PetFoodIndustry.com, the on-line magazine for pet food professionals recently reported under the headline “Pet Food goes to Hollywood” of the latest celebrities getting in line to endorse pet products. The article actually more or less was written for pet food manufacturers as it asked “Could yours be next?” But this is not what I want to discuss here and today. I plan on taking this comment in a little different direction.
As the publication states, “For years, professional athletes, famous actors and musicians have been the traditional favorites to feature in advertisements. As the ad market continues to grow and competition becomes fiercer, marketers have turned to new categories of celebrity spokespersons. A champion racehorse sells pet food in Great Britain. New categories for celebrity endorsers are opening every day as the reach of the media moves closer to home.
One well-used approach at differentiating advertisements is the use of celebrity endorsements. Celebrities are seen as dynamic individuals with likable and attractive qualities. The words and often just the image of a popular person will cause many people to stop and pay attention.”
As advice to pet food manufacturers it recommends: “Linking your pet food brand sales to famous personalities can be heavenly or hellish. The question is: Is it worth the gamble? Marketers have long sought to distract and attract the attention of potential customers who live in a world of ever increasing commercial bombardment. Because of the constant media saturation that most people experience daily, they eventually become numb to standard advertising. The challenge of the advertiser is to find a hook.”
The magazine then gets into the latest scoop of 4 celebrities joining the trend:
“Popular television host and home cooking chef Rachael Ray has launched her own dog food brand named Rachael Ray Nutrish, from Dad's Pet Care Inc., and was our December 2008 cover girl. Ray says her latest venture was inspired by her own dog, Isaboo, and proceeds are to be donated to Rachael's Rescue, an organization the food star founded to help at-risk animals find adoptive homes.
According to Ray's website, Rachael Ray Nutrish includes two varieties of all natural dog food featuring real meat as the first ingredient, Real Chicken & Veggies and Real Beef & Brown Rice. There are no by-products, fillers, artificial flavors or preservatives, the website says; and each recipe contains antioxidant nutrients like vitamin E and selenium to support a healthy immune system; a fiber blend including oatmeal for easy digestion; omega fatty acids, with a dash of EVOO (extra virgin olive oil) to support healthy skin and a shiny coat; high quality proteins to support healthy organs and lean muscle mass; and calcium for strong bones and healthy teeth.
Cesar Milan, well-known dog behavior specialist and star of National Geographic Channel's Dog Whisperer with Cesar Milan, has partnered with Petco to brand "Dog Whisperer" merchandise for dogs, including organic dog food, treats and other products and accessories. Among the products in the line are organic canned and dry dog food, treats, fortified water, liquid supplements, collars and leashes, toys, grooming products, training pads, stain and odor removers, beds, bowls and an instructional series of DVDs. The line is expected to include more than 100 products. Additionally, Petco.com will offer access to an exclusive online dog coaching course personally designed and developed by Millan to instruct owners on raising a happy, healthy and well balanced dog.
Halo, Purely For Pets announced in 2008 that talk show host and comedienne Ellen DeGeneres has become an owner of the 20-year-old all-natural petfood company. The announcement came as Halo was expanding its product line and retail presence for its line of petfood and pet care products in the US market. The company has expanded distribution with major retail chains such as Whole Foods and Petco, as well as independent pet specialty and natural outlets. The expansion was designed to extend Halo's lineup of all natural petfood and holistic pet care products, according to the company. Halo has also overhauled its famous recipe for its flagship Spot's Stew, adding more protein and new flavors. Tests prove even the finickiest cats like it over leading brands, claims the petfood company. A new product, Halo's Spots Stew Pate, has increased protein levels and is finely ground to satisfy cats who hate too much texture in their food.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. (MSLO) announced in March the launch of a multiplatform pets initiative with www.marthastewart.com/pets as a cornerstone of the program. The website provides fresh ideas and information related to pet care and the joys of animal companionship, including a blog from the perspective of Martha's French Bulldogs, Francesca and Sharkey, called "The Daily Wag".
The primary sponsor for the new website is Nestlé Purina PetCare and its super premium pet food brand Purina ONE. According to MRI, the Martha Stewart audience includes 9.7 million dog and cat owners who share their home with a collective 21.7 million dogs and cats; they purchase more than 200 million pounds of pet food each month.
Stewart had this to say: "I have been passionate about pets all my life and over the years have been fortunate to share my home with many dogs, cats and canaries. I understand why people consider their pets to be members of their family and am delighted to be offering a website, television programming and other content that celebrate that special relationship and help consumers to better care for and enjoy their pets."
Nestlé Purina and Purina ONE will be featured on the new website through proprietary content, a link to Purina ONE's website—www.purinaone.com—and through online advertisements. As part of its multimillion dollar agreement with MSLO, Nestlé Purina and Purina ONE also will be the subject of two special segments on upcoming episodes of The Martha Stewart Show. Stewart recently visited the St. Louis, Missouri, USA, headquarters of Nestlé Purina to film one of the segments.”
So here you have it. Packaged Facts in my comment “Pet food recall: Have a disaster supercharge pet food sales” concluded that part of the latest revenue increases in the pet food industry had to do with “Celebrity branding is also becoming a bigger factor in the pet food category, with Ellen DeGeneres, Cesar Millan and Rachael Ray entering the market last year.”
My question is now, would and will you purchase pet nutrition just because it is endorsed by a Hollywood celebrity?
I would like to hope that you tell me “not really or definitely only after I have analyzed the products in further detail and came to the conclusion that I am doing the right thing for my pet”.
In nearest future I am going to take a closer look at some of these products and will share with you my conclusion whether or not they are worth the hype. Quite a long while ago, right when it happened, I recall taking a brief and first shot at Rachael’s food. I also remember throwing in a few comment lines here and there about celebrity endorsed pet nutrition, unfortunately not always too favorable. I am going to revisit this again, maybe things have changed. I am doubtful though and do have my own opinion when I hear about Martha’s sponsor. The bottom line is simple. As I had mentioned in “And just when did Rachael become a pet food expert?”, “Because, Ellen, let me tell you: Making it look good on the outside seems to be all what counts to the masses of super market shopping pet owners.”
Credit where credit is due, if the product is a healthy and good product, then it should be sold in great numbers. If a celebrity can help this cause and improve on it’s success, then go for it. But as I asked in the past of the star of home cooking: “Rachael: Just promise us one thing: Make sure it’s all healthy and good for our pets. I hate to see this turning into just another marketing gimmick. We got plenty of these in the pet food industry already. I plead: Don’t earn your bucks at the expense of our pets' well being.”
Because one statement made by PetFoodIndustry.com bothers me quite a bit and that is “Marketers have long sought to distract ….. the attention of potential customers who live in a world of ever increasing commercial bombardment” Sure, it relates to the rest of the marketing, the non celebrity enhanced one. But does it really only refer to the marketing or is there more behind it, like distract from the quality of the product?
Stay tuned for part 2 with a closer look at the products mentioned above.
Showing posts with label pet food marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pet food marketing. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Another David vs. Goliath Battle: Now about Pet Food Marketing
Remember my comment dated back the beginning of February this year “David vs. Goliath in 2009 - Let the battle commence: Nestle/Purina vs. the Natural pet food industry (Featuring: Wysong as "David")” and a follow-up comment written on 04/03/09 “Purina vs. Natural Pet Food Industry. It’s all about what? Probiotics? “? No big deal if you don’t, you always can refresh your memory by clicking the links. There is actually no news to report on that subject, I guess the lawyers are diligently working the deal and hopefully get it straightened out before too much money is being thrown out the window and Wysong pet food prices have to go up to cover the additional and unnecessary expense. But while all this has been going on, it appears as if there was another similar battle developing in another corner of the pet food industry. This one is between Hills Science Diet and Blue Buffalo. Susan Thixton of the TruthaboutPetFood.com reported on her site and in her newsletter earlier today on this development
.
Apparently Pet Food giant Hill’s Science Diet has filed a complaint against Blue Buffalo with the BBB (Better Business Bureau) National Advertising Division (NAD). The Science Diet NAD complaint challenges several advertising methods utilized by Blue Buffalo Pet Foods.
Well, whatever it is, we are getting into more details in a second, it must have left a great impression on Susan. She, who usually does not appear to be afraid of anybody and anything (visit her site for her constant ongoing efforts for better pet food regulations taking it all the way up into our government), before she even starts writing her comment, publishes the following disclaimer:
“This article does NOT imply any pet foods discussed are high in quality or inferior in quality. The intent of this article is simply to report on the misgivings of regulations that govern pet foods in the United States.”
After reading this I was thinking that maybe I myself should keep my mouth a little more controlled and be careful with what I am saying in my comments. I know I, or better, our on-line store couldn’t afford having to get involved in a legal dispute with one of the big guns. But then again, sometimes I can’t help it but to scream loud about the misery existing in this industry. And then again, I am not the only one who notices the problems. There have been many experts long before I came along sharing my opinion (or did I share theirs?) And as you all know, it is one of my missions: To educate pet owners so they can make educated decisions when it comes to pet nutrition. So much for freedom of speech, I guess if you dish out you have to be prepared to take the heat.
But let’s come back to the actual topic here. To me the story is highly interesting for various reasons. First the fact that another Goliath is attacking a David in itself to me indicates that the Goliaths out there do take the Davids very serious and are at least to some degree concerned about not just their existence but also their increasingly well doing in the business. And it appears as if they think throwing in some road blocks may change things. Secondly I am interested in what is going on with Blue Buffalo because it is one of the brands I see as fitting the philosophy of our on-line store and offering an outstanding product line. We do not offer this brand in our store yet, emphasizing “yet”. And third, it also shows very clearly that there are problems with the existing rules and regulations, otherwise the entire issue wouldn’t even be one.
Susan, at least on the last point feels the same way. She writes:
“In July 2008, Hill’s Science Diet (third largest pet food producer in the world, owned by Proctor & Gamble), filed a challenge with the NAD against Blue Buffalo Pet Food. The NAD’s mission is “to review national advertising for truthfulness and accuracy”. “Policy and procedures for NAD are established by the National Advertising Review Council (NARC).” No agreement could be made between NAD, Science Diet, and Blue Buffalo; the advertising challenge has been referred to “the appropriate government agency” for possible law enforcement action” (The Federal Trade Commission).
As many pet owners are aware, pet food advertising is not known for its ‘truthfulness and accuracy’. AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) regulations allow dog food and cat food labels to “include an unqualified claim, directly or indirectly” (PF7a). Thus an advertising challenge from one pet food manufacturer against another, seems difficult at best to prove and quite the oxymoron (a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms). The Pet Food pot calling the Pet Food kettle black.
Science Diet Pet Food had several ‘beefs’ about Blue Buffalo’s advertising. The he said/she said banter between these two pet food makers is lengthy in documents provided to TruthaboutPetFood.com by the NAD.
The biggest issue challenged by Science Diet was Blue Buffalo’s claim of “No Animal By-Products” in their dog foods and cat foods. “The challenger (Science Diet) took issue with the advertiser’s express claims that none of its pet foods contain animal by-products. It also took issue with the implied claim that BLUE pet foods are healthier for pets than competitive foods that contain by-products.”
Here begins the mass confusion thanks to AAFCO ingredient definitions. AAFCO defines ‘meat’ to be exclusive of any animal material resembling by-products. However, AAFCO’s definition of ‘meat meal’ (such as ‘fish meal’, or ‘lamb meal’) allows any animal part to be included except ‘hair, hoof, horn, hide, manure, and stomach’. One more definition to add to the confusion is ‘poultry meal’ (such as ‘chicken meal’ or ‘turkey meal’); ‘poultry meal’ unlike ‘fish meal’ or ‘lamb meal’, cannot include animal intestines, poultry heads or feet. The term ‘meal’ implies, according to AAFCO regulations, the moisture is removed from the ‘meat’ prior to manufacturing of the pet food. Pet owners would think that a ‘meat meal’ is what AAFCO defines as ‘meat’ with the moisture removed; such is not the case.
In an attempt to explain this confusing ingredient definition mess…’meat’ is nothing similar to by-products, a ‘meat’ meal such as ‘fish meal’ or ‘lamb meal’ can include intestines which anyone in their right mind would consider a by-product, but another type of ‘meat’ meal such as ‘chicken meal’ or ‘turkey meal’ cannot include intestines but can include other internal organs that AAFCO defines as a by-product (liver as example).
Whew! Are you lost yet? Buckle your seat belt, it gets worse…
AAFCO defines ‘meat by-products’ (such as ‘chicken by-products’) to be completely exclusive of meat (“includes but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, stomach, intestines”). Despite by-products having their own definition, by-products can be (at the sole discretion of the pet food manufacturer and without the knowledge of the pet food purchaser) included in other safe sounding pet food ingredient names such as ‘fish meal’ and ‘chicken meal’.
One more twist…all of the above pet food ingredient definitions can come from animals rejected for use in human foods, again at the sole discretion of the pet food manufacturer. Each of the above AAFCO definitions includes “it shall be suitable for use in animal food”; any animal rejected for use in human foods, regardless of why, is ‘suitable for use in animal food’ per regulations. This does NOT mean that all pet foods that contain ‘meat’, or ‘meat meal’ ingredients includes animal intestines or is sourced from diseased, rejected for use in human food animals; it means that some do and some don’t. It also means that those pet foods that do use inferior sources of ‘meat’ and ‘meat meal’ ingredients, don’t have to tell you.
Back to the ‘challenge’ presented by Science Diet. Science Diet stated Blue Buffalo’s ‘no-animal by-products’ advertising is false and thus misleading. The NAD agreed. “NAD therefore recommended that the advertiser discontinue its ‘no animal by-products’ claims when made in reference to pet foods containing fish meal, lamb meal, and/or liver.”
The following statement is provided in the fine print of the Blue Buffalo website (http://www.bluebuff.com/contact.shtml): “In addition, all BLUE healthy canned dog foods contain NO animal by-product, artificial preservatives, corn, wheat or soy. As “by-products” are defined in The 2009 AAFCO Official Publication”
Another advertising ‘challenge’ presented by Science Diet regarding Blue Buffalo is the Blue statement “Because the leading pet foods did not meet our standards, we developed a two-part product that combined a nutrition kibble with our exclusive LifeSource Bits – active nutrients and antioxidants ‘cold formed’ to preserve their potency.” Science Diet claimed the Blue statement was implying Blue Buffalo Pet Foods are superior in nutrition than Science Diet Pet Foods.
The interesting aspect of this part of the ‘challenge’ begins with the following quote from the NAD report: “Although the claim does not explicitly state that Blue pet foods are more nutritious than competing brands, it is established NAD precedent that advertisers must not only substantiate their express claims but also those that are reasonably implied.”
While keeping in mind that Science Diet objected to Blue’s ‘superiority claim’, the Hill’s Science Diet website states the following as the home page title: “Superior Nutrition for the Quality of Life of your Pet.” I personally interpret this statement as Science Diet’s own ‘superiority claim’. Here are a few other claims from leading pet food brands that seem to be making similar superiority claims as Science Diet and Blue Buffalo...
Iams: “Iams is veterinarian recommended.”
Pedigree: “Really good food.”
Nutro: “Natural Super-Premium Dog & Cat Food.”
AAFCO regulations allow pet foods to make all types of ‘superiority claims’. Despite the NAD agreeing with Science Diet that Blue’s ‘superiority claim’ is not substantiated through clinical proof, this is one of countless in the pet food world. For one pet food manufacturer to challenge another pet food manufacturer on this particular issue, consider regulations allowing all to make "unqualified claims" seems…well…ridiculous.
