permissible raw materials cannot continue.
Moreover, AAFCO’s willingness to permit 1=
00%
nutritionally complete claims on pet foods while annually debating what
constitutes 100% nutrition misleads owners and endangers pets’ health.
Not only do they not understand nutrition, they lack the incentives to close
the gaps in regulatory practices. As long as the FDA lacks the necessary
resources to govern its supposed watchdog, AAFCO will continue to make
decisions based on the profit margins of the pet industry’s participa=
nts.
While the AAFCO standards and profiles are b=
etter
than none at all, they provide consumers with a false sense of security. Th=
ere
are virtually no long term studies showing the adequacies and inadequacies =
of
the nutrient profiles.[256] One of AAFCO’s own panel experts admits that some of t=
he
foods which pass the feeding trials are “inadequate for long term
nutrition.”[257] Current regulations provide no way of
knowing which foods can potentially harm pets in the long run. <=
/span>
C. Blind Faith in the Veterinary Industry<=
/span>
The amount of trust given to veterinarians
compared to the amount given to the family doctor is truly amazing. It is
virtually unheard of not to seek a second opinion when given a worrisome
diagnosis by the family doctor. A healthy dose of skepticism is precisely w=
hat
launched such successful websites as WebMD and =
online
referral services for doctors. Yet, when it comes to the family pet, second
opinions are seldom, if ever, sought. Considering the state of the veterina=
ry
industry, this lack of skepticism is dangerous both for the pet and the
consumer’s wallet.
A basic understanding of the structure of the
veterinary industry is helpful to recognize the dangers it poses. First, in
order to run a veterinary hospital or clinic, a license to practice veterin=
ary
medicine is required. In the U.S., licenses are issued by the Veterinarians Associatio=
n; in
other words, by the profession’s trade uni=
on.
This means that if a veterinarian angers the Veterinarians Association, they
run the risk of having their license revoked and thereby losing their
livelihood. Trade unions do not have an obligation to act in the public
interest, rather, the Veterinarians Association’s only obligation is =
to
protect the financial interests of their members. This results in a veterin=
ary
industry controlled by peers. Minority viewpoints that risk harm to the
financial interests of the profession are silenced through the threat of a =
revoked
license.
Veterinarians, unlike their “human
doctor” counterparts, don’t make six figure salaries. Proof of =
this
is found in trade publications like Veterinary Forum and The Jour=
nal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association, which are filled with a=
rticles
discussing low income-related anxiety.[258] Although small animal veterinarians a=
nd
some general practitioners earn close to the US median household income, co=
nsidering
that these professionals have gone through training as rigorous and costly =
as
that of physicians the median income is often inadequate.<=
/a>[259] On the plus side, veterinarians don&#=
8217;t
pay the huge malpractice premiums facing physicians, but they also don̵=
7;t
get their start in multi-million dollar hospitals with vast resources. Inst=
ead,
most veterinarians either set up shop themselves with expensive start-up co=
sts
or join a small practice.
Consider the following: vets only make money=
if a
pet is sick. Troubling though it may be, there is a substantial amount of t=
ruth
to that statement. Veterinarians treating healthy patients have few product=
s to
“sell” other than vaccines and heartworm medications, which when
compared to the substantial costs of running a clinic, don’t constitu=
te
nearly sufficient income.[260] So if
veterinarians aren’t earning the big incomes of physicians yet have b=
ig
education and business expenses – where is the cash coming from?
Unfortunately, many veterinarians rely on the trust of their patients’
owners and money from commercial interests for their “extra”
income.[261]
Ever noticed that the ve=
terinarians
office is often, if not always, filled with commercial pet food? The more t=
he
veterinarians sell their food to “clients”, the higher their
commissions on the sales through incentive programs.[262] Some manuf=
acturers
even offer cash bonuses to the vets. In essence, the veterinarian is “=
;on
the take.”[263] Even the Veterinarians Association it=
self
is a major shareholder in Hills Science Diet, which perhaps explains its
ubiquitous presence in veterinarians offices. In=
deed,
one pet owner said she “felt pressured” by the veterinarianR=
17;s
suggestion that she buy Hills Prescription Diet Feline because the vet told=
her
“overweight cats can get diabetes.”[264] While this=
might
be true, the client was disturbed by both the price tag, $15 per bag, and t=
he
fact that the food was available for purchase through her veterinarian̵=
7;s
clinic.[265] All that really matters in a pet food=
is
whether it meets your pet’s nutritional needs. This can be achieved
through a $15 bag, or a $8 bag so long as both b=
ags
contain the necessary nutrients in a digestible form.[266] But clinics push particular foods bec=
ause
the mark up on premium pet foods can account for as much as 20% of a
veterinarian’s income.[267] Plus, pet owners buying food through =
the
clinic visit the clinic more frequently, increasing the opportunities for s=
ales
of other goods and services. If this doesn’t seem like a conflict of
interest, imagine visiting your doctor’s office once a month to purch=
ase
Lean Cuisine meals from their waiting room.[268]
A veterinarian pushing a particular pet food
isn’t necessarily detrimental so long as they are informed both about=
the
needs of your pet and about the food they are selling. Sadly, this is gener=
ally
not the case. Veterinarians are first introduced to commercial pet foods as
students in veterinary school.[269] Many manuf=
acturers
provide free products to the students, which come complete with glossy
marketing materials.[270] While such=
a
cheerful introduction is not bad in and of itself, it can skew judgment
regarding the quality of the product.[271]
The typical veterinary program offers only o=
ne
course in animal nutrition during four years of study. This course must cov=
er
all animals the student will eventually treat in practice, not just the
companion dog or cat. A typical small animal veterinary practice will treat
hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, birds, ferrets, rats and reptiles. Consider=
ing
that the class must also cover livestock and other large animals, this
doesn’t leave a lot of class time for cats and dogs. With substantial
education debt and hundreds of patients to see, veterinarians have very lit=
tle
time and funds to educate themselves.
