ruffeodrive

Ruffeo Drive

Dog Food 

If Vets are Going to Bash Pet Owners and Their Choices… – Truth about Pet Food

Kar-Bay-Inc 726 Comments

[ad_1]

…at least get your facts straight.

There is a new paper published about pet food: “Pros and Cons of Commercial Pet Foods (Including Grain/Grain Free) for Dogs and Cats” authored by veterinarian Sherry Lynn Sanderson. Dr. Sanderson’s paper is full of incorrect information, misleading readers.

After an introduction of the history of pet food, Dr. Sanderson (mostly) blames the Internet for confusing information about pet food stating pet related websites are “opinion-based information and misinformation that seems intent on evoking fear in pet owners regarding commercial pet food.” Unfortunately, Dr. Sanderson herself gives false information in her paper appearing intent on swaying consumers to trust all commercial pet food.

She states that one of those misinformed websites (that she claims is misleading pet owners) “incorrectly lists multiple things contained in animal by-products used to make pet food, such as hooves, hair, and feathers.” She explains that The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) “specifically excludes these in their definitions of meat by-products and poultry by-products.”

Not quite true Dr. Sanderson.

The AAFCO definitions of all by-product ingredients – with the exception of one (Meat By-Products) – allow hooves, hair, and/or feathers in those ingredients. Most of the by-product definitions make the statement ‘exclusive of any added‘ hooves, hair, and/or feathers. What Dr. Sanderson doesn’t seem to understand is that ‘exclusive of any added’ means exactly that – hooves, hair, and/or feathers can be included (on the animals processed), but no extra or ‘added’ hooves, hair, and/or feathers can be included in the ingredients. A veterinarian publishing a paper on the pet food industry SHOULD know this.

More false information from Dr. Sanderson includes her dismissing the possibility that pet foods could contain diseased animals or animals that died other than by slaughter. Dr. Sanderson mistakenly claims that pet foods ONLY source ingredients from USDA affiliated rendering facilities (integrated rendering plants) which would not process diseased animals or non-slaughtered animals.

If Dr. Sanderson was properly informed about conditions in pet food, she would have been aware that integrated rendering facilities (those attached to a USDA slaughter facility) process edible material such as lard for human consumption AND inedible material such as cancerous tumors cut away from carcasses and diseased internal organs. The 2004 Congressional Research Services Report to Congress “Animal Rendering: Economics and Policy” confirms most products manufactured at integrated rendering plants are sold for human consumption, not pet consumption: integrated plants “render most edible animal byproducts (i.e., fatty animal tissue), mainly into edible fats (tallow and lard) for human consumption. These plants also render inedible byproducts (including slaughter floor waste) into fats and proteins for animal feeds and for other ingredients.” The inedible materials – including slaughter floor waste – are sold to pet food with no warning or disclosure to consumers.

In her attempt to dismiss pet food could contain diseased animals or animals that died other than by slaughter, Dr. Sanderson states: “many of the same regulations that apply to the human food industry also apply to the pet food industry, including that the food produced is safe to eat, properly manufactured, contains no harmful substances, and is truthfully labeled.” She’s right that many of the same regulations that apply to human food also apply to pet food – BUT, she ignores the glaring fact that regulatory authorities don’t enforce those laws in pet food. The FDA – the highest regulatory authority of pet food – openly allows diseased animals and animals that have died other than by slaughter to be processed into pet food (with no disclosure to the consumer). FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine Director Dr. Steven Solomon stated in April 2019: “we do not believe that the use of diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter to make animal food poses a safety concern and we intend to continue to exercise enforcement discretion.”

This veterinarian goes so far as to tell readers that pet food is safer than human food. “Meat and poultry products meant for human consumption can contain pathogens, undeclared allergens, foreign material, or be produced without the benefit of inspection. As a result, purchasing foods meant for human consumption to use in homemade diets for pets does not guarantee that it is safer than purchasing cooked commercial pet food products.”

And once again, Dr. Sanderson has some of her facts wrong. Meat and poultry products meant for human consumption are required by law to be inspected and passed. Meat and poultry products used in pet food on the other hand holds no such requirement.

When veterinarians publish papers so full of false information, while accusing pet owners and pet websites as responsible for the false information – they are not only harming their own reputation, they are also damaging consumer trust in veterinarians in general. That is truly unfortunate.

And then we have a new article from several veterinarians that appear to be suffering with a serious case of raw pet food phobia. Published on Insider.com, is the recent article “Feeding your dog a raw food diet could be harmful and even life-threatening, according to vets“. Assuming it is meant to validate the information (misinformation)- this article also makes the claim it was “medically reviewed” by another veterinarian. As it turns out, these veterinarians twist the facts to suit their message.