Lastly, Science Diet challenged the Blue claim “Feed your pet like you feed your family”. The issue of concern is the implication of ‘human food’ quality; a big no, no in the pet food world. AAFCO regulations do NOT allow a pet food manufacturer to state the grade or quality of dog food or cat food ingredients. Just to be clear, AAFCO regulations ALLOW dog food and cat food labels to make “unqualified claims, directly or indirectly” yet do NOT ALLOW dog foods and cat food labels to state their use of human grade meats. These regulations, accepted by the FDA, keep pet owners completely in the dark as to the true quality of their pet’s food.
After closely looking at almost 1300 dog foods, cat foods, and pet treats, I can honestly say there are few to none that don’t market (advertise) to the pet lover’s instinct wishing to feed their dog or cat just like the rest of their family. All Pet food manufacturers are well aware of these human instincts and most openly advertise to this instinct.
Regardless of Science Diet’s challenge of Blue Buffalo’s advertising, pet owners continue to be misled by most pet foods advertising and label claims. AAFCO ingredient definitions would be laughable if the issue wasn’t so serious. Top that off with a government agency (the FDA) not enforcing Federal law where pet foods are concerned. In other words, pet owners are left defenseless.
Some pet foods use only the finest ingredients, the very same ingredients you WOULD feed to any member of your family. The pet food that I provide my gang, uses only human grade chicken breast in its chicken meal (no bone, no skin, no by-products, only breast meat), yet they are NOT allowed to tell customers this on their label or in their advertising. Another pet food can imply all types of unqualified health claims on their labels, when they use intestines and diseased chickens in their chicken meal. It doesn’t seem fair does it?
This isn’t quality of potting soil or house paint, this is quality of nutrition that is supposed to enhance the lives of our furry family; family that solely depends on us to provide them with quality nutrition.
Truth in pet food labeling and advertising doesn’t exist. Existing regulations do not require it.
Our pets on the other hand, do tell us the truth. Recently a pet owner shared with me her experience of changing pet foods (from a well known pet food brand to a lesser known brand that uses human grade meats – but can’t advertise they do). As recommended, she slowly introduced the new dog food and cat food; mixing only a partial amount of new food in with the old food. Her cat “ate around” the old food, eating only the new food. Her dog politely spit out every kibble of old food all over the kitchen floor, eating only the new food. When this ‘mom’ followed instructions and did not provide her dog and cat more of the new food for this meal, both animals refused to eat the old food and thus had only a small portion of their regular meal – all new food.
This dog and cat get my vote as President of AAFCO and Director of Pet Food Safety at the FDA. If they were in charge, things would be different.”
Thank you Susan, well done. If anybody thought Wysong’s probiotics story was a complicated one, this one is not less complicated and it is not even scientific. I for my part wish Hills would leave Blue Buffalo alone and let them concentrate on continuing what they are doing best: Making great pet food. It also could be beneficial for Hills to look into the option of making better foods. At the end, it only would benefit our companion animals and what is wrong with that?
To me it’s all a waste of time and money, money which could be spend in much better ways all day long. Let’s hope, with this being the second battle now going on that we are not at the brink of pet food world war.
Please visit Susan’s website to learn more about her opinions and work, her endless efforts on behalf of our pets for better and stricter regulations and also for her greatest accomplishment, the enormous and really eye opening pet food review database “TruthaboutPetFood.com”.
.
Apparently Pet Food giant Hill’s Science Diet has filed a complaint against Blue Buffalo with the BBB (Better Business Bureau) National Advertising Division (NAD). The Science Diet NAD complaint challenges several advertising methods utilized by Blue Buffalo Pet Foods.
Well, whatever it is, we are getting into more details in a second, it must have left a great impression on Susan. She, who usually does not appear to be afraid of anybody and anything (visit her site for her constant ongoing efforts for better pet food regulations taking it all the way up into our government), before she even starts writing her comment, publishes the following disclaimer:
“This article does NOT imply any pet foods discussed are high in quality or inferior in quality. The intent of this article is simply to report on the misgivings of regulations that govern pet foods in the United States.”
After reading this I was thinking that maybe I myself should keep my mouth a little more controlled and be careful with what I am saying in my comments. I know I, or better, our on-line store couldn’t afford having to get involved in a legal dispute with one of the big guns. But then again, sometimes I can’t help it but to scream loud about the misery existing in this industry. And then again, I am not the only one who notices the problems. There have been many experts long before I came along sharing my opinion (or did I share theirs?) And as you all know, it is one of my missions: To educate pet owners so they can make educated decisions when it comes to pet nutrition. So much for freedom of speech, I guess if you dish out you have to be prepared to take the heat.
But let’s come back to the actual topic here. To me the story is highly interesting for various reasons. First the fact that another Goliath is attacking a David in itself to me indicates that the Goliaths out there do take the Davids very serious and are at least to some degree concerned about not just their existence but also their increasingly well doing in the business. And it appears as if they think throwing in some road blocks may change things. Secondly I am interested in what is going on with Blue Buffalo because it is one of the brands I see as fitting the philosophy of our on-line store and offering an outstanding product line. We do not offer this brand in our store yet, emphasizing “yet”. And third, it also shows very clearly that there are problems with the existing rules and regulations, otherwise the entire issue wouldn’t even be one.
Susan, at least on the last point feels the same way. She writes:
“In July 2008, Hill’s Science Diet (third largest pet food producer in the world, owned by Proctor & Gamble), filed a challenge with the NAD against Blue Buffalo Pet Food. The NAD’s mission is “to review national advertising for truthfulness and accuracy”. “Policy and procedures for NAD are established by the National Advertising Review Council (NARC).” No agreement could be made between NAD, Science Diet, and Blue Buffalo; the advertising challenge has been referred to “the appropriate government agency” for possible law enforcement action” (The Federal Trade Commission).
As many pet owners are aware, pet food advertising is not known for its ‘truthfulness and accuracy’. AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) regulations allow dog food and cat food labels to “include an unqualified claim, directly or indirectly” (PF7a). Thus an advertising challenge from one pet food manufacturer against another, seems difficult at best to prove and quite the oxymoron (a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms). The Pet Food pot calling the Pet Food kettle black.
Science Diet Pet Food had several ‘beefs’ about Blue Buffalo’s advertising. The he said/she said banter between these two pet food makers is lengthy in documents provided to TruthaboutPetFood.com by the NAD.
The biggest issue challenged by Science Diet was Blue Buffalo’s claim of “No Animal By-Products” in their dog foods and cat foods. “The challenger (Science Diet) took issue with the advertiser’s express claims that none of its pet foods contain animal by-products. It also took issue with the implied claim that BLUE pet foods are healthier for pets than competitive foods that contain by-products.”
Here begins the mass confusion thanks to AAFCO ingredient definitions. AAFCO defines ‘meat’ to be exclusive of any animal material resembling by-products. However, AAFCO’s definition of ‘meat meal’ (such as ‘fish meal’, or ‘lamb meal’) allows any animal part to be included except ‘hair, hoof, horn, hide, manure, and stomach’. One more definition to add to the confusion is ‘poultry meal’ (such as ‘chicken meal’ or ‘turkey meal’); ‘poultry meal’ unlike ‘fish meal’ or ‘lamb meal’, cannot include animal intestines, poultry heads or feet. The term ‘meal’ implies, according to AAFCO regulations, the moisture is removed from the ‘meat’ prior to manufacturing of the pet food. Pet owners would think that a ‘meat meal’ is what AAFCO defines as ‘meat’ with the moisture removed; such is not the case.
In an attempt to explain this confusing ingredient definition mess…’meat’ is nothing similar to by-products, a ‘meat’ meal such as ‘fish meal’ or ‘lamb meal’ can include intestines which anyone in their right mind would consider a by-product, but another type of ‘meat’ meal such as ‘chicken meal’ or ‘turkey meal’ cannot include intestines but can include other internal organs that AAFCO defines as a by-product (liver as example).
Whew! Are you lost yet? Buckle your seat belt, it gets worse…
AAFCO defines ‘meat by-products’ (such as ‘chicken by-products’) to be completely exclusive of meat (“includes but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, stomach, intestines”). Despite by-products having their own definition, by-products can be (at the sole discretion of the pet food manufacturer and without the knowledge of the pet food purchaser) included in other safe sounding pet food ingredient names such as ‘fish meal’ and ‘chicken meal’.
One more twist…all of the above pet food ingredient definitions can come from animals rejected for use in human foods, again at the sole discretion of the pet food manufacturer. Each of the above AAFCO definitions includes “it shall be suitable for use in animal food”; any animal rejected for use in human foods, regardless of why, is ‘suitable for use in animal food’ per regulations. This does NOT mean that all pet foods that contain ‘meat’, or ‘meat meal’ ingredients includes animal intestines or is sourced from diseased, rejected for use in human food animals; it means that some do and some don’t. It also means that those pet foods that do use inferior sources of ‘meat’ and ‘meat meal’ ingredients, don’t have to tell you.
Back to the ‘challenge’ presented by Science Diet. Science Diet stated Blue Buffalo’s ‘no-animal by-products’ advertising is false and thus misleading. The NAD agreed. “NAD therefore recommended that the advertiser discontinue its ‘no animal by-products’ claims when made in reference to pet foods containing fish meal, lamb meal, and/or liver.”
The following statement is provided in the fine print of the Blue Buffalo website (http://www.bluebuff.com/contact.shtml): “In addition, all BLUE healthy canned dog foods contain NO animal by-product, artificial preservatives, corn, wheat or soy. As “by-products” are defined in The 2009 AAFCO Official Publication”
Another advertising ‘challenge’ presented by Science Diet regarding Blue Buffalo is the Blue statement “Because the leading pet foods did not meet our standards, we developed a two-part product that combined a nutrition kibble with our exclusive LifeSource Bits – active nutrients and antioxidants ‘cold formed’ to preserve their potency.” Science Diet claimed the Blue statement was implying Blue Buffalo Pet Foods are superior in nutrition than Science Diet Pet Foods.
The interesting aspect of this part of the ‘challenge’ begins with the following quote from the NAD report: “Although the claim does not explicitly state that Blue pet foods are more nutritious than competing brands, it is established NAD precedent that advertisers must not only substantiate their express claims but also those that are reasonably implied.”
While keeping in mind that Science Diet objected to Blue’s ‘superiority claim’, the Hill’s Science Diet website states the following as the home page title: “Superior Nutrition for the Quality of Life of your Pet.” I personally interpret this statement as Science Diet’s own ‘superiority claim’. Here are a few other claims from leading pet food brands that seem to be making similar superiority claims as Science Diet and Blue Buffalo...
Iams: “Iams is veterinarian recommended.”
Pedigree: “Really good food.”
Nutro: “Natural Super-Premium Dog & Cat Food.”
AAFCO regulations allow pet foods to make all types of ‘superiority claims’. Despite the NAD agreeing with Science Diet that Blue’s ‘superiority claim’ is not substantiated through clinical proof, this is one of countless in the pet food world. For one pet food manufacturer to challenge another pet food manufacturer on this particular issue, consider regulations allowing all to make "unqualified claims" seems…well…ridiculous.
Lastly, Science Diet challenged the Blue claim “Feed your pet like you feed your family”. The issue of concern is the implication of ‘human food’ quality; a big no, no in the pet food world. AAFCO regulations do NOT allow a pet food manufacturer to state the grade or quality of dog food or cat food ingredients. Just to be clear, AAFCO regulations ALLOW dog food and cat food labels to make “unqualified claims, directly or indirectly” yet do NOT ALLOW dog foods and cat food labels to state their use of human grade meats. These regulations, accepted by the FDA, keep pet owners completely in the dark as to the true quality of their pet’s food.
After closely looking at almost 1300 dog foods, cat foods, and pet treats, I can honestly say there are few to none that don’t market (advertise) to the pet lover’s instinct wishing to feed their dog or cat just like the rest of their family. All Pet food manufacturers are well aware of these human instincts and most openly advertise to this instinct.
Regardless of Science Diet’s challenge of Blue Buffalo’s advertising, pet owners continue to be misled by most pet foods advertising and label claims. AAFCO ingredient definitions would be laughable if the issue wasn’t so serious. Top that off with a government agency (the FDA) not enforcing Federal law where pet foods are concerned. In other words, pet owners are left defenseless.
Some pet foods use only the finest ingredients, the very same ingredients you WOULD feed to any member of your family. The pet food that I provide my gang, uses only human grade chicken breast in its chicken meal (no bone, no skin, no by-products, only breast meat), yet they are NOT allowed to tell customers this on their label or in their advertising. Another pet food can imply all types of unqualified health claims on their labels, when they use intestines and diseased chickens in their chicken meal. It doesn’t seem fair does it?
This isn’t quality of potting soil or house paint, this is quality of nutrition that is supposed to enhance the lives of our furry family; family that solely depends on us to provide them with quality nutrition.
Truth in pet food labeling and advertising doesn’t exist. Existing regulations do not require it.
Our pets on the other hand, do tell us the truth. Recently a pet owner shared with me her experience of changing pet foods (from a well known pet food brand to a lesser known brand that uses human grade meats – but can’t advertise they do). As recommended, she slowly introduced the new dog food and cat food; mixing only a partial amount of new food in with the old food. Her cat “ate around” the old food, eating only the new food. Her dog politely spit out every kibble of old food all over the kitchen floor, eating only the new food. When this ‘mom’ followed instructions and did not provide her dog and cat more of the new food for this meal, both animals refused to eat the old food and thus had only a small portion of their regular meal – all new food.
This dog and cat get my vote as President of AAFCO and Director of Pet Food Safety at the FDA. If they were in charge, things would be different.”
Thank you Susan, well done. If anybody thought Wysong’s probiotics story was a complicated one, this one is not less complicated and it is not even scientific. I for my part wish Hills would leave Blue Buffalo alone and let them concentrate on continuing what they are doing best: Making great pet food. It also could be beneficial for Hills to look into the option of making better foods. At the end, it only would benefit our companion animals and what is wrong with that?
To me it’s all a waste of time and money, money which could be spend in much better ways all day long. Let’s hope, with this being the second battle now going on that we are not at the brink of pet food world war.
Please visit Susan’s website to learn more about her opinions and work, her endless efforts on behalf of our pets for better and stricter regulations and also for her greatest accomplishment, the enormous and really eye opening pet food review database “TruthaboutPetFood.com”.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Raw Pet Food Deceptions Exposed
The correct and healthy archetypal diet for pets is foods they are genetically adapted to. For carnivores, that would predominantly consist of raw prey. The logic and evidence for this is unassailable and Wysong has been teaching this for the past thirty years. As public awareness of this important concept grows, marketers and producers see a profit opportunity in the competitive edge this concept could bring. But stuck with manufacturing facilities designed to cook pet foods, what are they to do? I asked Dr. Randy Wysong, DVM and founder, owner and CEO of Wysong, here’s his response:
“Where substance does not work, clever words might. So brochures, labels and product names are crafted in such a way as to lead consumers to believe they are getting raw dog and cat products when in fact they are not. Sadly, these deceptive practices mislead consumers away from the true health benefits that raw diets can bring to their companion animals.
It is important to understand that all conventional dry pet foods are either extruded or baked. Baking, though it may sound innocuous, is just like what is done in an oven at home. Extruding squeezes ingredients through a long tube with a screw under hundreds of pounds of pressure and at temperatures above 300 degrees. Canning (retorting) also requires high temperatures. Finally there is freeze-drying that takes frozen foods directly to a dried state. In order to speed this difficult process along, most freeze-dry pet food processors heat the food and apply vacuum. All such cooking methods are done in order to create sterile products that can safely be held in packaging for months and years without risk of conferring illness or even death from food-borne pathogens and toxins.
How then, using these methods, is a manufacturer going to create a raw processed pet food to satisfy an alert consumer’s desire for convenient raw meat-based foods? It can’t be done with the above methods. Cooking negates raw.