Compounding the problem, different breeds of
domestic animals often require different diets. A 1994 study showed that
different breeds of dogs “exhibit different abilities to digest the s=
ame
diet.”[272] Function a=
lso
plays a role in the dietary requirements of animals. Working animals, like =
the
Anatolian Shepherd, have different dietary requirements than a dog that
developed over hundreds of years of lap-sitting (like a <=
st1:place>Chihuahua).[273] Moreover, much is still being discove=
red
about the nutritional needs of humans. The National Cancer Institute now
promotes a “five-a-day” program to encourage people to eat more
servings of fruits and vegetables, despite the overwhelming availability of
vitamin supplements. This is because studies have shown that individual
nutrients like Vitamin A and E have not prevented cancer as well as real fr=
uits
and vegetables.[274] If researc=
h is
still uncovering new findings about human diets and nutrition, how can anyo=
ne
possibly know everything there is to know about animal nutrition? Any claim
that veterinarians, let alone AAFCO, know everything about canine or feline
nutrition appears disingenuous.[275]
Veterinarians, perhaps the most qualified pa=
rty to
conduct research on nutrition lack any incentive to do so. Many veterinaria=
ns
work for the pet food industry, or are affiliated with universities and
institutes that are funded by the industry.[276] Consider t=
he
chairman of Colgate-Palmolive, who decided to have veterinarians endorse
Science Diet after noting the huge success of Colgate’s use of a dent=
ist
endorsing its toothpaste. Science Diet obtained these lucrative endorsement=
s by
promising hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund research at each of the =
27 U.S. veterinary colleges.[277] But the money trail doesn’t sto=
p at
funding research. Practicing veterinarians selling Science Diet pocket as m=
uch
as 40% of the profits.[278] The minori=
ty of
veterinarians who conduct their own private research are forced, for financ=
ial
reasons, to work primarily with commercially-fed pets. Thus, any topics
reflecting negatively on commercial diets will not be researched at
universities, and financial restraints preclude such investigations by priv=
ate
veterinarians.[279]
Additionally, commercial pet food labels are
nothing if not cryptic. One FDA veterinary nutritionist says it takes him t=
hree
hours to explain pet food labels to veterinary students.[280] These are
veterinary students who have gone through years of science classes and
education. Imagine how long it would take to explain a label to the average=
pet
owner to the point that they would be capable of comparing products and mak=
ing
a sound decision concerning their pet’s health.
D. Manufacturer’s Misconduct<=
/p>
Large, multinational companies are key playe=
rs in
the pet food industry. After acquiring Ralston in 2001, Nestle controlled 4=
5%
of the pet food market share.[281] Mars Inc., Nestl=
e’s
closest competitor, retains 15% of the market share.[282] Other powe=
rful
participants include Colgate-Palmolive (Hills Pet Nutrition), Heinz (9 Live=
s,
Kibbles-n-Bits), and Proctor & Gamble (Iams=
).
With billions of dollars in sales and seemingly bottomless advertising budg=
ets
it is little wonder that the industry has maintained control over its
self-regulating regime with little inquiry or confrontation by the governme=
nt
and consumers.
Most consumers are unaware that the pet food
industry serves as an extension of the human food and agriculture industrie=
s.[283] Why is it desirable for large multina=
tional
corporations to have a stake in the highly competitive pet food industry? T=
he
answer is that large conglomerates owning pet food manufacturers represents=
the
“ideal” relationship because corporations producing both human =
food
products and pet food products have a built-in captive market for the human
line’s waste products, and a convenient in-house source of ingredients
for the pet foods.[284] Grains and “slaughterhouse
offal” not deemed fit for human consumption can be turned into instant
profits by the very same manufacturing company that rejects such ingredients
for their human lines.[285] The FDA even endorses such practices.
According to the CVM, “animal feeds provide a practical outlet for pl=
ant
and animal byproducts not suitable for human consumption.”[286]
The exploitation of pet food product lines a=
s a
means by which to recycle and discard waste will only worsen as the industry
continues to transform into an array of powerful conglomerates. Proctor and
Gamble purchased Iams for $2.05 billion in 1999=
.[287] In 2000 Mars Inc., which already owne=
d Kal Kan, Pedigree and Whiskas, acquired Royal Canin, a French premium pet food company for $730 mil=
lion.[288] Nestle acquired Ralston-Purina in 200=
1 for
$10.3 billion, to become the “dominant force” in the pet food i=
ndustry
with 45% of the market share.[289]
The immense size of the combined manufacturi=
ng
entity increases purchasing power for both product lines. After the
Nestle-Ralston transaction, groups representing farming and ranching intere=
sts
in pet food ingredients expressed concern that the combined entity would
dictate the price of agricultural products since there would be fewer buyers
offering better prices.[290] In addition to purchasing power and m=
arkets
for their waste products, large manufacturing conglomerates exploit economi=
es
of scales even in the area of advertising. If Proctor and Gamble signs a la=
rge
advertising contract, they have the ability to utilize that contract to
advertise their pasta sauce, cleaning supplies, and pet food all at the same
time and thereby lower their per spot cost.=
Although pet food manufacturers stop short of
breaching advertising regulations they continue to mislead consumers with
unsubstantiated claims. A 1993 Whiskas commercial stated that while cats li=
ke
fish, fish on its own is not a complete meal. “Therefore, [fish] on i=
ts
own is not completely healthy for your cat.”[291] But a can of Whiskas, the ad proclaimed, now that’s a complete meal. One has =
to
wonder how cats survived all those years in the wild on fish, rodents, bugs=
and
other prey.
