 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / August 2003Just read about what is really in cat food
I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!! This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into cat and dog food. Almost all of the major brands include euthanized cats and dogs in their formula, as well as all of the spoiled and diseased parts of animals which are not fit for human consumption. In some cases, the protein ingredients in cat food are actually heat treated feathers and hair, and sometimes heat treated fecal matter. There is even road kill in some cat food. Some brands, including Iams, Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow... Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember) I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats. > I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!! > This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are > Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember) Think of the birds, mice, whatever cats will eat. Human grade? ;-) Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon > I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand > I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are > > Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember) > I've been buying Wellness brand canned food for Brio. It's the only brand > I've ever seen that says it contains human grade meats. You should be aware that the term "Human Grade" means absoutely NOTHING under law. In fact it has been so misused by various companies that the term is being considered for legislation to stop the misuse of the term and the deception of consumers. Companies used the term "organic" then the law stepped in and made them actually be organic - now there are no companies using the term organic- wonder why? Then came "All Natural" and the law stepped in and made them actually be "All Natural" what happened to all those hundreds of companies claiming to be "All Natural" they moved on to... "Holistic" and "Human Grade" - another meaningless term with absolutely no teeth whatsoever. I could market used crankcase oil and sewage and call it holistic and human grade it would mean nothing. When "human grade" gets smacked by the law, these same companies will move on to other terms that have no meaning at all but fool consumers everyday. There ought to be a pool for the next meaningless term to be created by a fanciful marketing department. I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities only produce foods that are fit for human consumption. May I ask Steve what "law" stepped in and made them change the wording? The only regulations that I am aware of within the pet food industry are those that govern the labeling text. As far as the ingredients used, anything is fair game. The AAFCO sets guidelines and it is up to each state to adopt these guidelines. In reading the "ingredient definitions" which the AAFCO lists, I'd be a little concerned. "hydrolyzed hair," hydrolyzed poultry feathers," Spray dried animal blood," "dehydrated garbage," "dried ruminant waste," "dried swine waste," and the list goes on. Dr. David Dzanis, formerly with the CVM, advised that these ingredient definitions applied both to livestock feed and pet food. The CVM regulates labeling text and drugs used in pet foods, nothing more. If you are purchasing a product containing meat meal ask the company if they actual test the raw materials to ascertain the sources of protein. Companies claim that their foods contain no euthanized companion animals. They ask that the rendering plants sign a document that states there are no dogs and cats in the raw material. Unless the pet food companies actually test the raw material the document is not worth the paper it is written on. Ann > You should be aware that the term "Human Grade" means absoutely > NOTHING under law. In fact it has been so misused by various companies [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > everyday. There ought to be a pool for the next meaningless term to be > created by a fanciful marketing department. > I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade > ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for > human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces > their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities > only produce foods that are fit for human consumption. Mrs. Martin, Under US law the terms "human grade" "holistic", "naturally raised" mean absolutely NOTHING. I could take used crankcase oil, mix it with human sewage and bottle it, claiming it was "human grade". There is nothing in the law that defines what that term means - accordingly the term means nothing under the law. Absent a legal definition, the term means nothing. Under USDA and FDA law no meat meal of any kind that leaves the human production stream continues to be "human grade". If you take a steak out of the grocery store and then return it, it is no longer legally fit for human consumption. That's the level of restriction that is placed on the human food chain in the US. Once that meat meal leaves the human food production stream it is no longer "human edible". Once meat leaves the human food supplpy chain and crosses the dock into a pet food production plant it is no longer "human grade". > May I ask Steve what "law" stepped in and made them change the > wording? In point of fact the law has been slow to catch up to busy marketing geniuses misleading consumers. For years we had pet food companies who claimed they were "organic". Then the law stepped in and defined organic, and guess what suddenly all those pet food companies dropped claims of being "organic". The next marketing wizard