Two options remain for consumers, feed raw foods from the grocery or feed Wysong True Non Thermal (TNT) raw cat and dog foods.* The Wysong TNT process can only be done in relatively small batches, requires extremely expensive equipment, is very labor intensive, and requires days to complete if the pet product is never raised above approximate body temperature ……… To get around the problem of having to renovate manufacturing and revert to very slow and labor intensive methods, manufacturers leave things as they are and simply get creative with words. Words are cheap, building innovative new manufacturing plants is not.
For example, there is a wave of “grain-free” products on the market. The idea here is to lead consumers to believe the problem with cooked foods is the grains. So the grains are removed and replaced with other starches such as from rice, potato or tapioca. Then claims are made that the resulting products have all the merits of raw. The truth is that the foods are still extruded at hundreds of degrees. Grains, potatoes, rice and tapioca are all sources of starch, a long carbohydrate chain of sugars. Grains are added to extruded products because their starches (the dough) help create a formed nugget. Replacing the starch of grains with other starchy ingredients does not make a food raw or remove dough!
Another ploy is to dust an extruded product with some raw ingredients and then make claims of raw. For example some raw freeze-dried meat could be powdered and then dusted on the cooked nuggets. But if the end food is 99.999999999+% cooked, that hardly fills the bill for a raw pet food. To sort this out, look at the ingredient listing. Vitamins and minerals are usually at the tail end of the list because they are only needed in micro amounts. For example, vitamin B12 may only be at a level of one ten-millionth of an ounce in a normal meal of a pet food. Now then, if vitamin B12 is 25 ingredients down from the top of the list, and then the raw freeze dried meats are another 25 or so ingredients down from there, what can be concluded? The raw part of the food could be at billionths of an ounce, trillionths, or just a few molecules per twenty-ton truckload? Yet raw is the clarion cry about the merit of the food! (For example, see …..)
Here is how such an ingredient list looks:
INGREDIENTS(IN ORDER OF RELATIVE AMOUNTS):
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 22,23,24 (at one ten-millionths of an ounce per feeding), 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44, 45,46,47,48 (a raw particle dusted on the outside)
Rather than pay the exorbitant prices for such diets, consumers could buy a cheap generic food and touch a couple of the kibbles with their fingers and get about as much raw protein from their fingerprint (less than one-ten millionth of an ounce) on the food as is evidently present.
The "no-grain" tactic always seems to be a sure winner. Consumers assume the “no” part is bad and that the food that has no something must have a good something instead. In this case, having no grain is meant to imply the food has all the merits of a raw pet diet. Allusions to the “science” that is used to make such products are usually made in an attempt to convince people that cooked is the same thing as raw. Saying something that is cooked is raw is not science, it is science from another dimension! Black is not white, left is not right, up is not down, cooked is not raw.
Further, if these dried and canned foods even hint at being truly raw, dangerous pathogenic organisms such as Clostridium botulinum with its lethal exotoxin could lurk within. Such organisms can flourish in high moisture dried and canned foods if they are not cooked to sterility in processing. (This does not apply to Wysong TNT pet foods because of their extremely low water activity [not the same as % moisture on a label], and other Wysong raw pet food safety precautions - see … and Other Raw Pet Food Safety Innovations at Wysong). In addition, if the foods are truly raw the FDA requires that handling guidelines for safe use be put on the label. If these instructions are not there and the consumer is being led to believe the product is in any way raw, then the product is being sold illegally. (This FDA requirement is on all new Wysong packaging, but not found on any of the cooked foods in the market implying that they are raw.)
The concept of feeding according to genetic context is the most important idea people can embrace if they are concerned about their pet’s health (and their own). With this understanding people are led to raw natural foods and away from the disease-producing mainstay of cooked sugars and starches. For producers to superficially take the words of this idea and run to market with it presenting cooked products containing starches as if they are raw and natural is a travesty and perversion of the healthful concept.
The deception is like the ad offering a sculpted bust of Abraham Lincoln, commissioned and manufactured by the U.S. government, made of certified pure copper alloy and delivered to your home by the U.S. government. Price is only $49.95. When, as promised, the U.S. postal service arrives, it delivers a small envelope. Inside is a penny. The only difference between this and the raw ruses is that here people are only out some money. The raw deception is robbing pets of a tremendous health opportunity.
Consumers should be up in arms, stores and distributors promoting the deception should be embarrassed and the government should be stepping in. Are we at Wysong disappointed? Most certainly. First off, the idea of raw is to bring health back to pets and spare them disease and suffering. It's not just an opportunity to profiteer. (And no, Wysong does not fall in that group because if people were to follow our instructions to a tee, no packaged products would need to be purchased - even Wysong’s.) When consumers submit to gullibility and believe producers will be honest with them there is a double tragedy. People are duped and pets suffer.
Additionally, while fake raw pet products are cheaply spit out of the end of extruders and retorters at tons per hour, we (Wysong) must carefully deep freeze meats (less than -20° F) over extended time to kill potential parasites, spend years developing natural preservatives to help make raw products safe from food-borne pathogens, create a natural antioxidant to preserve fragile fatty acids (such as omega-3’s), hand batch ingredients, install huge specially designed stainless steel machines to draw extremely high levels of vacuum to convert frozen products into shelf stable dry ones (at a rate of a few hundred pounds over several days, not tons per hour), tend these machines 24 hours a day, pay the high utility and maintenance bills to run large compressors and vacuum pumps, wait for days for a batch to be properly dried, and then hand package in oxygen - and light-barrier bags. These products are then sold below their cost (see explanation below) just to give people an affordable option and to educate them on the value of true real food. After all this, when we then tell consumers this is a proper option for raw food feeding, they say something like, “Thanks but we’re already feeding grain-free foods that are just like raw,” referring to the above mentioned pretender products.
Consumers must beware. Anyone can say anything. Walking the walk and building manufacturing facilities that actually produce a pet product that emulates the health-giving natural diet is quite another matter. That is why practically no one is doing it. Pet food producers who are promoting "no grains" as the solution to providing raw diets are merely substituting starches. Raw meats do not equal cooked potato, cooked tapioca, yams, plantains or any other cooked starch. (Neither do such diets qualify as low carb as is also promoted by companies. Starch is carbohydrate whether it is from corn, wheat, rice, potatoes or tapioca.) One must also wonder how producers who make claims about science, nutritionists, veterinary designed, and the like (as nearly all of them do), do not understand the most simple of nutritional and food concepts: cooked is not raw and starch is not no- or low-carbohydrate. They either do understand and are purposely misleading trusting consumers, or, even more unthinkable, they don’t understand.
To protect themselves, consumers must ask the skeptical and hard questions of producers to flush the truth out. Do not believe claims at face value. Be a thinking person. On the other hand, distributors, retailers and veterinarians have a special responsibility. Customers come to them expecting expertise and honesty. Such pet owners are not just buying the cheapest brand at the grocery but are seeking health and quality. Specialty retailers are always looking for a sales edge but they must not be too quick to latch on to the latest marketing gimmick. If that ‘edge’ turns out to be deception and incompetence nobody wins: The customer is not getting what they are paying for, pets are not getting health, and the specialty pet market jeopardizes their reputation and the credibility of their business. Merchandizing does not have to be deceptive. Customers need to be given what they want and need. They deserve the truth, not myths and scams.
The truth is simple. Humans are the only creatures on the planet that cook food. Does nature really have it all wrong? Not likely. Pets need their raw archetypal diet and a variety of honest foods. Some grains and starch in the diet here and there is perfectly fine, but just not meal after meal. Cooked oet foods are fine here and there too, but not day after day, or exclusively. The poorest quality starches are refined dehydrated starches used in pet foods such as from potato and tapioca since they can have almost no nutritional value. They can be fine as well, but not at every meal and certainly not as a substitute for raw.
Raw cat and dog food advantages go way beyond the absence of grains. Cooking, extruding, canning, baking, and freeze drying all create hundreds of changes to the natural food matrix including destroying many nutrients and turning components into dozens of toxins. That’s the issue, not no-grains, or low-carbs, or pretending to be just like raw. Pet owners need to learn how to feed fresh whole foods purchased at the grocery. They also deserve honest products designed and made by competent pet product producers (not marketers) that truly embrace health-first design and offer true non-thermal processing options. Such variety of truly healthy foods is what pets are designed for and the only way for them to achieve long-term optimal health.”
*Comment: …or other raw food products like any of the ones offered in our store for example
Note: Contribution by Dr. R.L.Wysong of Wysong Corporation.
“Where substance does not work, clever words might. So brochures, labels and product names are crafted in such a way as to lead consumers to believe they are getting raw dog and cat products when in fact they are not. Sadly, these deceptive practices mislead consumers away from the true health benefits that raw diets can bring to their companion animals.
It is important to understand that all conventional dry pet foods are either extruded or baked. Baking, though it may sound innocuous, is just like what is done in an oven at home. Extruding squeezes ingredients through a long tube with a screw under hundreds of pounds of pressure and at temperatures above 300 degrees. Canning (retorting) also requires high temperatures. Finally there is freeze-drying that takes frozen foods directly to a dried state. In order to speed this difficult process along, most freeze-dry pet food processors heat the food and apply vacuum. All such cooking methods are done in order to create sterile products that can safely be held in packaging for months and years without risk of conferring illness or even death from food-borne pathogens and toxins.
How then, using these methods, is a manufacturer going to create a raw processed pet food to satisfy an alert consumer’s desire for convenient raw meat-based foods? It can’t be done with the above methods. Cooking negates raw.
Two options remain for consumers, feed raw foods from the grocery or feed Wysong True Non Thermal (TNT) raw cat and dog foods.* The Wysong TNT process can only be done in relatively small batches, requires extremely expensive equipment, is very labor intensive, and requires days to complete if the pet product is never raised above approximate body temperature ……… To get around the problem of having to renovate manufacturing and revert to very slow and labor intensive methods, manufacturers leave things as they are and simply get creative with words. Words are cheap, building innovative new manufacturing plants is not.
For example, there is a wave of “grain-free” products on the market. The idea here is to lead consumers to believe the problem with cooked foods is the grains. So the grains are removed and replaced with other starches such as from rice, potato or tapioca. Then claims are made that the resulting products have all the merits of raw. The truth is that the foods are still extruded at hundreds of degrees. Grains, potatoes, rice and tapioca are all sources of starch, a long carbohydrate chain of sugars. Grains are added to extruded products because their starches (the dough) help create a formed nugget. Replacing the starch of grains with other starchy ingredients does not make a food raw or remove dough!
Another ploy is to dust an extruded product with some raw ingredients and then make claims of raw. For example some raw freeze-dried meat could be powdered and then dusted on the cooked nuggets. But if the end food is 99.999999999+% cooked, that hardly fills the bill for a raw pet food. To sort this out, look at the ingredient listing. Vitamins and minerals are usually at the tail end of the list because they are only needed in micro amounts. For example, vitamin B12 may only be at a level of one ten-millionth of an ounce in a normal meal of a pet food. Now then, if vitamin B12 is 25 ingredients down from the top of the list, and then the raw freeze dried meats are another 25 or so ingredients down from there, what can be concluded? The raw part of the food could be at billionths of an ounce, trillionths, or just a few molecules per twenty-ton truckload? Yet raw is the clarion cry about the merit of the food! (For example, see …..)
Here is how such an ingredient list looks:
INGREDIENTS(IN ORDER OF RELATIVE AMOUNTS):
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 22,23,24 (at one ten-millionths of an ounce per feeding), 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44, 45,46,47,48 (a raw particle dusted on the outside)
Rather than pay the exorbitant prices for such diets, consumers could buy a cheap generic food and touch a couple of the kibbles with their fingers and get about as much raw protein from their fingerprint (less than one-ten millionth of an ounce) on the food as is evidently present.
The "no-grain" tactic always seems to be a sure winner. Consumers assume the “no” part is bad and that the food that has no something must have a good something instead. In this case, having no grain is meant to imply the food has all the merits of a raw pet diet. Allusions to the “science” that is used to make such products are usually made in an attempt to convince people that cooked is the same thing as raw. Saying something that is cooked is raw is not science, it is science from another dimension! Black is not white, left is not right, up is not down, cooked is not raw.
Further, if these dried and canned foods even hint at being truly raw, dangerous pathogenic organisms such as Clostridium botulinum with its lethal exotoxin could lurk within. Such organisms can flourish in high moisture dried and canned foods if they are not cooked to sterility in processing. (This does not apply to Wysong TNT pet foods because of their extremely low water activity [not the same as % moisture on a label], and other Wysong raw pet food safety precautions - see … and Other Raw Pet Food Safety Innovations at Wysong). In addition, if the foods are truly raw the FDA requires that handling guidelines for safe use be put on the label. If these instructions are not there and the consumer is being led to believe the product is in any way raw, then the product is being sold illegally. (This FDA requirement is on all new Wysong packaging, but not found on any of the cooked foods in the market implying that they are raw.)
The concept of feeding according to genetic context is the most important idea people can embrace if they are concerned about their pet’s health (and their own). With this understanding people are led to raw natural foods and away from the disease-producing mainstay of cooked sugars and starches. For producers to superficially take the words of this idea and run to market with it presenting cooked products containing starches as if they are raw and natural is a travesty and perversion of the healthful concept.
The deception is like the ad offering a sculpted bust of Abraham Lincoln, commissioned and manufactured by the U.S. government, made of certified pure copper alloy and delivered to your home by the U.S. government. Price is only $49.95. When, as promised, the U.S. postal service arrives, it delivers a small envelope. Inside is a penny. The only difference between this and the raw ruses is that here people are only out some money. The raw deception is robbing pets of a tremendous health opportunity.
Consumers should be up in arms, stores and distributors promoting the deception should be embarrassed and the government should be stepping in. Are we at Wysong disappointed? Most certainly. First off, the idea of raw is to bring health back to pets and spare them disease and suffering. It's not just an opportunity to profiteer. (And no, Wysong does not fall in that group because if people were to follow our instructions to a tee, no packaged products would need to be purchased - even Wysong’s.) When consumers submit to gullibility and believe producers will be honest with them there is a double tragedy. People are duped and pets suffer.
Additionally, while fake raw pet products are cheaply spit out of the end of extruders and retorters at tons per hour, we (Wysong) must carefully deep freeze meats (less than -20° F) over extended time to kill potential parasites, spend years developing natural preservatives to help make raw products safe from food-borne pathogens, create a natural antioxidant to preserve fragile fatty acids (such as omega-3’s), hand batch ingredients, install huge specially designed stainless steel machines to draw extremely high levels of vacuum to convert frozen products into shelf stable dry ones (at a rate of a few hundred pounds over several days, not tons per hour), tend these machines 24 hours a day, pay the high utility and maintenance bills to run large compressors and vacuum pumps, wait for days for a batch to be properly dried, and then hand package in oxygen - and light-barrier bags. These products are then sold below their cost (see explanation below) just to give people an affordable option and to educate them on the value of true real food. After all this, when we then tell consumers this is a proper option for raw food feeding, they say something like, “Thanks but we’re already feeding grain-free foods that are just like raw,” referring to the above mentioned pretender products.
Consumers must beware. Anyone can say anything. Walking the walk and building manufacturing facilities that actually produce a pet product that emulates the health-giving natural diet is quite another matter. That is why practically no one is doing it. Pet food producers who are promoting "no grains" as the solution to providing raw diets are merely substituting starches. Raw meats do not equal cooked potato, cooked tapioca, yams, plantains or any other cooked starch. (Neither do such diets qualify as low carb as is also promoted by companies. Starch is carbohydrate whether it is from corn, wheat, rice, potatoes or tapioca.) One must also wonder how producers who make claims about science, nutritionists, veterinary designed, and the like (as nearly all of them do), do not understand the most simple of nutritional and food concepts: cooked is not raw and starch is not no- or low-carbohydrate. They either do understand and are purposely misleading trusting consumers, or, even more unthinkable, they don’t understand.