Claims such as “new” and
“improved” are found on numerous pet food labels, but whether t=
he
product is truly different from the old formula is arguable. AAFCO requires
only that “new” and “improved” be “substantia=
ted
and limited to six months production.”[292] Since AAFC=
O has no
enforcement authority, it is doubtful that such claims are ever substantiat=
ed.
Who would bring the challenge? AAFCO regulations also require that labels n=
ot
contain graphics or pictorial representations that misrepresent the
package’s contents.[293] Yet manufa=
cturers
violate this regulation every time they place a plump chicken on their box =
or
bag of food. The pet food industry’s continued use of rendered produc=
ts
ensures that no plump chickens make their way into the commercial pet foods.
Until such violations are identified and the manufacturers sanctioned, the =
pet
food industry remains one of the most misleading.
Perhaps the most exasperating scheme current=
ly
used by manufacturers is their terse advice against feeding pets table scra=
ps.
Their trade group PFI, the “voice” of the U.S. pet food industr=
y,
warns against feeding table scraps to pets because they add “extra
calories” to an already balanced diet.[294] This paper=
has
already established that a strictly commercial diet is unlikely to be balan=
ced.
The claim that the calories are extra and therefore detrimental might have
merit should PFI or the manufacturer specifically refer to such items as the
leftover fatty bits of meat. But if the owner is eating a well balanced meal
consisting of quality meats, whole grain rice and fresh vegetables, the very
same things the manufacturers would lead consumers to believe is found in t=
heir
convenient yet low cost bags of food, then why would such items be detrimen=
tal
to the pet’s health? Certainly the owner serves his own dinner without
the preservatives and additives found in the bag of dog food. If it is good
enough for a human, the argument that they harm pets only continues to
misdirect already lost owners.[295]
E. Consumer Folly
As a general rule, consumers do not apply ad=
equate
skepticism when it comes to selecting a pet food. Consumers often attempt to
compare products based solely on price. But as long as pet food manufacture=
rs
present their products in different sized bags with ingredients of varying
quality and no reason to clearly label their products, the consumer must en=
gage
in a healthy dose of analysis before selecting a brand. It would be impossi=
ble
for a company to use quality protein and grain ingredients while selling a =
40
pound bag of dog food for $14.95. Compare this to the price of a single pou=
nd
of chicken at a grocery story. While the quality of the chicken purchased a=
t the
grocery store is probably higher than that of the protein used in the dog f=
ood,
that 40 pound bag of dog food should still contain a much larger amount of
protein than the single pound of chicken if the dog food intends to nourish
your pet for 30 days. The cost of enough cereal to feed yourself
breakfast every day for a month is around $12-$15. That cost alone would be
much higher than the cost of most generic dog foods, and not only offers li=
ttle
to no protein but feeds one meal per day rather than three. Furthermore,
commercial pet foods are convenience foods. They require no effort or
preparation on the part of the pet owner. The true cost comparison, therefo=
re,
should be to a human food that is ready to eat or something served in a
restaurant. Yet many consumers feed their pets the “convenient”
commercial dry food every day, 2-3 times a day, for its entire life. The
pricing logic alone should persuade that the animal receives less than adeq=
uate
nutrition.
Most consumers believe that feeding their pe=
ts shouldn’t
break the bank, and they have a point. With Americans owning around 60 mill=
ion
dogs and 70 million cats,[296] buying expensive so-called
“premium” brands is not financially feasible for many pet owner=
s.
But owners need to learn how to correctly analyze pet foods before they can
compare prices. Foods with more protein and better quality and more digesti=
ble
ingredients will satiate the animal using less food than will a lower quali=
ty
food with less digestible ingredients. Thus, a $15 bag of food with better
quality and digestible ingredients could feed an animal for a longer period=
of
time than a similarly sized $10 bag with inferior ingredients. If the $15 b=
ag
feeds the animal for a full month, while it takes two $10 bags to feed the
animal for a month, then the owner will end up saving money by purchasing t=
he
more expensive pet food—never mind the potential savings from fewer
visits to the veterinarian to treat diet-related illnesses.[297]
One critic of commercial pet food compared t=
he
perception of pet food to the perception of smoking in the 40s and 50s.[298] Sir Richard Doll, the scientist credi=
ted
with discovering the adverse effects of smoking, publicized his findings by
1949. During the 1950s the medical profession generally agreed with
Doll’s findings, but it was not until the 1970s that the public began
changing their smoking habits. Doll cited the media’s reporting of the
dangers of smoking as proven, rather than “controversial,” as t=
he
turning point in changing the public’s perception.[299] Despite the presence of 43 known
carcinogens in tobacco smoke and over 57,000 reports on the detrimental eff=
ects
of smoking, tobacco companies denied the danger of their products for years=
.[300]
Few reports detail the hazards of long term
feeding of commercial pet foods and money to fund such research is scarce.
Unlike physicians, veterinarians continue to endorse commercial pet food ev=
en
as they witness, first hand, the diseases caused by malnutrition and obesit=
y.
Thus, changing consumer perception of pet fo=
ods is
an uphill battle. Faced with veterinarian endorsements for commercial pet f=
oods
and slogans touting foods used by “top breeders” consumers must
navigate a fog of misinformation to seek the truth about pet nutrition.