term was "natural", then the law stepped in again and defined the term "natural" and guess what, 99% of the companies that used to claim to be "natural" had to drop that claim from the bag. The marketing geniuses simply move on to the next term to fool consumers with. Right now that term is "human grade". The FDA, USDA and AAFCO are considering regulations to define this term. What do you expect will happen when it is becomes legally defined? Just watch as that claim disappears into the sunset as well. Only to be replaced with the next undefined term to fool consumers with. It's marketing game of staying one step ahead of the regulators. What term can they use legally and convey the same message? If all those companies truly were "organic" or "natural" why aren't they continuing to use the same claims? Because they never were in the first place. Does anyone think for a second these same companies suddenly stopped making foods that were "organic" and "natural"? Not a chance. You have a choice here. You can graduate from the 3rd grade elementary level of assesing food by looking at ingredients to the college level of looking at the nutrients they provide, or continue to be a victim of slick marketing geniuses with the next new undefined descriptive word. > Some brands, including Iams, > Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and > dogs at universities. They give to good causes as well, but, wow... > Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are > Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember) I cannot speak for the others but such allegations about Hill's Science Diet are completely without any foundation in fact whatsoever. They are utterly in error. Hill's funds NO invasive research of any kind. Neither are there any of the ingredients in any Science Diet product as indicated in the note above. Utter rubbish! Hi Steve, You say this is if you can speak for Hill's with certainty? Just curious as I'm always keeping an ear out for information regarding quality of pet foods. Cheers, Purplecat > > Some brands, including Iams, > > Eukanuba, and Science Diet, fund cruel animal experiments on cats and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > kind. Neither are there any of the ingredients in any Science Diet > product as indicated in the note above. Utter rubbish! I realize I'm coming in late on this thread, but what the hell. I agree that including cat and dog meat in cat food is ethically questionable, but don't you realize what cats eat in the wild? They eat diseased flesh, guts, feathers, hair, anything and everything they can rip into small enough bits to get in their mouths. If you died in your house alone with your cats, they would eat YOU to survive. Cats aren't made like humans, and they don't need to be fed "human-grade" food. Now, that said, it does make sense to buy food that contains a high-quality protein source. If you read the label on most of the mainstream cat food, there is always a "by-product" of some kind, and that is where they sneak in the nasty stuff. If a "by-product" is in the first five ingredients of your cat food, it's probably not the best quality food to give your cat. Also, anything that is unspecified "meat" probably should be avoided (kangaroo meat? rat meat? who knows?) However, forcing cat food companies to supply "human grade" food for cats causes more feed animals to be slaughtered and more usable parts to be wasted (who's gonna eat those cow guts from all your hamburgers, huh?), the price of cat food goes up, your cats aren't any healthier, nobody wins. Just my $0.02. M9 > I just read a book called "Food Pets Die For" and it is horrifying!!! > This woman did an extensive study about the ingredients which go into [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Some of the pet food companies which have healthier ingredients are > Petguard, Natura, and some others (cant remember) Good Morning, My name is Ann Martin and I am the author of "Protect Your Pet:" and "Food Pets Die For:" I've just become aware of your discussion on the testng of dry commercial dog food undertaken by the FDA/CVM. This study was undertaken because veterinarians reported they required more of the drug, sodium pentobarbital, to euthanize dogs. The study was two part, ascertain levels of this drug in pet food and undertake DNA testing to find if dogs and cats were used as sources of protein in the foods. If you read the report on the sodium pentobarbital testing very carefully you will find that, according to their data, many dogs would be ingesting toxic levels of this drug. Because these posts relate to the DNA testing I won't get into the pentobarbital issue at this point. First, there is no doubt that euthanized dogs and cats are rendered and used in pet foods (meat meal). In I letter from the CVM they did admit that they were aware that this is happening and that it is a means of disposal for unwanted pets. In the last couple of years three rendering plants have stated that they will no longer render companion animals for use in pet food. Be assured these are just three out of many, many rendering plants that continue this practice. In a report released by the FDA/CVM in February of 2002 they stated that they found no dog and cat DNA in the foods they tested. They further stated that the pentobarbital was coming from cattle and horses that were euthanized with this drug. I contacted agriculture vets all over the U.S. and Canada and asked if they used this drug for cattle and horses. Very few stated that cattle are ever euthanized with pentobarbital, "it's cost prohibitive." As with cattle, few horses are euthanized. Because the report was so vague I requested, under the FOIA, all