To protect themselves, consumers must ask the skeptical and hard questions of producers to flush the truth out. Do not believe claims at face value. Be a thinking person. On the other hand, distributors, retailers and veterinarians have a special responsibility. Customers come to them expecting expertise and honesty. Such pet owners are not just buying the cheapest brand at the grocery but are seeking health and quality. Specialty retailers are always looking for a sales edge but they must not be too quick to latch on to the latest marketing gimmick. If that ‘edge’ turns out to be deception and incompetence nobody wins: The customer is not getting what they are paying for, pets are not getting health, and the specialty pet market jeopardizes their reputation and the credibility of their business. Merchandizing does not have to be deceptive. Customers need to be given what they want and need. They deserve the truth, not myths and scams.
The truth is simple. Humans are the only creatures on the planet that cook food. Does nature really have it all wrong? Not likely. Pets need their raw archetypal diet and a variety of honest foods. Some grains and starch in the diet here and there is perfectly fine, but just not meal after meal. Cooked oet foods are fine here and there too, but not day after day, or exclusively. The poorest quality starches are refined dehydrated starches used in pet foods such as from potato and tapioca since they can have almost no nutritional value. They can be fine as well, but not at every meal and certainly not as a substitute for raw.
Raw cat and dog food advantages go way beyond the absence of grains. Cooking, extruding, canning, baking, and freeze drying all create hundreds of changes to the natural food matrix including destroying many nutrients and turning components into dozens of toxins. That’s the issue, not no-grains, or low-carbs, or pretending to be just like raw. Pet owners need to learn how to feed fresh whole foods purchased at the grocery. They also deserve honest products designed and made by competent pet product producers (not marketers) that truly embrace health-first design and offer true non-thermal processing options. Such variety of truly healthy foods is what pets are designed for and the only way for them to achieve long-term optimal health.”
*Comment: …or other raw food products like any of the ones offered in our store for example
Note: Contribution by Dr. R.L.Wysong of Wysong Corporation.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Pet food going wild: Understanding evolution and ancestral diets unlocks innovation
Petfood Industry.com, an on-line community for pet food professionals recently took a closer look at the industry’s latest trend towards going “wild” with it’s pet food. These days, every day you open a magazine you are assured to be confronted with an announcement of yet another manufacturer introducing his latest “wild” creation.
The on-line magazine believes that an improved understanding based on unbiased scientific research of evolution and canine and feline ancestral diets will unlock innovations. But why are pet food manufacturers touting "wild" ingredients? One manufacturer in his promotional materials sums it up this way: "Before dogs were domesticated, meat was their key source of nutrition. Inspired by a dog's heritage and nutritional needs, … was developed to nourish every dog as nature intended." Sounds good, but the science is not always clear as to what nature intended.
Unfortunately, an all to familiar problem within the industry, sometimes marketing gets ahead of the science. So it is once again the case on the concept of wild, ancestral pet foods. Let’s keep that in mind while we look at some of the wild pet food diets that are becoming more popular.
Making wild assertions, marketers of wild ingredient based pet food say they provide a diet rich in quality meat with high nutrient bioavailability, the way nature intended. Other claims include:
"We use a savory fresh protein from US Department of Agriculture inspected sources as the number one ingredient, and quality, low-ash chicken meal as the number two ingredient."
"It's a return to your dog's ancestral diet while recognizing its modern day lifestyle. We use only meat protein sources, healthy fruits and vegetables, no grains, fillers, by-products or artificial colors, flavors or preservatives."
In addition, the standard claims and disclaimers tend to apply: No grain, no by-products, roasted meat, fish and poultry, all natural, no artificial preservatives, colors or flavors, no corn, no wheat, no soy, no gluten, no fillers, chicory root for digestive support, antioxidants to protect cells, the ideal blend of omega fatty acids and chelated minerals.
For the most part, proponents of wild ingredient products believe the ideal diet is the pre-agricultural diet on which a species evolved. They say such diets contain the foods that best suit the species' digestive and metabolic systems and are least likely of all foods to cause an allergic reaction.
Here are some of a few manufacturer’s statements made in response to the on-line magazine’s inquiry:
An early example of wild petfood marketing is the Evolution Diet Pet Food Corp., which started in 1987. It's not typical of most wild petfoods in that the products are vegetarian. I remain confused, because I believe in the carnivore concept, but the company apparently insisted that it would be included in the magazine's article. Founder and CEO Eric Weisman says he founded the company after examining what went into conventional petfoods and deciding he wanted a "better alternative" for his own pets. His dogs and cats were having health issues he thought were related to the ingredients in conventional petfoods. Weisman worked with Darwin Brightsman, PhD, an animal nutritionist, to formulate Evolution Diet Pet Food products. At the time, Weisman was a physician in private practice using vitamin, botanical, nutraceutical and nutrition therapy for people. Weisman notes he is still using "state-of-the-art combinations" of vitamins, herbs and nutraceuticals developed to treat joint, vascular and other diseases in sick pets at the Evolution Diet Rescue facility, which he has operated in St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, since 1987.
Merrick, maker of Before Grain products, asserts that dogs and cats do better when fed grain free diets. This is, they say, what nature intended. The company says a diet based primarily on fresh meat, blue fruit, nutrient-dense vegetables and high-quality meat contributes to better health and longevity. Ingredients used include buffalo, beef, chicken, salmon, turkey and tripe. Merrick points out enthusiastically that Before Grain products contain acai, an Amazon palm berry, and blueberries. Freeze dried acai berries and blueberries are "carefully added to the kibble after the cooking process." Merrick contends these "super blue fruits" are high in antioxidants and anthocyanins.
"Years of domestication have turned pets from fierce predators to best friends," contends Taste of the Wild Pet Foods. "However, modern science proves that dogs and cats still share the DNA of the wolf or wild cat.
Taste of the Wild Brand Dog and Cat Food offers pets a diet dictated by genes. It allows pet owners to provide their pets the kind of natural, balanced diet that they could find in the wild."
Canidae All Natural Pet Foods offers grain-free formulas for dogs and cats. Most contain 80% protein and 20% fruits and vegetables, "designed to increase energy levels." The products contain no corn, wheat, soy, grain fractions, glutens or fillers, says the company.
Those who market wild-ingredient products believe the ideal diet is a pre-agricultural diet. This diet, they say, contains the foods that best suit digestive and metabolic systems and are least likely to cause an allergic reaction. It's an appealing idea, but the jury is still out.
The on-line magazine believes that an improved understanding based on unbiased scientific research of evolution and canine and feline ancestral diets will unlock innovations. But why are pet food manufacturers touting "wild" ingredients? One manufacturer in his promotional materials sums it up this way: "Before dogs were domesticated, meat was their key source of nutrition. Inspired by a dog's heritage and nutritional needs, … was developed to nourish every dog as nature intended." Sounds good, but the science is not always clear as to what nature intended.
Unfortunately, an all to familiar problem within the industry, sometimes marketing gets ahead of the science. So it is once again the case on the concept of wild, ancestral pet foods. Let’s keep that in mind while we look at some of the wild pet food diets that are becoming more popular.
Making wild assertions, marketers of wild ingredient based pet food say they provide a diet rich in quality meat with high nutrient bioavailability, the way nature intended. Other claims include:
"We use a savory fresh protein from US Department of Agriculture inspected sources as the number one ingredient, and quality, low-ash chicken meal as the number two ingredient."
"It's a return to your dog's ancestral diet while recognizing its modern day lifestyle. We use only meat protein sources, healthy fruits and vegetables, no grains, fillers, by-products or artificial colors, flavors or preservatives."
In addition, the standard claims and disclaimers tend to apply: No grain, no by-products, roasted meat, fish and poultry, all natural, no artificial preservatives, colors or flavors, no corn, no wheat, no soy, no gluten, no fillers, chicory root for digestive support, antioxidants to protect cells, the ideal blend of omega fatty acids and chelated minerals.
For the most part, proponents of wild ingredient products believe the ideal diet is the pre-agricultural diet on which a species evolved. They say such diets contain the foods that best suit the species' digestive and metabolic systems and are least likely of all foods to cause an allergic reaction.
Here are some of a few manufacturer’s statements made in response to the on-line magazine’s inquiry:
An early example of wild petfood marketing is the Evolution Diet Pet Food Corp., which started in 1987. It's not typical of most wild petfoods in that the products are vegetarian. I remain confused, because I believe in the carnivore concept, but the company apparently insisted that it would be included in the magazine's article. Founder and CEO Eric Weisman says he founded the company after examining what went into conventional petfoods and deciding he wanted a "better alternative" for his own pets. His dogs and cats were having health issues he thought were related to the ingredients in conventional petfoods. Weisman worked with Darwin Brightsman, PhD, an animal nutritionist, to formulate Evolution Diet Pet Food products. At the time, Weisman was a physician in private practice using vitamin, botanical, nutraceutical and nutrition therapy for people. Weisman notes he is still using "state-of-the-art combinations" of vitamins, herbs and nutraceuticals developed to treat joint, vascular and other diseases in sick pets at the Evolution Diet Rescue facility, which he has operated in St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, since 1987.
Merrick, maker of Before Grain products, asserts that dogs and cats do better when fed grain free diets. This is, they say, what nature intended. The company says a diet based primarily on fresh meat, blue fruit, nutrient-dense vegetables and high-quality meat contributes to better health and longevity. Ingredients used include buffalo, beef, chicken, salmon, turkey and tripe. Merrick points out enthusiastically that Before Grain products contain acai, an Amazon palm berry, and blueberries. Freeze dried acai berries and blueberries are "carefully added to the kibble after the cooking process." Merrick contends these "super blue fruits" are high in antioxidants and anthocyanins.
"Years of domestication have turned pets from fierce predators to best friends," contends Taste of the Wild Pet Foods. "However, modern science proves that dogs and cats still share the DNA of the wolf or wild cat.
Taste of the Wild Brand Dog and Cat Food offers pets a diet dictated by genes. It allows pet owners to provide their pets the kind of natural, balanced diet that they could find in the wild."
Canidae All Natural Pet Foods offers grain-free formulas for dogs and cats. Most contain 80% protein and 20% fruits and vegetables, "designed to increase energy levels." The products contain no corn, wheat, soy, grain fractions, glutens or fillers, says the company.
Those who market wild-ingredient products believe the ideal diet is a pre-agricultural diet. This diet, they say, contains the foods that best suit digestive and metabolic systems and are least likely to cause an allergic reaction. It's an appealing idea, but the jury is still out.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Call for pet food transparency
Dr. Tim Phillips, DVM and Editor of The Pet Food Industry Magazine the other day under the headline “Whole Dog Journal wants Transparency” picked up on an issue, which is, as so many others, very controversial when it comes to pet food ingredients: Pet food ingredients and specifically by-products. I am going to address this issue at another time. What I also found interesting in the article were his comments about the Whole Dog Journal’s expectations on dog food and the call for more transparency. Dr. Phillips writes:
“In addition to transparency, Whole Dog Journal examines the ingredients listed on the product labels and looks for, among other things, the absence of by-products, added sweeteners and artificial coloring.
Every February, the Whole Dog Journal reviews dry dog foods. This year, for the first time, the magazine has added pet food company transparency to its list of criteria for approving dry dog foods. Editor Nancy Kerns puts it this way: "All companies, whether they own their plants or hire contract manufacturers, should be equally forthcoming about their manufacturing."
In addition to revealing where its products are made, Kerns believes a company should also be transparent about:
Product formulation: Who developed the formula and what are his/her credentials?
Ingredients: Can the company provide full traceability on each ingredient used in its products?
QA processes: Do its plants follow a HACCP food safety program?
Available support: If I feed my dog your food and he gets sick, what support will your company be able to provide for me?
In addition to transparency, Whole Dog Journal examines the ingredients listed on the product labels and looks for the following:
A lot of high-quality animal proteins, "ideally a food will have one or two animal proteins in the first few ingredients."
The absence of meat or poultry by-products, "there is a much wider range of quality in the by-products available for pet food manufacturing than there is for whole meats."
The absence of fat or protein not identified by species.
Whole grains and vegetables.
The absence of artificial colors, flavors or preservatives, "a healthy product full of top-quality ingredients shouldn't need non-nutritive additives to make it look or taste better."
The absence of added sweeteners.
Organic ingredients.
So what do you think of those criteria? Do they make sense?”
Since he asked what we think about WDJ’s criteria, here is my opinion: With regards to transparency, I think their ideas are great and it certainly would be a start into the right direction. Obviously, the manufacturers of mass marketed pet food are most likely not in agreement with those ideas since it would require transparency, seemingly the last thing they are interested in. (Unless someone can explain to me why there is no ingredient listing available for example for Ol’Roy, see my blog comment “Consumer Reports: The place to look for answers on pet food? “)
Well, I went back to my friend Dr. Wysong to see what he has to say about this topic. In his pamphlet “How to apologize to your pet” he writes under the headline “The most critical ingredient – The company” (meaning “the manufacturer”):
“…So how do you make choices with so many competing products out there? We will give you some fair advice and we hope we have earned your ear since this entire brochure is about how you could feed optimally without using any Wysong products at all. Our purpose is health enhancement, and telling you what you need to know and not just what you may want to hear. Additionally, we are insiders. We know manufacturing, distribution, ingredients, marketing and all the other details – and shenanigans – in the pet food industry. That is what uniquely qualifies us to help you in your evaluation.
Now comes a prefacing apology. Much of what we say in this section may be (mis)understood and (mis)construed to be negative. Unfortunately it is very difficult for the layperson to even discern that there is a problem, much less know how to correct it. Companies and products receive much polish to make things appear as appealing as possible on the surface. You must be skeptical, see through the smoke and mirrors – and you can’t do that without information. Research, learn, and probe to be sure you’re doing the best for your beloved pets.
When you purchase a nondescript packaged product like a nugget or mix, you have really no true idea what is in it. Yes, the ingredient label and analysis may say certain things, but terminology is crafted to put the best face forward to you. For example it is possible to say “natural flavors” and yet the product may contain MSG and a whole range of chemicals you might not desire. “Chicken” could mean heads and feet. “Natural,” “holistic,” “organic,” “human grade,” “balanced,” “veterinary recommended,” “science” and “100% complete and balanced” are powerful marketing terms, but not necessarily a true reflection of what is in the product. There is wide latitude on labels and even wider freedom for what can be said in marketing brochures. In the end, you are left with making a decision based upon trust in the company. That trust should not be blind.
These are considerations when deciding who to grant that trust to:
- Do they promote the misleading “100% complete” claim?
- Nutrition is a serious health matter. Are the leaders of the company scientists and doctors, or marketers and business people?
- Do they control their own manufacturing or are they just having a standard formulation with a few “special ingredients” made by a private label company?
- Do they educate (at no cost) to help you control your own and your pet’s health?
- Do they attempt to convince you to buy based on nonsense that has nothing to do with health, such as movie star endorsements?
- Do they have a long history of success in feeding pets?
- Do they provide products that have not been heat processed and degraded – reflecting knowledge of this critical nutritional issue?
- Do they show concern for animal welfare by not fostering unnecessary lab animal testing?
- Do they pander to misleading marketing approaches such as “four food group” feeding, emphasizing so-called special ingredients or trying to create panic about others? Remember, good nutrition is natural and varied, not about singular special or boogeyman ingredients.)
- Do they truly innovate – lead – with formulations and processing methods that enhance health (not just cosmetics) or do they just follow markets?
These are the considerations that will tell you what’s really in the package.”