Meanwhile, virtually every article or website dedicated to discussing
commercial pet foods concludes with the standard blanket statement telling =
the
consumer to consult their veterinarian. While it may be true that the
veterinarian is more educated than the consumer, the section above details =
why
trusting a vet with 100% of your pet’s care is as fallible as trustin=
g complete
and balanced labels on pet foods. The better conclusion to these articles i=
s a
call to action for consumers to educate themselves and persuade their vets =
to
work with them in creating a diet suitable for their pet’s nutritional
needs.[301]
No pet owner likes hearing that their actions
might be harming their pet. The defensive reactions pet owners mount to
insinuations that they buy a sub-standard pet food compares only to that of=
a
parent confronted with advice on how to raise their child. Unsolicited scru=
tiny
by outsiders only causes further resistance despite the fact that, more oft=
en
than not, the pet in question exhibits visible signs of malnutrition such a=
s a
shaggy, dull coat, sluggishness, and obesity. “Saving pet owners money and sparing pets the agony of diet-induced
disease are a socially responsible activity” and should provide enough
persuasion to dictate a call to action by those few, but educated consumers=
.[302]
VI. Conclusion<=
/o:p>
Like it or not, the United States is a country of pet-owners. Collectively, Americans =
own
more than 130 million cats and dogs.[303] Since the =
FDA
regulates 25% of the American economy it has understandably chosen to alloc=
ate
its scarce resources to the regulation of drugs, cosmetics and human foods
rather than pet foods. But America’s pet owners deserve better than the blind eye=
the
federal government continues to turn on the smoke and mirrors of pet food
regulation. More importantly, Americans should demand more for the $12 bill=
ion
they spend on commercial pet food.
Solving the industry’s shortcomings th=
rough
strict enforcement of the advertising, misbranding, and food adulteration l=
aws
seems unlikely until the FDA’s budget substantially increases. Althou=
gh a
stubborn group, consumers have the most to gain from increased education
efforts and studies revealing the long terms effects of nutritionally
inadequate commercial foods. Perhaps the federal government could borrow fr=
om
lessons learned from the Enron scandal and require mandatory funding by the=
industry
of independent studies and consumer education programs. Since the
government doesn’t have enough time and money to watch the industry
closely, providing active consumers with the opportunity to learn the truth
about the food they feed their pets might spark reform within the industry =
and
perhaps even legitimate regulation.
[1] This paper d=
efines
“pet food” as foods intended for consumption by dogs and cats.
While there is a substantial market for ferret, hamster, fish, bird, and ot=
her
“exotic” animals, the consideration of such foods and their
regulation is beyond the scope of this paper.
[2] Claudia H. D=
eutsch, Mad
Cow Disease in the United States: Industry; Makers of Pet Food Voice Little Worry, N.Y.Times, Dec. 26, =
2003, at A40.
[3] Laura Cunnin=
gham, Pet
Food Esthetics: A Human Concern, N.Y. Times, December 16, 1981, at C1.
[4] Deutsch, =
supra
note 2.
[5] Eating their=
prey
had an added benefit for cats: they ingested all the nutrients found in the
stomachs of their victims, which explains why cats are unable to digest
vitamins like A and D which were found already digested in their prey. Cats,
kept mainly as outdoor pets until approximately 50 years ago, have not had =
time
to adjust to the changes human companionship has created in their diets,
especially when compared to dogs which have been domesticated for 20,000 ye=
ars.
[6] Pet Food Ins=
titute, History
of Pet Food, available at
http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/what_is_history.cfm.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Cunningham,=
supra
note 3.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] See e.g<=
/i>.
Sharon Benz, FDA’s Regulation of Pet Food, FDA Veterinarian, <=
span
class=3DGramE>Vol. XVI No.1. Benz notes that FDA
regulations require that “pet foods, like human foods, be pure and
wholesome, contain no harmful or deleterious substances, and be truthfully
labeled.” Id. Benz’s
interpretation of pet food regulation is supported by Dr. Leland Shapiro, a
professor of animal nutrition, who believes that although commercial pet fo=
ods
are too high in salt and fat, the food is still regulated to the point wher=
e it
is safe for human consumption. See Kathie Jenkins, Pet Food Speci=
al;
It’s Dining Cats and Dogs, L.A. Times, June 22, 1995, at H14. See also Kenneth N. Hall, Ph.D, FAQ: The Safety o=
f Food
and Food Related Products, The Food Domain available at http://ww=
w.fooddomain.msu.edu/consumer_faq_safety.htm#10,
where Hall states that pet food sales increase concurrently with the
unemployment rate, implicating that those on limited incomes chose to survi=
ve
on cheap and convenient pet foods. If there exists an unspoken understanding
that some humans eat pet food, then the FDA’s persistence in permitti=
ng
ingredients rejected for human consumption under EPA, USDA, and FDA restric=
tions
to make their way into pet foods is even more troubling. =
[24] Deutsch, supra
note 2.
[25] R. L. Wysong, DVM, The=
Truth
About Pet Foods 59 (Inquiry Press 2002).
[26] Pet Food In=
stitute,
What is PFI?,
available at http://www.petfoodinstitute.org/what_is_pfi.cfm.
[27] It should b=
e noted
that while the phrase “animal feed” is interpreted to include
livestock feed, this paper addresses only the issue of pet food regulation,
more specifically the foods fed to cats and dogs. Regul=
ation
of “exotic pet foods” as they are called in the industry, i.e.
foods intended for birds, fish, ferrets etc., are beyond the scope of
this paper.
[28] 21 U.S.C.
§321(f) (2006).
[29] Center for
Veterinary Medicine, CVM and Animal Food, Feed Ingredients, and Additive=
s,
available at http://www.=
fda.gov/cvm/animalfeed_info.htm#ingredients
(emphasis added).
[30] 21
U.S.C.§321(f) defines food as “articles used for food or drink f=
or
man or other animals...”; the prohibitions against adulterated or
misbranded foods include only the term “food” within their
definitions – therefore they apply to both animal and human foods.
[31] Center for
Veterinary Medicine, Animal Food (Feed) Product Regulation, available
at: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/prodregulation.htm.
[32] 21 U.S.C
§342(a)(5) (2006).