Under the headline “Is a raw pet food diet safe?” we find this incorrect statement “Compared to cooked diets, raw diets are more likely to be contaminated with bacteria like Salmonella and E. coli, which can make your dog seriously ill. But even if your dog doesn’t get sick, your pup could shed bacteria into your household, which could then get picked up by another pet or human.”

The accurate facts are: based on FDA Enforcement Reports, (and not including the recent Salmonella recall from Midwestern Pet Food) – almost 150 million pounds of kibble has been recalled for containing a pathogenic bacteria like Salmonella since 2012 when in the same time frame a little more than 2 million pounds of raw pet food has been recalled for the same cause. One hundred fifty million pounds to two million pounds…it’s not even close, kibble is much “more likely to be contaminated with bacteria” and kibble is more of a risk to sicken at risk individuals.

And the actual risk of a pet shedding bacteria? Quoting the study “Multilaboratory Survey To Evaluate Salmonella Prevalence in Diarrheic and Nondiarrheic Dogs and Cats in the United States between 2012 and 2014“: “Fecal samples (2,965) solicited from 11 geographically dispersed veterinary testing laboratories were collected in 36 states between January 2012 and April 2014. The overall study prevalence of Salmonella in cats (3 of 542) was <1%. The prevalence in dogs (60 of 2,422) was 2.5%.” In other words, the risk of pets shedding a bacteria infecting someone in your household is minimal – nothing similar to “life-threatening”, what the veterinarians in the article are trying to tell pet owners.

There ARE dangerous raw pet foods being sold to consumers, from companies the FDA allows to source ingredients from diseased animals and non-slaughtered animals. But, there ARE ALSO dangerous cooked pet foods being sold to consumers from companies sourcing the same inferior ingredients. It is discouraging to see veterinarians twist the facts to mislead pet owners away from a style of pet food. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but to publicly claim a style of pet food is “life-threatening” based on carefully excluded well known (and readily available) facts is reckless. (Perhaps quality raw pet food manufacturers should consider a slander lawsuit.) And it furthers the divide between pet owners and their veterinarians – benefiting no one.

Personal Opinion: The determining issue for me to trust the words of a veterinarian who publishes a post or a paper is this: does the veterinarian speak out against illegal waste ingredients in pet food allowed by FDA or does the veterinarian ignore this concerning issue of pet food? If the veterinarian ignores the problem, they become part of the problem and their words are meaningless to me.

It is beyond my comprehension how a veterinarian (including the veterinarians at FDA) can endorse allowing a pet to consume diseased and non-slaughtered animal material. These types of pet food ingredients are waste, and are not safe for pets to consume raw or cooked. I do not understand how any veterinarian believes it is safe for pet owners to bring these products into homes, sometimes storing illegal ingredient pet foods in the refrigerator next to their own foods.

My respect goes to veterinarians that stand up for not only what is right for animals, but for their owners too. These are the veterinarians that I listen to and take advice from.

One thing is for certain, misinformation is common about the pet food industry. The biggest cause of the misinformation is not solely due to some veterinarians or some websites – the biggest cause for all the misinformation is due to the lack of opportunity to fact check claims in pet food. Pet owners and veterinarians are denied public access to regulations, even the pet food industry itself is denied public access to the regulations that govern them.

Through an agreement with FDA, AAFCO owns and sells for profit the labeling laws of pet food, the nutritional requirements of pet food, and the legal definitions of pet food ingredients. Any pet owner or veterinarian that would want to fact check – as example, the definitions of by-products, IF they actually do not permit hooves, hair and feathers as Dr. Sanderson stated in her paper – that pet owner or veterinarian would need to purchase the AAFCO book of regulations (Official Publication) at a cost of $120.00 a year. Because most pet owners and veterinarians do not purchase the AAFCO book, they could easily be swayed into believing what a veterinarian or website told them.

Pet food regulatory meetings are pay to attend which as well prevents many pet owners and veterinarians from participating in the regulatory process and understanding how the process works.

In other words, the regulatory system of pet food encourages misinformation and discourages transparency. The result – tremendous amounts of false and misleading pet food information that benefits no one.

The FDA should withdraw their agreement with AAFCO, all pet food legal requirements should be published in the Federal Register just as human food requirements are, and all meetings should be free to attend, open to the public. Then and only then could we slow down the misinformation.

Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,

Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food

Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.

What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients?  Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com

Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here

The 2021 List
Susan’s List of pet foods trusted to give her own pets. Click Here to learn more.

[ad_2]

Source link

You May Also Like

Choosing The Dog Who’s Right For You

Kar-Bay-Inc

And the Latest (Worst) Animal Feed Ingredient Is… – Truth about Pet Food

Kar-Bay-Inc 3

Is It Safe? What’s The Recommended Dosage?

Kar-Bay-Inc

726 thoughts on “If Vets are Going to Bash Pet Owners and Their Choices… – Truth about Pet Food”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.