In my mind, the bottom line is this: As by now everybody is in agreement, the most simple indicator whether you are dealing with a good, better or not so good pet food is if the manufacturer. My take is, is it a Wall Street traded company or is it a privately, possibly family owned, small to medium sized company with direct owner involvement and participation in daily operations (and creations). Because most of the times it is these small companies, which were brought into life because their owners were at one point just as we are today, fed up and frustrated with what is going on in the pet food industry. Fed up with watchning how their companion animals' health kept deterrerating. Fed up with learning day in and day out that what we are supposed to believe is good for our pets at the end of the day only causes harm. These guys will have no problem to live up to either WDJ’s or Dr. Wysong’s ideas of transparency and using the best possible ingredients, because that is what they live already on a daily basis and their products reflect that thinking and transparency. None of them will ever have a problem talking openly about and explaining their products at any length desired by any pet owner. Quite contrary, they proudly will do so. And as we all know, rightfully so.
“In addition to transparency, Whole Dog Journal examines the ingredients listed on the product labels and looks for, among other things, the absence of by-products, added sweeteners and artificial coloring.
Every February, the Whole Dog Journal reviews dry dog foods. This year, for the first time, the magazine has added pet food company transparency to its list of criteria for approving dry dog foods. Editor Nancy Kerns puts it this way: "All companies, whether they own their plants or hire contract manufacturers, should be equally forthcoming about their manufacturing."
In addition to revealing where its products are made, Kerns believes a company should also be transparent about:
Product formulation: Who developed the formula and what are his/her credentials?
Ingredients: Can the company provide full traceability on each ingredient used in its products?
QA processes: Do its plants follow a HACCP food safety program?
Available support: If I feed my dog your food and he gets sick, what support will your company be able to provide for me?
In addition to transparency, Whole Dog Journal examines the ingredients listed on the product labels and looks for the following:
A lot of high-quality animal proteins, "ideally a food will have one or two animal proteins in the first few ingredients."
The absence of meat or poultry by-products, "there is a much wider range of quality in the by-products available for pet food manufacturing than there is for whole meats."
The absence of fat or protein not identified by species.
Whole grains and vegetables.
The absence of artificial colors, flavors or preservatives, "a healthy product full of top-quality ingredients shouldn't need non-nutritive additives to make it look or taste better."
The absence of added sweeteners.
Organic ingredients.
So what do you think of those criteria? Do they make sense?”
Since he asked what we think about WDJ’s criteria, here is my opinion: With regards to transparency, I think their ideas are great and it certainly would be a start into the right direction. Obviously, the manufacturers of mass marketed pet food are most likely not in agreement with those ideas since it would require transparency, seemingly the last thing they are interested in. (Unless someone can explain to me why there is no ingredient listing available for example for Ol’Roy, see my blog comment “Consumer Reports: The place to look for answers on pet food? “)
Well, I went back to my friend Dr. Wysong to see what he has to say about this topic. In his pamphlet “How to apologize to your pet” he writes under the headline “The most critical ingredient – The company” (meaning “the manufacturer”):
“…So how do you make choices with so many competing products out there? We will give you some fair advice and we hope we have earned your ear since this entire brochure is about how you could feed optimally without using any Wysong products at all. Our purpose is health enhancement, and telling you what you need to know and not just what you may want to hear. Additionally, we are insiders. We know manufacturing, distribution, ingredients, marketing and all the other details – and shenanigans – in the pet food industry. That is what uniquely qualifies us to help you in your evaluation.
Now comes a prefacing apology. Much of what we say in this section may be (mis)understood and (mis)construed to be negative. Unfortunately it is very difficult for the layperson to even discern that there is a problem, much less know how to correct it. Companies and products receive much polish to make things appear as appealing as possible on the surface. You must be skeptical, see through the smoke and mirrors – and you can’t do that without information. Research, learn, and probe to be sure you’re doing the best for your beloved pets.
When you purchase a nondescript packaged product like a nugget or mix, you have really no true idea what is in it. Yes, the ingredient label and analysis may say certain things, but terminology is crafted to put the best face forward to you. For example it is possible to say “natural flavors” and yet the product may contain MSG and a whole range of chemicals you might not desire. “Chicken” could mean heads and feet. “Natural,” “holistic,” “organic,” “human grade,” “balanced,” “veterinary recommended,” “science” and “100% complete and balanced” are powerful marketing terms, but not necessarily a true reflection of what is in the product. There is wide latitude on labels and even wider freedom for what can be said in marketing brochures. In the end, you are left with making a decision based upon trust in the company. That trust should not be blind.
These are considerations when deciding who to grant that trust to:
- Do they promote the misleading “100% complete” claim?
- Nutrition is a serious health matter. Are the leaders of the company scientists and doctors, or marketers and business people?
- Do they control their own manufacturing or are they just having a standard formulation with a few “special ingredients” made by a private label company?
- Do they educate (at no cost) to help you control your own and your pet’s health?
- Do they attempt to convince you to buy based on nonsense that has nothing to do with health, such as movie star endorsements?
- Do they have a long history of success in feeding pets?
- Do they provide products that have not been heat processed and degraded – reflecting knowledge of this critical nutritional issue?
- Do they show concern for animal welfare by not fostering unnecessary lab animal testing?
- Do they pander to misleading marketing approaches such as “four food group” feeding, emphasizing so-called special ingredients or trying to create panic about others? Remember, good nutrition is natural and varied, not about singular special or boogeyman ingredients.)
- Do they truly innovate – lead – with formulations and processing methods that enhance health (not just cosmetics) or do they just follow markets?
These are the considerations that will tell you what’s really in the package.”
In my mind, the bottom line is this: As by now everybody is in agreement, the most simple indicator whether you are dealing with a good, better or not so good pet food is if the manufacturer. My take is, is it a Wall Street traded company or is it a privately, possibly family owned, small to medium sized company with direct owner involvement and participation in daily operations (and creations). Because most of the times it is these small companies, which were brought into life because their owners were at one point just as we are today, fed up and frustrated with what is going on in the pet food industry. Fed up with watchning how their companion animals' health kept deterrerating. Fed up with learning day in and day out that what we are supposed to believe is good for our pets at the end of the day only causes harm. These guys will have no problem to live up to either WDJ’s or Dr. Wysong’s ideas of transparency and using the best possible ingredients, because that is what they live already on a daily basis and their products reflect that thinking and transparency. None of them will ever have a problem talking openly about and explaining their products at any length desired by any pet owner. Quite contrary, they proudly will do so. And as we all know, rightfully so.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Innovation in the pet food industry – The driving forces behind it. (Comparison of pet food types Part 2)
In part 1 of this series we started looking at and comparing various types of food, mainly dry, canned and raw food and did so by concentrating on the advantages and disadvantages of the various processing methods applied during the manufacture of these types of food. Today we are going to expand upon this topic by taking a look at the pet food industry overall and how developments are influencing innovation for the pet food market.
According to the stats, the pet food industry, despite the overall major down turn lingering over our overall economy is still enjoying strong growth. Some call it even spectacular, like Euromonitor International, an international market intelligence provider who claims that US pet food sales rose from $12 in 2002 to $15 billion in 2007. As I found on PetFoodIndustry.com, an industry publication for pet food retailers, MediaPost Communications claims: “The recalls of contaminated pet food in the spring of 2007 encouraged owners to convert to higher-priced foods that were perceived to be safer. This trend to premium helped boost dollar sales for the category not only in 2007, but to a smaller extent last year, despite the dramatic downturn in the economy.” “US pet food sales grew 5.5% to an e in 2008 and grew by a cumulative 20.9% (compound annual growth rate, or CAGR, of 4.9%) between 2004 and 2008”, Packaged Facts estimates in the latest edition of its Pet Food in the US report. IRI InfoScan data showed category sales in tracked retail outlets up 6.4% to US$5.9 billion for the 52 weeks ending November 2, 2008, including a 7% gain in dog food sales (to US$227 million), a 6% gain for cat food (to US$125 million) and a 3% gain for other pet food (to US$6 million). Dollar sales reflected consumer trading up and higher ingredient costs, not volume gains. Overall pound sales were down 2% and unit sales were down 6% last year, continuing the pattern seen in previous years, according to the article. The analysts project that the economy will slow the category's sales to 4.5% in 2009 and 2010, followed by more tapering off through 2013. CAGR for 2008 through 2013 is projected at 4.1%, with premium demographics and products accounting for an even larger part of the overall market going forward.
With this pretty rosy perspective of the future in mind, I was wondering, how does the industry do it? It is actually simple. Whole Dog Journal noticed in its November 2008 issue: “The pet food industry, like the human food industry, has become increasingly savvy about marketing” (no kidding, what do I always tell you?) “- essentially selling more pet food than is actually needed.” (as supposed to make the existing better, which is what I would like to welcome as a quantum leap forward) WDJ continues: “And empires are being built from the innovation of products that fill previously unnecessary “needs”. How did our dogs survive before they had special diets for seniors, large breeds, small breeds, dogs of specific breeds? Really? A food just for a Yorkshire Terrier?”
Better yet, I noticed kibble formulas for indoor and outdoor cats. Not that this in itself would be exciting, but how about 3 different formulations for the less active, the more active and the very active indoor cat? Talk about stretching creativity to the absolute limit. I can’t wait to do the analysis on this one.
An additional category comes to my mind: How about all the foods addressing specific health conditions? How many scientific formulations can we find in our vet’s office displays or lately even in the shelves of pet supermarkets? Good questions with actually a very simple answer. Dr. R.L. Wysong in his “The Truth about Pet Foods”, while talking about “a host of foods targeting specific diseases” says: “In fact you would be hard pressed to find any controlled study published in a peer reviewed journal that has ever proven the value of any such diets over just good, varied home cooking. This is not to suggest that such publications are the only place to find good evidence. But if the promoters of such foods are going to start throwing around “science”, then they should be able to cite the medium of science – scientific journals. “Put up or shut up” comes to mind. Aside from this, do specific diets even make sense? Well, let’s go to the great teacher and mother of us all, nature. Do puppies in the wild eat differently than adults or seniors? Do different kinds of canines or felines eat different foods? Do big dogs or cats eat anything fundamentally different from what kittens or puppies eat after weaning? Are carnivores in the wild who get sick (a very rare thing in terms of the degenerative conditions we see plaguing modern pets) doomed if they can’t find a diet to match their condition? The answer to all is an emphatic “no”. Creatures in the wild eat what they were designed to eat: Raw, natural, whole foods exactly as found in nature. No fancy, fabricated, fortified, “complete and balanced” concoctions. Just the best science of all: Nature. True, some designed diets may help some animals in special situations much like some drugs will also help in special situations. But the problem is, such allopathic approaches are symptom based, temporary band aids fraught with contraindications and potential dangers in themselves, and do nothing to cure or address underlying causes. It is like turning the fore alarm off while letting the fire continue to smolder in the closet. Much better in these special situations is to use diets with concentrated natural nutrition, augmented with fresh foods and supplements. This can stimulate the healing forces within, rather than drug like attempts to force the body into submission. The cause of most illness in modern pets (and humans) is modern living and processed diets. So can more similarly designed exclusively fed processed diets (the cause) be the cure? Not likely.”
So much for this kind of innovative pet food. In my mind I actually don’t consider them an “innovation”.
However, credit where credit is due. It also has to be said that there are indeed a number of various forms of pet food out there, which in my opinion are making their marks and are here to stay. They are coming from a growing number of business owners in the pet food industry who were and are thinking outside the conventional bag of kibble and canned and wet food. They have developed entirely new ways to deliver high quality nutrition to our pets. Notice that I said “pets”. Yes, these types of foods are available for cats and dogs, granted though the number of products for canines by far outnumbers the feline products. And there are still some types of food which made their debut quite some time ago, back then were in a similar position as today’s highly innovative products, but just now seem to reach a better position in the market. While much of this change had to do with the 2007 recall, it just goes to show, people including pet owners are very reluctant to change. Unfortunately for many pets way too reluctant. Procrastination to the very end unfortunately often results in that all the sudden their pets are on the bad side of the scale, which includes the 50 +% of pets affected by disease. Fortunately, better late than never, these pet owners do have many alternatives to the food, which they were feeding previously and which most likely was the cause for their companion’s misery. In the forthcoming parts of this series I am going to address the individual alternatives available to pet owners, from raw to food mixes, from food rolls to fresh chilled, from freeze dried to TNT™ processed to dehydrated. Even hybrid types of foods are on the horizon, combining the good of natural raw with the necessary (being economical limitations) evil of kibble. And I also will discuss to some degree why these food types too need to be subjected to your very critical review and analysis. No worry, you don’t have to start learning all over again, the basics are the same as the ones applied to dry and canned food. Stay tuned.
According to the stats, the pet food industry, despite the overall major down turn lingering over our overall economy is still enjoying strong growth. Some call it even spectacular, like Euromonitor International, an international market intelligence provider who claims that US pet food sales rose from $12 in 2002 to $15 billion in 2007. As I found on PetFoodIndustry.com, an industry publication for pet food retailers, MediaPost Communications claims: “The recalls of contaminated pet food in the spring of 2007 encouraged owners to convert to higher-priced foods that were perceived to be safer. This trend to premium helped boost dollar sales for the category not only in 2007, but to a smaller extent last year, despite the dramatic downturn in the economy.” “US pet food sales grew 5.5% to an e in 2008 and grew by a cumulative 20.9% (compound annual growth rate, or CAGR, of 4.9%) between 2004 and 2008”, Packaged Facts estimates in the latest edition of its Pet Food in the US report. IRI InfoScan data showed category sales in tracked retail outlets up 6.4% to US$5.9 billion for the 52 weeks ending November 2, 2008, including a 7% gain in dog food sales (to US$227 million), a 6% gain for cat food (to US$125 million) and a 3% gain for other pet food (to US$6 million). Dollar sales reflected consumer trading up and higher ingredient costs, not volume gains. Overall pound sales were down 2% and unit sales were down 6% last year, continuing the pattern seen in previous years, according to the article. The analysts project that the economy will slow the category's sales to 4.5% in 2009 and 2010, followed by more tapering off through 2013. CAGR for 2008 through 2013 is projected at 4.1%, with premium demographics and products accounting for an even larger part of the overall market going forward.
With this pretty rosy perspective of the future in mind, I was wondering, how does the industry do it? It is actually simple. Whole Dog Journal noticed in its November 2008 issue: “The pet food industry, like the human food industry, has become increasingly savvy about marketing” (no kidding, what do I always tell you?) “- essentially selling more pet food than is actually needed.” (as supposed to make the existing better, which is what I would like to welcome as a quantum leap forward) WDJ continues: “And empires are being built from the innovation of products that fill previously unnecessary “needs”. How did our dogs survive before they had special diets for seniors, large breeds, small breeds, dogs of specific breeds? Really? A food just for a Yorkshire Terrier?”
Better yet, I noticed kibble formulas for indoor and outdoor cats. Not that this in itself would be exciting, but how about 3 different formulations for the less active, the more active and the very active indoor cat? Talk about stretching creativity to the absolute limit. I can’t wait to do the analysis on this one.