[33] 21 U.S.C. &=
sect;343
(2006). Further regulation applicable to pet food labels include the Fair
Packaging and Labeling Act which prevents unfair and deceptive packaging and
labeling. Pet food manufacturers are also subject to the Federal Trade
Commission’s regulations regarding misleading advertising and therefo=
re
must conform to the Commission’s truth in advertising standards. S=
ee
Katharin Hillestad =
DVM, Government
Regulation of the Pet Food Industry, available at http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=3D2&cat=
=3D1661&articleid=3D2645.
[34] See =
Peter
Barton Hutt & Richard A. Merrill, Food a=
nd
Drug Law Cases and Materials 638 (2d ed Foun=
dation
Press 1991) (1980).
[35] See e.g, 51 FR 11456-01, 1986 WL 136354 (F.R.) (FDA d=
enied
an exemption request by the pet food industry from listing ingredients by t=
heir
common or usual name. The FDA decided that the use of class or collective n=
ames
for ingredients would confuse consumers. The FDA relied upon evidence that
consumers purchase foods based on the presence or absence of certain
ingredients due to pets’ allergies or dietary restrictions, and that =
many
consumers would not be familiar with the class or collective names utilized=
by
the industry.)
[36] Hillestad,
supra note 33.
[37] Benz, su=
pra
note 23; see also 21 U.S.C. §113.
[38] Hillestad
supra note 33.
[39] See =
9 C.F.R
§ 355 et al. This option is not widely utilized by the industry. A rec=
ent
survey of pet food stores in the Boston area found no canned foods bearing this seal. <=
/o:p>
[40] Toxic Pe=
t Food
Limited to Eastern States, MSNBC.com, Jan. 12, 2006, available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/108=
07001.
[41] Id. The recalled =
product
was distributed to 23 states and at least 29 countries. Veterinarians belie=
ve
that as many as over 100 dogs may have died from aflat=
oxin
poisoning, and that many dogs died undiagnosed. Diamond had noticed an
increased rate of fungus-contaminated corn deliveries as early as September.
New tests to detect the presence of aflatoxin w=
ere
implemented by Diamond in November of 2005, but the contaminated dog food w=
as
shipped out in October. See also FDA Investig=
ation
of Diamond Pet Food Finds Some Product Exported, Dec.
30, 2005 available
at http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/bse123005.htm.
[42] Center for
Veterinary Medicine, supra note 29.
[43] Center for
Veterinary Medicine, CVM and Animal Food, Feed Ingredients, and Additive=
s
available at: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/animalfeed.htm.
[44] It should b=
e noted
that there is no pre-market approval for foods intended for humans. Unlike
drugs, which undergo an extensive pre-market approval process, food is
permitted to be sold in the market so long as it is unadulterated and not
misbranded. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 341-42 (2006).
[45] 21 U.S.C.
§321(s) (2006).
[46] Benz, su=
pra
note 23.
[47] Id.
[48] Id.
[49] Id., emphasis added.
[50] Id.
[51] Linda Bren, Pet Food; The Low=
down on
Labels, FDA Consumer Magazine May-June 2001.
[52] Id.
[53] David A. Dzanis, Interpreting Pet Food Labels—Part 2:
Special Use Foods, FDA Veterinarian, Volume XIV, No.1 (1999).
=
[54] =
Benz,
supra note 23.
=
[55] Id.
=
[56] =
Bren,
supra note 51.
=
[57] =
Benz,
supra note 23.
=
[58] =
Benz,
supra note 23.
[59] AAFCO’s
authority is not limited to pet foods. AAFCO has established feed ingredient
definitions and model regulations for livestock feed as well. Information
regarding the allocation of AAFCO’s resou=
rces
to pet food v. livestock feed is not available. However, the scope of this
paper is limited to AAFCO’s role in pet f=
ood
regulation.
[60] Association=
of
American Feed Control Officials, Official Publication 73 (2006)
[hereinafter AAFCO].
[61] Id.
[62] Id.
[63] Id.
[64] Id.
[65] Id.
[66] Id a=
t 66.
[67] Benz, su=
pra
note 23.
[68] The term ex=
otic
pets excludes dogs and cats and is typically used to refer to ferrets, fish,
birds, hamsters, guinea pigs and other animals commonly kept as pets.<=
/o:p>
[69] Ann N. Mart=
in, Food
Pets Die For: Shocking Facts about Pet Food 85, (N=
ewSage
Press 1997).
[70] See =
AAFCO, supra note 60, at 124-26. See infra,
Section III(C)(3), for a detailed discussion of =
AAFCO’s feeding trial requirements. =
[71] William D. =
Cusick, Who Regulates the Pet Food Industry, T=
he
Animal Advocate available at: http://home.att.net/~wdcusick/03.html.
According to Cusick, the employees and their
respective pet food employers were: Ken Johannes, Hill’s Pet Products
Inc.; Dan Chauslow, Westre=
co,
Inc.; Dave Bebiak, Ralston Purina Co.; and Mark
Finke, Alpo Petfoods, Inc.
[72] AAFCO, s=
upra
note 60, at 16.
[73] Id. See infra, Se=
ction
III.(E) & (F) for a discussion of the Pet Fo=
od
Institute and the American Pet Products Association.
[74] AAFCO, s=
upra
note 60, at 11.
[75] Douglas Knueven DVM, The Five Supplements Every Dog Needs<=
/i>,
Clean Run Magazine, Vol. 11 #12.
[76] See =
the
Economic Research Service from the United States Department of Agriculture.
Statistics represent 2004 production taken from newsroom and briefing room
reports available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/hogs/
and http://www.ers=
.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm
and http://www.ers.usda.gov/News/broilercoverag=
e.htm.
[77] Animal Prot=
ection
Institute, What’s Really in Pet Food, available at http://www.a=
pi4animals.org/facts?p=3D359&more=3D1
[hereinafter API].
[78] AAFCO, s=
upra
note 60, at 124.
[79] API, sup=
ra
note 77.
[80] AAFCO, s=
upra
note 60, at 131.