documentation relating to this study. This was two days after their report came out. After waiting months I contacted the Ombudsman for both the CVM and FDA. In December of 2002 I received a report that was "similar" to the DNA testing I reequested. If I had of wanted something similar that is what I would have requested. In January of 2003 the Ombudsman for the FDA advised me that my request for the information had been denied. In February of 2003, I filed an appeal, drafted by a lawyer in the U.S. (I'm Canadian), requesting that this information be released. To date, I've received nothing. I have to question what this agency is hiding. If all was above board there would be no need to keep this report confidential. Hope this sheds a little more light on the topic. Dr Ms Martin, I really enjoyed your book. Thanks for all of the research you are doing on this. It's something I had always wondered about until I read your book. It makes sense that in a culture where cutting cast is the name of the game, that all of our trash would go into the food of pets who cant protest it. Can you also talk about the larger companies doing the testing on animals and how you found out about it, why they test, etc? Thats one of the other big topics on this thread. Thanks so much for all of your work! kate > Good Morning, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > testing very carefully you will find that, according to their data, > many dogs would be ingesting toxic levels of this drug. With all due respect the statement above is simply, and patently, false from every possible perspective. At no time were "toxic levels" of pentobarbital found in ANY commercial food. The highest level discovered was in a Heinz Kibbles & Bits product with 25.1 parts per BILLION - nowhere near anything close to a "toxic dose". The issue here is one of reality, not one of extreme far out possibilities. Pet foods which are labelled to contain chicken, lamb, beef, etc cannot contain dead dogs and cats. While you may find some lower priced foods with the generic "meat meal" ingredient, they are rare to non-existant in the premium pet food business. Even those pet foods which used the generic term "meat meal" cannot in any way to be said to definitively contain dead dogs and cats. Regardless of the DNA findings in the report, pet foods that label thier ingredients as a specific meat meal (chicken, beef etc.) do not contain dead dogs and cats. rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane) wrote > With all due respect the statement above is simply, and patently, > false from every possible perspective. At no time were "toxic levels" > of pentobarbital found in ANY commercial food. The highest level > discovered was in a Heinz Kibbles & Bits product with 25.1 parts per > BILLION - nowhere near anything close to a "toxic dose". I don't believe I stated that any particular dog food tested was toxic. The levels, based on the findings of the FDA/CVM: (1) Dogs that received 150 and 500 micograms pentobarbital once daily for eight weeks had statistically higher liver weights (relative to their bodyweights) than the animals in the control group. Increased liver weights are associated with the increased production by the liver cytochrome P450 enzymes. (2) Any analysis showed that the activity of at least three liver enzymes was statistically greater than that of the controls at doses of approximately 200 micrograms pentobarbital per day or greater." Under "Adverse health effects unlikely." They go on to state "For the purposes of CVM's assessment the scientists assumed that at most, dogs would be exposed to no more than 4 micrograms/kilogram body weight/day based on the highest level of pentobarbital found in the survey dog foods." Further, However, to get the exposure level of 50 micrograms of pentobarbital per day, which is the highest level at which no biological response was seen, a dog would have to consume between 5 to 10 micrograms of pentobarbital per kilogram of body weight. But the most any dog would consume, based in the survey resutls, was 4 micrograms pentobarbital per kilogram of body weight per day." What's wrong with this picture. First, this was an eight week trial and any scientist worth their salt knows that adequate data cannot be obtained in an eight week time span. Our pets are ingesting this stuff over a life time. Second, The admit that the amount of pento in the foods they tested causes elevated enzymes. They state that at most, dogs would get 4 mcg.kg body wt. Well if you have an 80 lb. dog, that's roughly 40 kg. 40 kg. times 40 mcg is 160 mcg. We don't know how much is actually in any of the foods we feed our pets, could be zero, could be double the amount they found. Were you also aware that the FDA has stated that if levels of any kind of pento were found in human food it would be pulled from the shelves immediately. They plan to take no action as far as pento in pet food. They also neglected, or if they did, chose to keep it hidden, any testing on commerical cat food. > The issue here is one of reality, not one of extreme far out > possibilities. Pet foods which are labelled to contain chicken, lamb, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > specific meat meal (chicken, beef etc.) do not contain dead dogs and > cats. I don't think I stated that foods containing only chicken, lamb, beef, contained euthainzed companion animals, this was your analogy. I stated that meat meal would be the suspect source of protein to contain rendered dogs and cats. As for what foods contain meat meal, check labels and I am sure you will find some of the so called "premium foods" list this on their labels. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.