An additional category comes to my mind: How about all the foods addressing specific health conditions? How many scientific formulations can we find in our vet’s office displays or lately even in the shelves of pet supermarkets? Good questions with actually a very simple answer. Dr. R.L. Wysong in his “The Truth about Pet Foods”, while talking about “a host of foods targeting specific diseases” says: “In fact you would be hard pressed to find any controlled study published in a peer reviewed journal that has ever proven the value of any such diets over just good, varied home cooking. This is not to suggest that such publications are the only place to find good evidence. But if the promoters of such foods are going to start throwing around “science”, then they should be able to cite the medium of science – scientific journals. “Put up or shut up” comes to mind. Aside from this, do specific diets even make sense? Well, let’s go to the great teacher and mother of us all, nature. Do puppies in the wild eat differently than adults or seniors? Do different kinds of canines or felines eat different foods? Do big dogs or cats eat anything fundamentally different from what kittens or puppies eat after weaning? Are carnivores in the wild who get sick (a very rare thing in terms of the degenerative conditions we see plaguing modern pets) doomed if they can’t find a diet to match their condition? The answer to all is an emphatic “no”. Creatures in the wild eat what they were designed to eat: Raw, natural, whole foods exactly as found in nature. No fancy, fabricated, fortified, “complete and balanced” concoctions. Just the best science of all: Nature. True, some designed diets may help some animals in special situations much like some drugs will also help in special situations. But the problem is, such allopathic approaches are symptom based, temporary band aids fraught with contraindications and potential dangers in themselves, and do nothing to cure or address underlying causes. It is like turning the fore alarm off while letting the fire continue to smolder in the closet. Much better in these special situations is to use diets with concentrated natural nutrition, augmented with fresh foods and supplements. This can stimulate the healing forces within, rather than drug like attempts to force the body into submission. The cause of most illness in modern pets (and humans) is modern living and processed diets. So can more similarly designed exclusively fed processed diets (the cause) be the cure? Not likely.”
So much for this kind of innovative pet food. In my mind I actually don’t consider them an “innovation”.
However, credit where credit is due. It also has to be said that there are indeed a number of various forms of pet food out there, which in my opinion are making their marks and are here to stay. They are coming from a growing number of business owners in the pet food industry who were and are thinking outside the conventional bag of kibble and canned and wet food. They have developed entirely new ways to deliver high quality nutrition to our pets. Notice that I said “pets”. Yes, these types of foods are available for cats and dogs, granted though the number of products for canines by far outnumbers the feline products. And there are still some types of food which made their debut quite some time ago, back then were in a similar position as today’s highly innovative products, but just now seem to reach a better position in the market. While much of this change had to do with the 2007 recall, it just goes to show, people including pet owners are very reluctant to change. Unfortunately for many pets way too reluctant. Procrastination to the very end unfortunately often results in that all the sudden their pets are on the bad side of the scale, which includes the 50 +% of pets affected by disease. Fortunately, better late than never, these pet owners do have many alternatives to the food, which they were feeding previously and which most likely was the cause for their companion’s misery. In the forthcoming parts of this series I am going to address the individual alternatives available to pet owners, from raw to food mixes, from food rolls to fresh chilled, from freeze dried to TNT™ processed to dehydrated. Even hybrid types of foods are on the horizon, combining the good of natural raw with the necessary (being economical limitations) evil of kibble. And I also will discuss to some degree why these food types too need to be subjected to your very critical review and analysis. No worry, you don’t have to start learning all over again, the basics are the same as the ones applied to dry and canned food. Stay tuned.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
When a Pet Food is a "Drug"
In my comment Quality assurances on pet food labels – Realistic or marketing as usual? we took a closer look at quality assurances made by manufacturers on their pet food labels and unfortunately came to the conclusion that most of them are nothing else but marketing gigs. Though it has to be said that the marketing people at these companies disserve credit. The bottom line is that stats clearly show their strategy is working, even if the actual claims are totally meaningless. Today I want to take a closer look at another, similar category of pet foods. This one too is experiencing enormous growth rates: Pet nutritional products promising help and cure for health related issues What I find most ironic about these foods is that pretty much most of the health issues we are confronted with these days typically are caused by just the same food now promising to be the cure!? This comment is meant to be a crash course and a quick overview of what you need to know before you purchase pet food labeled with claims falling into any of these categories.
When a 'Food' is a 'Drug'
Statements that a product can treat, prevent or reduce the risk of a disease are considered drug claims and are not allowed on pet food. The FDA’s (Food and Drug Administration) Center of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) also disallows claims such as "improves skin and coat," "prevents dry skin," and "hypoallergenic." Consumers may see phrases such as "promotes healthy skin" and "promotes glossy coat." CVM permits these claims, but any healthy animal that gets adequate nutrition should have these qualities anyway without eating a special food.
Recognizing the close link between diet and disease, CVM does allow certain health related information on labels to help consumers evaluate pet foods. For example, while a product cannot claim to treat feline lower urinary tract disease, a concern for some cat owners, it may make the claim that the food "reduces urine pH to help maintain urinary tract health," provided data generated by the manufacturer and reviewed by CVM support the statement.
CVM permits some dental claims on pet foods. The jaw movement of animals as they chew on certain foods or treats, or some chemicals in foods, can help reduce plaque and tartar, so CVM allows claims such as "helps control plaque" and "helps control tartar." CVM does not allow claims to treat or prevent gingivitis or periodontal disease because these are drug claims.
Pet owners may see claims such as "improves doggie breath" on pet food or treats. These claims have no regulatory meaning; manufacturers use them simply to promote their products.
The phrase "recommended by veterinarians" also has no regulatory meaning, says Rodney Noel, Ph.D., AAFCO's pet food committee chair and a chemist at Purdue University. "There is no minimum number or percentage of veterinarians required for a company to be able to state its product is recommended by vets," Noel says.
CVM provides manufacturers some latitude in making health claims regarding a category of food known as veterinary medical foods, which consumers can obtain only through a veterinarian. Manufacturers design these foods to treat a particular disease or condition. Although not regulated as drugs, these foods may carry health information in promotional materials for the veterinarian to help them treat their patients correctly.
Making Sense of 'Light' and 'Lean' in Pet Food
The calorie and fat contents listed below are the maximum limits allowed in dog and cat food labeled "light" or "lean." These definitions are established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials and authorized by the FDA. Comparisons between products in different categories of moisture content are considered misleading.
Light, lite, or low calorie:
Dry Foods (< 20% moisture): Calories/lbs: Dogs 1,409; cats 1,477
Semi moist food (20 to 75% moisture): Calories/lbs: Dogs 1,136; cats 1,205
Moist food (> 65% moisture): Calories/lbs: Dogs 409; cats 432
Lean or low fat
Dry Foods (< 20% moisture): Dogs 9% fat, cats 10% fat
Semi moist food (20 to 75% moisture): Dogs 7% fat, cats 8% fat
Moist food (> 65% moisture): Dogs 4% fat, cats 5% fat
Stay tuned for the conclusion with consumer information on how to interpret pet food labels for “Special use food”.
When a 'Food' is a 'Drug'
Statements that a product can treat, prevent or reduce the risk of a disease are considered drug claims and are not allowed on pet food. The FDA’s (Food and Drug Administration) Center of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) also disallows claims such as "improves skin and coat," "prevents dry skin," and "hypoallergenic." Consumers may see phrases such as "promotes healthy skin" and "promotes glossy coat." CVM permits these claims, but any healthy animal that gets adequate nutrition should have these qualities anyway without eating a special food.
Recognizing the close link between diet and disease, CVM does allow certain health related information on labels to help consumers evaluate pet foods. For example, while a product cannot claim to treat feline lower urinary tract disease, a concern for some cat owners, it may make the claim that the food "reduces urine pH to help maintain urinary tract health," provided data generated by the manufacturer and reviewed by CVM support the statement.
CVM permits some dental claims on pet foods. The jaw movement of animals as they chew on certain foods or treats, or some chemicals in foods, can help reduce plaque and tartar, so CVM allows claims such as "helps control plaque" and "helps control tartar." CVM does not allow claims to treat or prevent gingivitis or periodontal disease because these are drug claims.
Pet owners may see claims such as "improves doggie breath" on pet food or treats. These claims have no regulatory meaning; manufacturers use them simply to promote their products.
The phrase "recommended by veterinarians" also has no regulatory meaning, says Rodney Noel, Ph.D., AAFCO's pet food committee chair and a chemist at Purdue University. "There is no minimum number or percentage of veterinarians required for a company to be able to state its product is recommended by vets," Noel says.
CVM provides manufacturers some latitude in making health claims regarding a category of food known as veterinary medical foods, which consumers can obtain only through a veterinarian. Manufacturers design these foods to treat a particular disease or condition. Although not regulated as drugs, these foods may carry health information in promotional materials for the veterinarian to help them treat their patients correctly.
Making Sense of 'Light' and 'Lean' in Pet Food
The calorie and fat contents listed below are the maximum limits allowed in dog and cat food labeled "light" or "lean." These definitions are established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials and authorized by the FDA. Comparisons between products in different categories of moisture content are considered misleading.
Light, lite, or low calorie:
Dry Foods (< 20% moisture): Calories/lbs: Dogs 1,409; cats 1,477
Semi moist food (20 to 75% moisture): Calories/lbs: Dogs 1,136; cats 1,205
Moist food (> 65% moisture): Calories/lbs: Dogs 409; cats 432
Lean or low fat
Dry Foods (< 20% moisture): Dogs 9% fat, cats 10% fat
Semi moist food (20 to 75% moisture): Dogs 7% fat, cats 8% fat
Moist food (> 65% moisture): Dogs 4% fat, cats 5% fat
Stay tuned for the conclusion with consumer information on how to interpret pet food labels for “Special use food”.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Canine Niche and Special Needs Diets
Perusing your pet food store can be a daunting venture if you enter unsure of what you want to leave with. The shelves seem overloaded lately, with niche and specialty diets for various ailments, specific breeds, activity levels and more. There seems to be something for everyone with diets tailored to the finest detail. A juvenile Chihuahua with diabetes and an exceptionally small mouth can now find something just for her, it seems!
Are these niche diets all they're cracked up to be? Probably not. When you take a closer look at the ingredients in each, there really aren't even too many differences between each of them within a given manufacturer's line. Oftentimes, it's all in a name.
Some breeds certainly are prone to specific health concerns and some illnesses to respond well to dietary adjustments but for the most part, a few basic food-buying guidelines can set the majority of animals on the path to good health.
Here's our quick checklist for things to consider when choosing a sound canine diet:Quality not quantity (don't be too penned in by numbers) Just because your vet suggests a certain percentage of protein, doesn't mean that a food 1% outside the recommendation is unworthy of consideration.
A diet with 18% protein might contain by-products and fillers. Broaden your range and you might find something with a meat-based protein source that will maintain healthy kidney function, just as well!
Expense doesn't always equal quality. Don't just assume that buying the costliest food will assure you of its suitability. Look for more than just a pretty label - As with lots of things in life, marketing tactics abound in pet food products. Beautiful illustrations and clever names might lead you to think a food is better than it really is!
Choose to buy from a company who offers sound, thoughtful customer service and product recommendations specific to your pet.
The dangers of relying on a diet that's marketed just for your breed can lead to a false sense of security, too. The food you feed must be selected according to your individual animal's unique requirements, not the breed that's pictured on the label. No two bulldogs are exactly alike and one single diet shouldn't be expected to meet the needs of every bulldog under the sun.
That said, there are many great quality, broad-reaching diets that the vast majority of dogs will thrive on. Avoiding by-products, fillers, chemicals, colors, and flavor enhancers, is a must for everyone. Grains should often be avoided in those prone to chronic GI upset, ear infections and skin irritation, all of which are frequently caused by a dietary gluten overload. But some dogs actually need grain in their food to maintain a healthy bodyweight.
For the most part, a diet with a moderate nutritional profile and a good quality spectrum of ingredients will serve the task well. Don't automatically shy away from higher protein foods just because your pup is over age six. Healthy Seniors can actually benefit from a substantial protein percentage it helps maintain collagen, which provides amino acids that are essential for tissue growth and repair. Celebrating his seventh birthday shouldn't automatically warrant a change in food!
Try to encompass variety wherever possible. Good quality, whole food people ingredients are not bad for dogs when offered in moderation, as an accompaniment to a good quality basic diet. Don't be duped by the big guys, into thinking that all you should feed is the product they make. They are thinking about their bottom line, if you don't share your food with your pup, the more you'll need to buy of their product.
If your dog has special requirements, try keeping a notebook with comments about which foods seem to trigger reactions. Was it high carbohydrates or increased fat that leads to a gain of those few extra pounds? Does more protein really set off her urinary tract problems? Do all grains make his ears flare up or just the high gluten ones?
Sure, a large breed puppy does have somewhat different nutritional requirements than a senior small breed but they are both Canis Major with the same basic organ systems and their needs might not be quite as diverse as some companies would have you believe.
Contribution by Lucy Postins, Founder, Owner & President of The Honest Kitchen
Are these niche diets all they're cracked up to be? Probably not. When you take a closer look at the ingredients in each, there really aren't even too many differences between each of them within a given manufacturer's line. Oftentimes, it's all in a name.
Some breeds certainly are prone to specific health concerns and some illnesses to respond well to dietary adjustments but for the most part, a few basic food-buying guidelines can set the majority of animals on the path to good health.
Here's our quick checklist for things to consider when choosing a sound canine diet:Quality not quantity (don't be too penned in by numbers) Just because your vet suggests a certain percentage of protein, doesn't mean that a food 1% outside the recommendation is unworthy of consideration.
A diet with 18% protein might contain by-products and fillers. Broaden your range and you might find something with a meat-based protein source that will maintain healthy kidney function, just as well!
Expense doesn't always equal quality. Don't just assume that buying the costliest food will assure you of its suitability. Look for more than just a pretty label - As with lots of things in life, marketing tactics abound in pet food products. Beautiful illustrations and clever names might lead you to think a food is better than it really is!
Choose to buy from a company who offers sound, thoughtful customer service and product recommendations specific to your pet.
The dangers of relying on a diet that's marketed just for your breed can lead to a false sense of security, too. The food you feed must be selected according to your individual animal's unique requirements, not the breed that's pictured on the label. No two bulldogs are exactly alike and one single diet shouldn't be expected to meet the needs of every bulldog under the sun.
That said, there are many great quality, broad-reaching diets that the vast majority of dogs will thrive on. Avoiding by-products, fillers, chemicals, colors, and flavor enhancers, is a must for everyone. Grains should often be avoided in those prone to chronic GI upset, ear infections and skin irritation, all of which are frequently caused by a dietary gluten overload. But some dogs actually need grain in their food to maintain a healthy bodyweight.
For the most part, a diet with a moderate nutritional profile and a good quality spectrum of ingredients will serve the task well. Don't automatically shy away from higher protein foods just because your pup is over age six. Healthy Seniors can actually benefit from a substantial protein percentage it helps maintain collagen, which provides amino acids that are essential for tissue growth and repair. Celebrating his seventh birthday shouldn't automatically warrant a change in food!
Try to encompass variety wherever possible. Good quality, whole food people ingredients are not bad for dogs when offered in moderation, as an accompaniment to a good quality basic diet. Don't be duped by the big guys, into thinking that all you should feed is the product they make. They are thinking about their bottom line, if you don't share your food with your pup, the more you'll need to buy of their product.
If your dog has special requirements, try keeping a notebook with comments about which foods seem to trigger reactions. Was it high carbohydrates or increased fat that leads to a gain of those few extra pounds? Does more protein really set off her urinary tract problems? Do all grains make his ears flare up or just the high gluten ones?
Sure, a large breed puppy does have somewhat different nutritional requirements than a senior small breed but they are both Canis Major with the same basic organ systems and their needs might not be quite as diverse as some companies would have you believe.