[81] Id. emphasis adde=
d.
[82] Id. at 133.<=
/o:p>
[83] Knueven,
supra note 75. The failure of AAFCO to consider the digestibility of
protein sources used in pet foods bothered the American Animal Hospital
Association and the American Veterinary Medical Association to such an exte=
nt
that the two groups proposed independent testing of pet foods. However, AAF=
CO
agreed to revise its standards to include procedures showing the digestibil=
ity
of a pet food’s nutrients. See John Eckho=
use,
Why Pet Food Labels Baffle Most Consumers, The San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 20, 1990 at B1. How=
ever,
a thorough review of the AAFCO 2006 Official Publication revealed no mentio=
n of
a requirement that foods bearing nutritionally “complete” claims
prove the digestibility of their nutrients.
[84] AAFCO, s=
upra
note 60, at 147.
[85] Id. See infra, Se=
ction IV(B) which shows that due to the rendering practice,
different production batches contain different sources of protein and varyi=
ng
amounts of potentially harmful substances.
[86] AAFCO, s=
upra note
60,. at=
148.
[87] Id.
[88] Id.
[89] Id. at 151.<=
/o:p>
[90] See =
Iams Kitten Food, which suggests feeding its growth f=
ormula
for the first 49 weeks of the feline’s life. Purina Kitten Chow
encourages exclusive feeding of their growth formula for the first year.
[91] Dzanis,
supra note 53.
[92] See =
Reg.
PF7(c)(1)(C). AAFCO, supra note 60, at 12=
5.
[93] Dzanis,
supra note 53.
[94] Regulation =
PF2.
AAFCO, supra note 60, at 119-20.
[95] Center for
Veterinary Medicine, supra note 29.
[96] Wysong,
supra note 25.
[97] Wysong,
supra note 25, at 59. Dr. Wysong notes t=
hat
not all food ingredients that have been approved by AAFCO are necessarily
“beneficial” for your pet. Among the long list of questionable
approved ingredients are dehydrated garbage, hydrolyzed hair, peanut skins =
and
hulls, ground clam shells and poultry, cow and pig feces and litter. Id. at 8. Whil=
e one
has to wonder why on earth anyone would even consider putting such items in=
to
pet food, remember that pet food is often the outlet for the waste of large
manufacturers. Conglomerates like Nestle and Mars Inc. don’t produce =
just
pet foods. As Wysong so aptly puts it
“’approved’ ingredient regulations cannot be trusted. Ban=
ning
nutritious natural ingredients and approving dehydrated garbage and feces m=
akes
it clear that the agenda of regulation is something different than encourag=
ing
optimal nutrition.” =
Id. at 10.
[98] See
Ingredient Definition 9.40. AAFCO, supra note 60, at 259, emphasis
added.
[99] See Ingredi=
ent
Definition 9.42. AAFCO, supra note 60, at 259.
[100] Hillestad, supra note 33.
[101] Id.
[102] Over half =
of the
states have adopted AAFCO’s model regulat=
ions. See
Dr. J.C. Hofve D.V.M., Pet Supplements: Can =
This
Industry be Saved?,
available at http://www.critterchat.net/pet_supplements.htm.
[103] See
generally Mass. Regs. C=
ode tit.
330 §13.00 (2006).. Massachusetts adopted the AAFCO ingredient definitions, but has se=
parate
provisions governing registration, labeling, brand and product names, expression of guarantees, ingredients, drugs and pet f=
ood
additives, and statements of calorie content.
[104] Mass.=
Regs=
. Code tit. 330
§13.03(6).
[105] Mass.=
Regs=
. Code tit. 330
§13.02.
[106] Hofve, supra note 102.
[107] Id.
[108] Pet Food
Institute, supra note 26.
[109] Id.
[110] Id.
[111] Id.
[112] Id.
[113] AAFCO, =
supra
note 60, at 15-16.
[114] Pet Food
Institute, supra note 26.
[115] Id..
[116]
American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, APPMA Backgrounder,=
available
at <=
/span>http://www.appma.org/about_backgrounder.asp
[hereinafter AAPMA].<=
span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Time=
s New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>
[117]<=
/span> Id.
[118]<=
/span> Id.
[119]<=
/span> Id.
[120] AAFCO, supra note 60, at 16. I.J. Shenki=
r
is also listed on these AAFCO committees, but his exact role in the APPMA c=
ould
not be determined. Id.<=
/span>
[121] David A. Dzanis, Interpreting=
Pet
Food Labels – Part 1: General Rules, FDA Veterinarian Newsletter Vol=
. XIII, No. VI (1998).
[122]=
AAFCO, supra note 60, at 120.
[123]=
Dzanis supra note 121.
[124] See PF3, Brand Name and Product Names. AAFCO, supra=
note 60, at
120-21.
[125] One has to wonder how many consumer perceive this implication when t=
hey
read the word “dinner” on a bag of pet food.<=
/span>
[126] Dzanis, supra note 121. R=
ecall
from above that AAFCO Regulation PF5(a)(2) requi=
res
the listing of ingredients in order of predominance by weight. AAFCO, supra=
note 60, at=
123.<=
/span>
[127] A recent survey of 200 pet owners shows t=
hat
while most read ingredient lists and health claims, the information is
virtually meaningless to the average consumer who has no knowledge of AAFCO’s labeling rules. The survey, conducted at
various Pet Supplies Plus stores in the Pittsburgh=
, PA<=
/st1:State> area, revea=
led
that although 79% of those surveyed read the label, only 17% grasped what t=
he
ingredient list was telling them about protein content. <=
/span>
[128] Dzanis, supra note 121.<=
/span>
[129] Feed Ingredient Definition 9.71. AAFCO, supra=
note 60, at=
262.<=
/span>
[130] Kathie Jenkins, Pet food special; It’s on the Bag, LA Times, =
June 22, 1995 at H23.<=
/span>
[131] Feed Ingredient Definition 9.40. AAFCO, supra=
note 60, at=
259,
emphasis added.