Contribution by Lucy Postins, Founder, Owner & President of The Honest Kitchen
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
What’s Really in Pet Food? Part 7 Conclusion: Consumer Support, Fact Sheet “Selecting Commercial Pet Food” & Reference Guide
Today we are going to bring this series contributed by Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute to conclusion. I hope that this 7 part write up was helpful in providing some valuable insights on commercial, mass distributed pet food, which will help you to make the right decision in the best interest of your companion animals. Let’s recap in summary: In Part 1 of this series we briefly introduced the subject matter and discussed the major players in the pet food industry. But as we have learned the trend to bigger doesn’t necessarily translate into better and unfortunately we learned, not that it would be anything new, that there are major differences between what pet owners think they are buying and what they are actually getting. Part 2 addressed in very general terms labeling basics, standards and regulations, while Part 3 focused on ingredients and Part 4 was subject to discussion of pet food manufacturing processes, various recall issues and the potential dangers with pet food. In Part 5 we talked in a brief summary about nutrition related diseases, which are affecting our pets these days in pandemic dimensions. Part 6 unveiled some pet food industry secrets and the magic of pet food marketing. This series focused in very general terms on the most visible name brands, the pet food labels that are mass distributed to supermarkets and discount stores. However, just so that we are on the safe side, there are also many highly respected brands that may be guilty of the same offenses. What many pet owners to this day still don’t know is that the pet food industry is an extension of the human food and agriculture industries. Pet food provides a convenient way for slaughterhouse offal, grains considered “unfit for human consumption,” and similar waste products to be turned into profit. In order for the consumer to make an educated decision it is necessary to learn, among many others considerations, how to read pet food labels to begin with.
What Consumers Can Do
Write or call pet food companies and the Pet Food Institute and express your concerns about commercial pet foods. Demand that manufacturers improve the quality of ingredients in their products.
Print out a copy of this report for your veterinarian to further his or her knowledge about commercial pet food.
Direct your family and friends with companion animals to this website, to alert them of the dangers of commercial pet food. Print out copies of the Fact Sheet on Selecting a Good Commercial Food. (You may also download this fact sheet as a pdf and see my blog articles
Selecting a Commercial Pet Food Part 1: Ingredient Standards and Problems, Part 2: Pet Food Shopping Check List & Guide lines to feeding your companion animal and Part 3: Vegetarian Pet Foods & Pet Food Label Rules.)
Stop buying commercial pet food; or at least stop buying dry food. Dry foods have been the subject of many more recalls, and have many adverse health effects. If that is not possible, reduce the quantity of commercial pet food and supplement with fresh, organic foods, especially meat. Purchase one or more of the many books available on pet nutrition and make your own food. Be sure that a veterinarian or a nutritionist has checked the recipes to ensure that they are balanced for long-term use.
If you would like to learn about how to make healthy food for your companion animal, read up on "Sample Diets," which contains simple recipes and important nutritional information.
Please be aware that API is not a veterinary hospital, clinic, or service. API does not and will not offer any medical advice. If you have concerns about your companion animal’s health or nutritional requirements, please consult your veterinarian.
Because pet food manufacturers frequently change the formulations of their products and Born Free USA united with API would not have conducted the necessary testing, we are unable to offer endorsements for particular brands of pet food. Many of our staff choose to make their own pet food or to purchase natural or organic products found in most feed and specialist stores but we cannot recommend brands that would be right for your companion animal or animals.
For Further Reading about Animal Nutrition
Born Free USA with Animal Protection Institute recommends the following books (listed in alphabetical order by author), many of which include recipes for home-prepared diets:
Michelle Bernard. 2003. Raising Cats Naturally — How to Care for Your Cat the Way Nature Intended.
Chiclet T. Dog and Jan Rasmusen. 2006. Scared Poopless: The Straight Scoop on Dog Care. ISBN-10: 0977126501, ISBN-13: 978-0977126507.
Rudi Edalati. 2001. Barker’s Grub: Easy, Wholesome Home-Cooking for Dogs. ISBN-10: 0609804421, ISBN-13: 978-0609804421.
Jean Hofve, DVM. 2007. What Cats Should Eat.
Richard H. Pitcairn, DVM, and Susan Hubble Pitcairn. 2005. Dr. Pitcairn’s New Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats. Rodale Press, Inc. ISBN-10: 157954973X, ISBN-13: 978-1579549732. Note: The recipes for cats were not revised in this new edition and date back to 2000; they may contain too much grain, according to recent research.
Kate Solisti. 2004. The Holistic Animal Handbook: A Guidebook to Nutrition, Health, and Communication. Council Oaks Books. ISBN-10: 1571781536, ISBN-13: 978-1571781536.
Donald R. Strombeck. 1999. Home-Prepared Dog & Cat Diets: The Healthful Alternative. Iowa State University Press. ISBN-10: 0813821495, ISBN-13: 978-0813821498. Note: Veterinary nutritionists have suggested that the taurine and calcium are too low in some of these recipes. Clam juice and sardines are poor sources of taurine; use taurine capsules instead.
Celeste Yarnall. 2000, Natural Cat Care: A Complete Guide to Holistic Health Care for Cats; and 1998, Natural Dog Care: A Complete Guide to Holistic Health Care for Dogs.
The books listed above are a fraction of all the titles currently available, and the omission of a title does not necessarily mean it is not useful for further reading about animal nutrition.
Who to Write
AAFCO
Pet Food Committee
David Syverson, Chair
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Dairy and Food Inspection Division
625 Robert Street
NorthSt. Paul, MN 55155-2538
www.aafco.org
FDA — Center for Veterinary Medicine
Sharon Benz
7500 Standish Place
Rockville, MD 20855
301-594-1728
www.fda.gov/cvm/
Pet Food Institute
2025 M Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
202-367-1120
202-367-2120 fax
References
Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated. Official Publication 2007. Atlanta: AAFCO, 2007.
Case LP, Carey DP, Hirakawa DA. Canine and Feline Nutrition: A Resource for Companion Animal Professionals. St. Louis: Mosby, 1995.
FDA Enforcement Reports, 1998-2007. www.fda.gov.
Hand MS, Thatcher CD, Remillard RL, et al., eds. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, 4th Edition. 2002. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute.
Logan, et al., Dental Disease, in: Hand et al., ibid.
Mahmoud AL. Toxigenic fungi and mycotoxin content in poultry feedstuff ingredients. J Basic Microbiol, 1993; 33(2): 101–4.
Morris JG, and Rogers QR. Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle. Journal of Nutrition, 1994; 124: 2520S–2533S.
Mottram DS, Wedzicha BL, Dodson AT. Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction. Nature, 2002 Oct 3; 419(6906): 448–9.
Pet Food Institute. Fact Sheet 1994. Washington: Pet Food Institute, 1994.
Phillips T. Rendered Products Guide. Petfood Industry, January/February 1994, 12–17, 21.
Roudebush P. Pet food additives. J Amer Vet Med Assoc, 203 (1993): 1667–1670.
Seefelt SL, Chapman TE. Body water content and turnover in cats fed dry and canned rations. Am J Vet Res, 1979 Feb; 40(2): 183–5.
Strombeck, DR. Home-Prepared Dog and Cat Foods: The Healthful Alternative. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1999.
Tareke E, Rydberg P, Karlsson P, et al. Analysis of acrylamide, a carcinogen formed in heated foodstuffs. J Agric Food Chem, 2002 Aug 14; 50(17): 4998–5006.
Zoran D. The carnivore connection to nutrition in cats. J Amer Vet Med Assoc, 2002 Dec 1; 221(11): 1559–67.
Notes
Pet Food Institute. Fact Sheet 1994. Washington: Pet Food Institute, 1994.
Association of American Feed Control Officials. Official Publication, 2007. Regulation PE3, 120–121.
Morris, James G., and Quinton R. Rogers. Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle. Journal of Nutrition, 124 (1994): 2520S–2533S.
Tareke E, Rydberg P, Karlsson P, et al. Analysis of acrylamide, a carcinogen formed in heated foodstuffs. J Agric Food Chem, 2002 Aug 14; 50(17): 4998–5006.
Mottram DS, Wedzicha BL, Dodson AT. Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction. Nature, 2002 Oct 3; 419(6906): 448–9.
Hand MS, Thatcher CD, Remillard RL, et al., eds. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, 4th Edition. 2002. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute.
Seefelt SL, Chapman TE. Body water content and turnover in cats fed dry and canned rations. Am J Vet Res, 1979 Feb; 40(2): 183–5.
Logan, et al., Dental Disease, in: Hand et al., eds., Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, Fourth Edition. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute, 2000. Reprinted with permission from and contributed by Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute and reprinted with permission. © 2003-2009 - Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute - All rights reserved
What Consumers Can Do
Write or call pet food companies and the Pet Food Institute and express your concerns about commercial pet foods. Demand that manufacturers improve the quality of ingredients in their products.
Print out a copy of this report for your veterinarian to further his or her knowledge about commercial pet food.
Direct your family and friends with companion animals to this website, to alert them of the dangers of commercial pet food. Print out copies of the Fact Sheet on Selecting a Good Commercial Food. (You may also download this fact sheet as a pdf and see my blog articles
Selecting a Commercial Pet Food Part 1: Ingredient Standards and Problems, Part 2: Pet Food Shopping Check List & Guide lines to feeding your companion animal and Part 3: Vegetarian Pet Foods & Pet Food Label Rules.)
Stop buying commercial pet food; or at least stop buying dry food. Dry foods have been the subject of many more recalls, and have many adverse health effects. If that is not possible, reduce the quantity of commercial pet food and supplement with fresh, organic foods, especially meat. Purchase one or more of the many books available on pet nutrition and make your own food. Be sure that a veterinarian or a nutritionist has checked the recipes to ensure that they are balanced for long-term use.
If you would like to learn about how to make healthy food for your companion animal, read up on "Sample Diets," which contains simple recipes and important nutritional information.
Please be aware that API is not a veterinary hospital, clinic, or service. API does not and will not offer any medical advice. If you have concerns about your companion animal’s health or nutritional requirements, please consult your veterinarian.
Because pet food manufacturers frequently change the formulations of their products and Born Free USA united with API would not have conducted the necessary testing, we are unable to offer endorsements for particular brands of pet food. Many of our staff choose to make their own pet food or to purchase natural or organic products found in most feed and specialist stores but we cannot recommend brands that would be right for your companion animal or animals.
For Further Reading about Animal Nutrition
Born Free USA with Animal Protection Institute recommends the following books (listed in alphabetical order by author), many of which include recipes for home-prepared diets:
Michelle Bernard. 2003. Raising Cats Naturally — How to Care for Your Cat the Way Nature Intended.
Chiclet T. Dog and Jan Rasmusen. 2006. Scared Poopless: The Straight Scoop on Dog Care. ISBN-10: 0977126501, ISBN-13: 978-0977126507.
Rudi Edalati. 2001. Barker’s Grub: Easy, Wholesome Home-Cooking for Dogs. ISBN-10: 0609804421, ISBN-13: 978-0609804421.
Jean Hofve, DVM. 2007. What Cats Should Eat.
Richard H. Pitcairn, DVM, and Susan Hubble Pitcairn. 2005. Dr. Pitcairn’s New Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats. Rodale Press, Inc. ISBN-10: 157954973X, ISBN-13: 978-1579549732. Note: The recipes for cats were not revised in this new edition and date back to 2000; they may contain too much grain, according to recent research.
Kate Solisti. 2004. The Holistic Animal Handbook: A Guidebook to Nutrition, Health, and Communication. Council Oaks Books. ISBN-10: 1571781536, ISBN-13: 978-1571781536.
Donald R. Strombeck. 1999. Home-Prepared Dog & Cat Diets: The Healthful Alternative. Iowa State University Press. ISBN-10: 0813821495, ISBN-13: 978-0813821498. Note: Veterinary nutritionists have suggested that the taurine and calcium are too low in some of these recipes. Clam juice and sardines are poor sources of taurine; use taurine capsules instead.
Celeste Yarnall. 2000, Natural Cat Care: A Complete Guide to Holistic Health Care for Cats; and 1998, Natural Dog Care: A Complete Guide to Holistic Health Care for Dogs.
The books listed above are a fraction of all the titles currently available, and the omission of a title does not necessarily mean it is not useful for further reading about animal nutrition.
Who to Write
AAFCO
Pet Food Committee
David Syverson, Chair
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Dairy and Food Inspection Division
625 Robert Street
NorthSt. Paul, MN 55155-2538
www.aafco.org
FDA — Center for Veterinary Medicine
Sharon Benz
7500 Standish Place
Rockville, MD 20855
301-594-1728
www.fda.gov/cvm/
Pet Food Institute
2025 M Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
202-367-1120
202-367-2120 fax
References
Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated. Official Publication 2007. Atlanta: AAFCO, 2007.
Case LP, Carey DP, Hirakawa DA. Canine and Feline Nutrition: A Resource for Companion Animal Professionals. St. Louis: Mosby, 1995.
FDA Enforcement Reports, 1998-2007. www.fda.gov.
Hand MS, Thatcher CD, Remillard RL, et al., eds. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, 4th Edition. 2002. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute.
Logan, et al., Dental Disease, in: Hand et al., ibid.
Mahmoud AL. Toxigenic fungi and mycotoxin content in poultry feedstuff ingredients. J Basic Microbiol, 1993; 33(2): 101–4.
Morris JG, and Rogers QR. Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle. Journal of Nutrition, 1994; 124: 2520S–2533S.
Mottram DS, Wedzicha BL, Dodson AT. Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction. Nature, 2002 Oct 3; 419(6906): 448–9.
Pet Food Institute. Fact Sheet 1994. Washington: Pet Food Institute, 1994.
Phillips T. Rendered Products Guide. Petfood Industry, January/February 1994, 12–17, 21.
Roudebush P. Pet food additives. J Amer Vet Med Assoc, 203 (1993): 1667–1670.
Seefelt SL, Chapman TE. Body water content and turnover in cats fed dry and canned rations. Am J Vet Res, 1979 Feb; 40(2): 183–5.
Strombeck, DR. Home-Prepared Dog and Cat Foods: The Healthful Alternative. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1999.
Tareke E, Rydberg P, Karlsson P, et al. Analysis of acrylamide, a carcinogen formed in heated foodstuffs. J Agric Food Chem, 2002 Aug 14; 50(17): 4998–5006.
Zoran D. The carnivore connection to nutrition in cats. J Amer Vet Med Assoc, 2002 Dec 1; 221(11): 1559–67.
Notes
Pet Food Institute. Fact Sheet 1994. Washington: Pet Food Institute, 1994.
Association of American Feed Control Officials. Official Publication, 2007. Regulation PE3, 120–121.
Morris, James G., and Quinton R. Rogers. Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle. Journal of Nutrition, 124 (1994): 2520S–2533S.
Tareke E, Rydberg P, Karlsson P, et al. Analysis of acrylamide, a carcinogen formed in heated foodstuffs. J Agric Food Chem, 2002 Aug 14; 50(17): 4998–5006.
Mottram DS, Wedzicha BL, Dodson AT. Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction. Nature, 2002 Oct 3; 419(6906): 448–9.
Hand MS, Thatcher CD, Remillard RL, et al., eds. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, 4th Edition. 2002. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute.
Seefelt SL, Chapman TE. Body water content and turnover in cats fed dry and canned rations. Am J Vet Res, 1979 Feb; 40(2): 183–5.
Logan, et al., Dental Disease, in: Hand et al., eds., Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, Fourth Edition. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute, 2000. Reprinted with permission from and contributed by Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute and reprinted with permission. © 2003-2009 - Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute - All rights reserved
What’s Really in Pet Food? Part 6 Industry Secrets & Marketing Magic
Today we are going to discuss nutrition related diseases to continue this series contributed by Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute. In Part 1 of this series we briefly introduced the subject matter and discussed the major players in the pet food industry. But as we have learned the trend to bigger doesn’t necessarily translate into better and unfortunately we learned, not that it would be anything new, that there are major differences between what pet owners think they are buying and what they are actually getting. Part 2 addressed in very general terms labeling basics, standards and regulations, while Part 3 focused on ingredients and Part 4 was subject to discussion of pet food manufacturing processes, various recall issues and the potential dangers with pet food. In Part 5 we talked in a brief summary about nutrition related diseases, which are affecting our pets these days in pandemic dimensions. This series focuses in very general terms on the most visible name brands, the pet food labels that are mass distributed to supermarkets and discount stores. However, just so that we are on the safe side, there are also many highly respected brands that may be guilty of the same offenses. What many pet owners to this day still don’t know is that the pet food industry is an extension of the human food and agriculture industries. Pet food provides a convenient way for slaughterhouse offal, grains considered “unfit for human consumption,” and similar waste products to be turned into profit. In order for the consumer to make an educated decision it is necessary to learn, among many others considerations, how to read pet food labels to begin with.