[132] Feed Ingredient Definition 9.42. AAFCO, supra note 60, at 259, empha=
sis
added.
[133] API, supra note 77.
[134]<=
/span> Id.
[135] See 21 U.S.C. §343 (2006) which states that any food bearing a fals=
e or
misleading label shall be deemed a misbranded food. If placing a picture of=
a
plumb chicken on a bag of food containing only chicken beaks is not mislead=
ing,
then it is at least a violation of AAFCO Model Regulation PF2(c), which
requires that a graphic or pictorial representation on a pet food label not
misrepresent the contents of the package. See AAFCO,=
supra note 60, at=
119-20.
[136]<=
/span> Burton Patrick, Complete and
Balanced Pet Food?, Pet Supplies “Plus” January Newsletter available at=
www.petsuppliespluspittsburgh.com.
[137] Eckhouse, supra note 83.<=
/span>
[138]<=
/span> Id. See 21 U.S.C. §644 (2006)
which prohibits the purchase or sale of 4D animals unless such transaction
complies with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture to en=
sure
that the 4D animals will be prevented from being used for human foods. <=
/span>
[139] See 21 U.S.C. §342 (2006).
[140] API, supra note 77 quoting Dr. Wysong. Another reas=
on
processing is considered the “wild card” is because many forms =
of
processing used by pet food manufacturers reduce the nutritional value of t=
he
original raw materials through extreme cooking temperatures. Nevertheless, =
such
harmful processing persists because cooking increases the digestibility of
grains – a substantial component in today’s pet foods. In his b=
ook,
The
Truth about Pet Foods, Dr. Wysong notes that co=
ld
processing is the only form of processing that does not destroy important r=
aw
natural food attributes. Wysong, supra=
note 25, at=
111.<=
/span>
[141] API, supra note 77. Rendering plants fill up their rendering vats with whatever=
raw
materials arrive, they do not carefully distribute the 4D animals, for exam=
ple,
between several different vats throughout the week. This means that by-prod=
uct
meals produced on any given day can contain higher quality protein than a
by-product meal produced two days later if the latter rendering vat contain=
ed
mostly 4D animals.
[142] As two professors from the University=
of =
California=
at Davis
Veterinary School of Medicine explained, “there is virtually no
information on the bioavailability of nutrients for companion animals in ma=
ny
of the common dietary ingredients in pet foods.” API, supra
note 77.
[143]=
<=
i>Id.
[144]=
Dzanis,
supra note 121.<=
/span>
[145]=
Benz, supra note 23.
[146]=
21 U.S.C=
.
§201 (2006).
[147]=
Benz, supra note 23.
[148]<=
/span> Id. Before a sub=
stance
can be GRAS, two requirements must be met. First, there must be an expert
consensus that the substance is safe for use as a component of food. Second,
the expert consensus must be based on either a)generall=
y
available data and information showing common use of the substance prior to
1958 or b)scientific procedures requiring the same quantity and quality of
scientific data needed for FDA approval of the substance as a food additive.
The scientific procedures and data must be published in scientific literatu=
re. Dzanis, supra note 121.
[149] Dzanis, supra note 121.<=
/span>
[150] Martin, supra note 69, at 85.
[151] Dzanis, supra note 122.<=
/span>
[152]<=
/span> Id.
[153]<=
/span> Id.
[154] Martin, supra note 69, at 85.
[155] Dzanis, supra note 122. W=
hile
the FDA permits the use of ethoxyquin in dog fo=
ods as
a preservative, on August 14, 1997 the FDA issued a request to the industry
that the levels of ethoxyquin be voluntarily re=
duced
to a level of 75 parts per million (ppm). Prior=
to
the CVM issuing this request, ethoxyquin had be=
en
permitted at levels up to 150 ppm. See CVM Update,=
FDA Requests=
that Ethoxyquin Levels be Reduced in
Dog Foods, available at http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/dogethox.html.<=
/span>
[156]<=
/span> Merriam Webster’s Collegia=
te
Dictionary 990 (10th ed. 1996).
[157] API, supra note 77.
[158]<=
/span> Id.
[159]<=
/span> Sandra Blakeslee, Fear of Dise=
ase
Prompts New Look at Rendering, N.Y. Times, March 11, 1997
at C1.
[160] Martin, supra note 69, at 50-51.
[161]<=
/span> Id. =
at 51.<=
/span>
[162]<=
/span> Id.
[163] Id<=
/i>.. The renderi=
ng
industry considers this fat to be extremely beneficial to pets for several
reasons: providing high energy density at a low cost, improving palatability
and appearance (that stench you smell when you first open a bag of dog food=
is attributable
to the use of fat to make the puffed up nuggets of food tasty for your pet),
improving pets coats. More noteworthy, is that the list of benefits the
attributable to the use of these rendered fats in pet food manufacturing
includes several items that have absolutely nothing to do with the health of
the pet. Among these are reducing
“dustiness” of pet foods, reducing transportation costs, and
reducing wear on machinery. From this, it is fair to conclude that pet owne=
rs
are supposed to be thankful that their bag of pet food is cheaper and less
dusty, despite the fact that their pet is eating food covered in grease in
order to make it palatable. See Tim Philips DVM, Rendered Products Guide, PetFood Industry Magazine, Volume 36, Number 1 (1994)=
. <=
/span>
[164] Blakeslee, supra note 159.
[165]<=
/span> Id.
[166]<=
/span> Id.
[167]<=
/span> Id. See also Martin, supra=
note 69, at=
49. <=
/span>
[168] Martin, supra note 69, at 50.