Pet Food Industry Secrets
Co-Packing
The 2007 Menu Foods recall brought to light some of the pet food industry’s dirtiest secrets.
Most people were surprised — and appalled — to learn that all Iams/Eukanuba canned foods are not made by The Iams Company at all. In fact, in 2003 Iams signed an exclusive 10-year contract for the production of 100% of its canned foods by Menu.
This type of deal is called “co-packing.” One company makes the food, but puts someone else’s label on it. This is a very common arrangement in the pet food industry. It was first illustrated by the Doane’s and Diamond recalls, when dozens of private labels were involved. But none were as large or as “reputable” as Iams, Eukanuba, Hill’s, Purina, Nutro, and other high-end, so-called “premium” foods.
The big question raised by this arrangement is whether or not there is any real difference between the expensive premium brands and the lowliest generics. The recalled products all contained the suspect ingredient, wheat gluten, but they also all contained by-products of some kind, including specified by-products such as liver or giblets.
It’s true that a pet food company that contracts with a co-packer can provide its own ingredients, or it can require the contractor to buy particular ingredients to use in its recipes. But part of the attraction of using a co-packer is that it can buy ingredients in larger bulk than any one pet food maker could on its own, making the process cheaper and the profits larger. It’s likely that with many of the ingredients that cross all types of pet foods, those ingredients are the same.
Are one company’s products — made in the same plant on the same equipment with ingredients called the same name — really “better” than another’s? That’s what the makers of expensive brands want you to think. The recalled premium brands claim that Menu makes their foods “according to proprietary recipes using specified ingredients,” and that “contract manufacturers must follow strict quality standards.” Indeed, the contracts undoubtedly include those points. But out in the real world, things may not go according to plan. How well are machines cleaned between batches, how carefully are ingredients mixed, and just how particular are minimum-wage workers in a dirty smelly job going to be about getting everything just perfect?
Whatever the differences are between cheap and high-end food, one thing is clear. The purchase price of pet food does not always determine whether a pet food is good or bad or even safe. However, the very cheapest foods can be counted on to have the very cheapest ingredients. For example, Ol’ Roy, Wal-Mart’s store brand, has now been involved in 3 serious recalls.
Menu manufactures canned foods for many companies that weren’t affected by the recall, including Nature's Variety, Wellness, Castor & Pollux, Newman's Own Organics, Wysong, Innova, and EaglePack. It’s easy to see from their ingredient lists that those products are made from completely different ingredients and proportions. Again, the issue of cleaning the machinery out between batches comes up, but hopefully nothing so lethal will pass from one food to another.
Animal Testing
Another unpleasant practice exposed by this recall is pet food testing on live animals. Menu's own lab animals, who were deliberately fed the tainted food, were the first known victims. Tests began on February 27 (already a week after the first reports); animals started to die painfully from kidney failure a few days later. After the first media reports, Menu quickly changed its story to call these experiments “taste tests.” But Menu has done live animal feeding, metabolic energy, palatability, and other tests for Iams and other companies for years. Videotapes reveal the animals’ lives in barren metal cages; callous treatment; invasive experiments; and careless cruelty.
Although feeding trials are not required for a food to meet the requirements for labeling a food “complete and balanced,” many manufacturers use live animals to perform palatability studies when developing a new pet food. One set of animals is fed a new food while a “control” group is fed a current formula. The total volume eaten is used as a gauge for the palatability of the food. Some companies use feeding trials, which are considered to be a much more accurate assessment of the actual nutritional value of the food. They keep large colonies of dogs and cats for this purpose, or use testing laboratories that have their own animals.
There is a new movement toward using companion animals in their homes for palatability and other studies. In 2006, The Iams Company announced that it was cutting the use of canine and feline lab animals by 70%. While it proclaims this moral victory, the real reasons for this switch are likely financial. Whatever the reasons, it is a very positive step for the animals.
Finally, it is important to remember that the contamination that occurred in the Menu Foods recall could have happened anywhere at any time. It was not Menu’s fault; the toxin was unusual and unexpected. All companies have quality control standards and they do test ingredients for common toxins before using them. They also test the final products. However, there is a baseline risk inherent in using the raw materials that go into pet foods. When there are 11 recalls in 12 years, it’s clear that “freak occurrences” are the rule, not the exception.
Marketing Magic
A trip down the pet food aisle will boggle the mind with all the wonderful claims made by pet food makers for their repertoire of products. Knowing the nature of the ingredients helps sort out some of the more outrageous claims, but what’s the truth behind all this hype?
Niche claims. Indoor cat, canine athlete, Persian, 7-year old, Bloodhound, or a pet with a tender tummy, too much flab, arthritis, or itchy feet — no matter what, there’s a food “designed” just for that pet’s personal needs. Niche marketing has arrived in a big way in the pet food industry. People like to feel special, and a product with specific appeal is bound to sell better than a general product like “puppy food.” The reality is that there are only two basic standards against which all pet foods are measured: adult and growth, which includes gestation and lactation. Everything else is marketing.
“Natural” and “Organic” claims. The definition of “natural” adopted by AAFCO is very broad, and allows for artificially processed ingredients that most of us would consider very unnatural indeed. The term “organic”, on the other hand, has a very strict legal definition under the USDA National Organic Program. However, some companies are adept at evading the intent of both of these rules. For instance, the name of the company or product may be intentionally misleading. Some companies use terms such as “Nature” or “Natural” or even “Organic” in the brand name, whether or not their products fit the definitions. Consumers should also be aware that the term “organic” does not imply anything at all about animal welfare; products from cows and chickens can be organic, yet the animals themselves are still just “production units” in enormous factory farms.
Ingredient quality claims. A lot of pet foods claim they contain “human grade” ingredients. This is a completely meaningless term — which is why the pet food companies get away with using it. The same applies to “USDA inspected” or similar phrases. The implication is that the food is made using ingredients that are passed by the USDA for human consumption, but there are many ways around this. For instance, a facility might be USDA-inspected during the day, but the pet food is made at night after the inspector goes home. The use of such terms should be viewed as a “Hype Alert.”
“Meat is the first ingredient” claim. A claim that a named meat (chicken, lamb, etc.) is the #1 ingredient is generally seen for dry food. Ingredients are listed on the label by weight, and raw chicken weighs a lot, since contains a lot of water. If you look further down the list, you’re likely to see ingredients such as chicken or poultry by-product meal, meat-and-bone meal, corn gluten meal, soybean meal, or other high-protein meal. Meals have had the fat and water removed, and basically consist of a dry, lightweight protein powder. It doesn’t take much raw chicken to weigh more than a great big pile of this powder, so in reality the food is based on the protein meal, with very little “chicken” to be found. This has become a very popular marketing gimmick, even in premium and “health food” type brands. Since just about everybody is now using it, any meaning it may have had is so watered-down that you may just as well ignore it.
Special ingredient claims. Many of the high-end pet foods today rely on the marketing appeal of people-food ingredients such as fruits, herbs, and vegetables. However, the amounts of these items actually present in the food are small; and the items themselves may be scraps and rejects from processors of human foods — not the whole, fresh ingredients they want you to picture. Such ingredients don’t provide a significant health benefit and are really a marketing gimmick.
Pet food marketing and advertising has become extremely sophisticated over the last few years. It’s important to know what is hype and what is real to make informed decisions about what to feed your pets.
Stay tuned, in the final installment of this series we are going to provide some ideas as to what options you as a pet owner have, a fact sheet on “Selecting Commercial Pet Food” and an extensive reference guide for further reading on the subject matter.
Reprinted with permission from and contributed by Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute and reprinted with permission. © 2003-2009 - Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute - All rights reserved
Pet Food Industry Secrets
Co-Packing
The 2007 Menu Foods recall brought to light some of the pet food industry’s dirtiest secrets.
Most people were surprised — and appalled — to learn that all Iams/Eukanuba canned foods are not made by The Iams Company at all. In fact, in 2003 Iams signed an exclusive 10-year contract for the production of 100% of its canned foods by Menu.
This type of deal is called “co-packing.” One company makes the food, but puts someone else’s label on it. This is a very common arrangement in the pet food industry. It was first illustrated by the Doane’s and Diamond recalls, when dozens of private labels were involved. But none were as large or as “reputable” as Iams, Eukanuba, Hill’s, Purina, Nutro, and other high-end, so-called “premium” foods.
The big question raised by this arrangement is whether or not there is any real difference between the expensive premium brands and the lowliest generics. The recalled products all contained the suspect ingredient, wheat gluten, but they also all contained by-products of some kind, including specified by-products such as liver or giblets.
It’s true that a pet food company that contracts with a co-packer can provide its own ingredients, or it can require the contractor to buy particular ingredients to use in its recipes. But part of the attraction of using a co-packer is that it can buy ingredients in larger bulk than any one pet food maker could on its own, making the process cheaper and the profits larger. It’s likely that with many of the ingredients that cross all types of pet foods, those ingredients are the same.
Are one company’s products — made in the same plant on the same equipment with ingredients called the same name — really “better” than another’s? That’s what the makers of expensive brands want you to think. The recalled premium brands claim that Menu makes their foods “according to proprietary recipes using specified ingredients,” and that “contract manufacturers must follow strict quality standards.” Indeed, the contracts undoubtedly include those points. But out in the real world, things may not go according to plan. How well are machines cleaned between batches, how carefully are ingredients mixed, and just how particular are minimum-wage workers in a dirty smelly job going to be about getting everything just perfect?
Whatever the differences are between cheap and high-end food, one thing is clear. The purchase price of pet food does not always determine whether a pet food is good or bad or even safe. However, the very cheapest foods can be counted on to have the very cheapest ingredients. For example, Ol’ Roy, Wal-Mart’s store brand, has now been involved in 3 serious recalls.
Menu manufactures canned foods for many companies that weren’t affected by the recall, including Nature's Variety, Wellness, Castor & Pollux, Newman's Own Organics, Wysong, Innova, and EaglePack. It’s easy to see from their ingredient lists that those products are made from completely different ingredients and proportions. Again, the issue of cleaning the machinery out between batches comes up, but hopefully nothing so lethal will pass from one food to another.
Animal Testing
Another unpleasant practice exposed by this recall is pet food testing on live animals. Menu's own lab animals, who were deliberately fed the tainted food, were the first known victims. Tests began on February 27 (already a week after the first reports); animals started to die painfully from kidney failure a few days later. After the first media reports, Menu quickly changed its story to call these experiments “taste tests.” But Menu has done live animal feeding, metabolic energy, palatability, and other tests for Iams and other companies for years. Videotapes reveal the animals’ lives in barren metal cages; callous treatment; invasive experiments; and careless cruelty.
Although feeding trials are not required for a food to meet the requirements for labeling a food “complete and balanced,” many manufacturers use live animals to perform palatability studies when developing a new pet food. One set of animals is fed a new food while a “control” group is fed a current formula. The total volume eaten is used as a gauge for the palatability of the food. Some companies use feeding trials, which are considered to be a much more accurate assessment of the actual nutritional value of the food. They keep large colonies of dogs and cats for this purpose, or use testing laboratories that have their own animals.
There is a new movement toward using companion animals in their homes for palatability and other studies. In 2006, The Iams Company announced that it was cutting the use of canine and feline lab animals by 70%. While it proclaims this moral victory, the real reasons for this switch are likely financial. Whatever the reasons, it is a very positive step for the animals.
Finally, it is important to remember that the contamination that occurred in the Menu Foods recall could have happened anywhere at any time. It was not Menu’s fault; the toxin was unusual and unexpected. All companies have quality control standards and they do test ingredients for common toxins before using them. They also test the final products. However, there is a baseline risk inherent in using the raw materials that go into pet foods. When there are 11 recalls in 12 years, it’s clear that “freak occurrences” are the rule, not the exception.
Marketing Magic
A trip down the pet food aisle will boggle the mind with all the wonderful claims made by pet food makers for their repertoire of products. Knowing the nature of the ingredients helps sort out some of the more outrageous claims, but what’s the truth behind all this hype?
Niche claims. Indoor cat, canine athlete, Persian, 7-year old, Bloodhound, or a pet with a tender tummy, too much flab, arthritis, or itchy feet — no matter what, there’s a food “designed” just for that pet’s personal needs. Niche marketing has arrived in a big way in the pet food industry. People like to feel special, and a product with specific appeal is bound to sell better than a general product like “puppy food.” The reality is that there are only two basic standards against which all pet foods are measured: adult and growth, which includes gestation and lactation. Everything else is marketing.
“Natural” and “Organic” claims. The definition of “natural” adopted by AAFCO is very broad, and allows for artificially processed ingredients that most of us would consider very unnatural indeed. The term “organic”, on the other hand, has a very strict legal definition under the USDA National Organic Program. However, some companies are adept at evading the intent of both of these rules. For instance, the name of the company or product may be intentionally misleading. Some companies use terms such as “Nature” or “Natural” or even “Organic” in the brand name, whether or not their products fit the definitions. Consumers should also be aware that the term “organic” does not imply anything at all about animal welfare; products from cows and chickens can be organic, yet the animals themselves are still just “production units” in enormous factory farms.
Ingredient quality claims. A lot of pet foods claim they contain “human grade” ingredients. This is a completely meaningless term — which is why the pet food companies get away with using it. The same applies to “USDA inspected” or similar phrases. The implication is that the food is made using ingredients that are passed by the USDA for human consumption, but there are many ways around this. For instance, a facility might be USDA-inspected during the day, but the pet food is made at night after the inspector goes home. The use of such terms should be viewed as a “Hype Alert.”
“Meat is the first ingredient” claim. A claim that a named meat (chicken, lamb, etc.) is the #1 ingredient is generally seen for dry food. Ingredients are listed on the label by weight, and raw chicken weighs a lot, since contains a lot of water. If you look further down the list, you’re likely to see ingredients such as chicken or poultry by-product meal, meat-and-bone meal, corn gluten meal, soybean meal, or other high-protein meal. Meals have had the fat and water removed, and basically consist of a dry, lightweight protein powder. It doesn’t take much raw chicken to weigh more than a great big pile of this powder, so in reality the food is based on the protein meal, with very little “chicken” to be found. This has become a very popular marketing gimmick, even in premium and “health food” type brands. Since just about everybody is now using it, any meaning it may have had is so watered-down that you may just as well ignore it.
Special ingredient claims. Many of the high-end pet foods today rely on the marketing appeal of people-food ingredients such as fruits, herbs, and vegetables. However, the amounts of these items actually present in the food are small; and the items themselves may be scraps and rejects from processors of human foods — not the whole, fresh ingredients they want you to picture. Such ingredients don’t provide a significant health benefit and are really a marketing gimmick.
Pet food marketing and advertising has become extremely sophisticated over the last few years. It’s important to know what is hype and what is real to make informed decisions about what to feed your pets.
Stay tuned, in the final installment of this series we are going to provide some ideas as to what options you as a pet owner have, a fact sheet on “Selecting Commercial Pet Food” and an extensive reference guide for further reading on the subject matter.
Reprinted with permission from and contributed by Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute and reprinted with permission. © 2003-2009 - Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute - All rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