[169] See 21 U.S.C. §342 which states that a food shall be deemed adulter=
ated
if it is, “in whole or in part, the product of a diseased animal or o=
f an
animal which has died otherwise than by slaughter.” Furthermore,
introducing or delivering adulterated food into interstate commerce is a
prohibited act under the FFDCA. 21 U.S.C. §331(a).=
<=
/span>
[170] Blakeslee, supra note 159.
[171]<=
/span> Id.
[172] Martin, supra note 69, at 25-26.
[173] AAFCO, supra note 60, at 259.
[174] The price of meat meal further supports t=
he
conclusion that AAFCO regulations regarding the removal of certain items are
ignored. Meat and bone meal sells for as little as 12 cents (Canadian) a po=
und.
Martin at 55. Moreover, one expert reasonably as=
ks
“can you imagine trying to remove the hair and stomach contents from
600,000 tons of dogs and cats prior to cooking them?” David C. Cooke,=
Animal Dispo=
sal:
Fact or Fiction, Euthanasia of the Companion Animal, The
Impact on Pet Owners, Veterinarians and Society 224 (Charles Press 1998).<=
/span>
[175] While polyethylene melts at low temperatu=
res,
it does not stay soluble throughout the manufacturing process. This results in polyethylene sticking to the inside walls of =
pipes
and flaking off while causing some blockages in soap manufacturing. =
See Tim Philips
D.V.M, Rendered Products Guide, Petfood Industry
Magazine, Volume 36 Number 1.
[176] John Eckhouse, How <=
span
style=3D'color:black;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'>Dogs and Cat=
s Get
Recycled into Pet Food, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 19, 1990 at C1.<=
span
style=3D'color:black;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><=
/span>
[177]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[178]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[179]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[180]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[181]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[182]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[183]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[184] Lea McGovern, chief of the animal feed safety branch of the FDA stat=
es
“the pets serve a viable purpose by providing foodstuff for the animal
feed chain.” Id. But McGovern fails to note that dogs and cats are=
not
necessarily inserted into the right portion of the food chain. Including dogs and cats in the rendered material results in
livestock and domestic pets ingesting the rendered dogs and cats. Wh=
at
food chain is McGovern referring to that has cows, herbivores, eating dogs =
and
cats? Or dogs and cats eating their own species?
Nevertheless, a veterinarian and director of scientific services for a
rendering trade group proudly declares, “w=
e are
the original recyclers.” Blakeslee, supra note 159 qu=
oting
Dr. Don A. Franco.
[185] Eckhouse, supra note 176.<=
/span>
[186]<=
/span> Tom Lonsdale, Raw Meaty Bo=
nes 97 (2001).<=
/span> <=
/span>
[187] Eckhouse, supra note 176.<=
/span>
[188]<=
/span> Id. =
But see Mart=
in, supra=
note 69, at=
31
(stating that the study cited a case in which a dog exhibited
“pentobarbital toxicosis after eating the
thoracic organs of a calf.” The levels of pentobarbital had not decre=
ased
in the kidney of the calf despite being boiled for 20 minutes).<=
/span>
[189]<=
/span> Stephanie Simon, Outcry Over =
Pets
in Pet Food, LA Times, Jan. 6, 2002 at A21.
[190]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[191] Id. emphasis added.
[192] Jenkins, supra note 130.
[193] Dzanis, supra note 121. <=
/span><=
/span>
[194] Lonsdale, supra note 186, at 93.
[195] API, supra note 77.
[196]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[197]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[198] Londsdale, supra note 186, a=
t 92
emphasis added.
[199]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[200]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[201]<=
/span> Id. =
The labels of
several different brands of pet foods revealed that common ingredients such=
as
corn gluten meal, corn meal, brewers rice, oat m=
eal,
ground barley, and whole grain corn represent at least two the top three
ingredients. Often three of the top four ingredients consist of grains. The
surveyed brands include Iams, Purina, Science D=
iet,
Purina One, Whiskas, and Meow Mix.
[202] The fact that pet owners often do this at=
the
suggestion and/or insistence of their veterinarian is significant and will =
be
discussed in Section V(C).
[203] Lonsdale, supra note 186, at 92.
[204] API, supra note 77.
[205] Lonsdale, supra note 186, at 92 quoting David Kronfeld.<=
/span>
[206] AAFCO, supra note 60, at 124-26.
[207] Wysong, supra note 25, at=
15.<=
/span>
[208] See Patrick, supra note 136.
[209]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[210]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[211] Martin, supra note 69, at 61 quoting Dr. =
Wysong.<=
/span>
[212] API, supra note 77.
[213] Thomas H. Maugh, Thousands of=
Cat
Deaths Traced to Pet Food Deficiency, LA Times, August 14, 1987.<=
/span>
[214]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[215]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[216]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[217]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[218]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[219]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[220] The discovery of the link between taurine deficiency and heart disease in cats was disc=
overed
by Paul D. Pion while researching blood clots in
cats. One cat referred to Pion by a local
veterinarian had dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), a
degenerative heart disease. The cat also had eye disease and had been diagn=
osed
as “taurine deficient” (taurine deficiency also causes degeneration of the re=
tina).
By “pure coincidence” Pion had been
reading about taurine and began examining the e=
yes of
the other cats and analyzing their taurine leve=
ls.
Upon discovering that every cat with DCM also had low levels of taurine, Pion began treat=
ing them
with taurine supplements. Soon the cats began m=
aking
“miraculous recoveries.” Id.
[221] Patrick, supra note 136.
[222] Blakeslee, supra note 159.
[223]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[224]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[225] Martin, supra note 69, at 37.
[226]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[227] Id. .at<=
/span> 37-38.<=
/span>
[228] Blakeslee, supra note 159.
[229]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[230]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[231]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[232]<=
/span> Id.<=
/span>
[233]<=
/span> Id