Pet Food Fraud Again

[mimimomo]

Pet Food Fraud Again | Truth about Pet Food

Two years ago a study found eight of 21 pet foods contained an animal protein ingredient that wasn’t listed in the pet food label. Now, another study has been released finding 20 of 52 pet foods contained an animal protein not listed on the label. When will authorities hold manufacturers accountable?
In September 2012 ELISA Technologies found almost 50% of pet foods tested were mislabeled.

“We found eight foods that tested positive for an animal protein not listed on the ingredient label: two instances of undeclared beef/sheep, five of pork and one of deer. Conversely, in two instances, foods claiming to contain venison tested negative for deer content but positive for beef, sheep or pork. Overall, there were 12 instances of mislabeling in 10 of the dog foods tested; two foods had more than one labeling issue.”

In September 2014, Chapman University in southern California released the results of their study finding “Of the 52 products tested, 31 were labeled correctly, 20 were potentially mislabeled, and one contained a non-specific meat ingredient that could not be verified.”
Concern: one pet food “contained a non-specific meat ingredient that could not be verified”. The study did DNA testing for beef, goat, lamb, chicken, goose, turkey, pork, and horse. So what was the ‘could not be verified meat’ ingredient?
Quotes from the Chapman University Research…

“Although regulations exist for pet foods, increases in international trade and globalization of the food supply have amplified the potential for food fraud to occur,” said Rosalee Hellberg, Ph.D., and co-author on the study.”
Chicken was the most common meat species found in the pet food products. Pork was the second most common meat species detected, and beef, turkey and lamb followed, respectively. Goose was the least common meat species detected. None of the products tested positive for horsemeat.
Of the 20 potentially mislabeled products, 13 were dog food and 7 were cat food. Of these 20, 16 contained meat species that were not included on the product label, with pork being the most common undeclared meat species. In three of the cases of potential mislabeling, one or two meat species were substituted for other meat species.
In the study, DNA was extracted from each product and tested for the presence of eight meat species: beef, goat, lamb, chicken, goose, turkey, pork, and horse.
While a seemingly high percentage of pet foods were found to be potentially mislabeled in this study, the manner in which mislabeling occurred is not clear; nor is it clear as to whether the mislabeling was accidental or intentional and at which points in the production chain it took place.

For consumers, it doesn’t matter whether the mislabeling occurred as accidental or intentional. What does matter is the consumer is being lied to.
Of significant concern is: “pork being the most common undeclared meat species” found in the pet foods tested. In the last two years, the U.S. has suffered an incredible blow to its pork industry. Millions of baby pigs have died due to PED virus (Porcine epidemic diarrhea). As we know, other diseased, dying, disabled, and dead animal bodies are processed into pet food…is pet food where the PED virus dead baby pigs went to? Were these sick animals the source of undeclared pork in these pet foods? Consumers deserve answers.
The following email was sent to FDA…

Chapman University just released a report on research performed at the University that found 20 of 52 pet foods tested to be mislabeled. This is 38% – a significant portion – of foods tested were found to contain a animal protein source not listed on the label. Of additional concern, due to the PED virus, “pork was the most common undeclared meat species.” Link to Chapman University report: Chapman University Research on Meat Species in Pet Foods Shows not all Brands follow Regulations | Press Room
What assurance can FDA provide consumers their pets are safe from eating mislabeled foods? What action will FDA take to protect pet food consumers from pet food fraud? Can FDA provide consumers with assurance pets are not at risk to a PED type virus that could spread to cats and dogs?
We hope FDA will take swift action to stop pet food fraud.
On behalf of pet food consumers –
Susan Thixton

I suspect a response will be slow from FDA on this one as the research did not provide pet food product names and the seriousness of the subject. In the meantime, there is really nothing we can do. Without regulatory action – testing and enforcement of mislabeling regulations – consumers and our pets are at the mercy of the pet foods we trust. Whenever anything new is learned on this – it will be shared.
Sincere thank you to Chapman University for their research!

Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food

[OwnedByJezebel]

I wish they would tell which brands were mislabeled.

[rubymoon2072]

Oh that is just wrong that they are not telling us what brands. I swear the FDA is useless why do we even have them?? errr thanks for sharing.

[matese]

Originally Posted by OwnedByJezebel

I wish they would tell which brands were mislabeled.

just what I was thinking

[MarkFromSea]

Originally Posted by OwnedByJezebel

I wish they would tell which brands were mislabeled.

Times 3!

Although, it might be an easier list to use if they just publish the ones that are doing it correctly!

[OwnedByJezebel]

Originally Posted by rubymoon2072

Oh that is just wrong that they are not telling us what brands. I swear the FDA is useless why do we even have them?? errr thanks for sharing.

I'm not defending the FDA, but they didn't have anything to do with this. According to what mimimomo posted above, the studies were done by Chapman University and ELISA Technologies.

[Nancy1999]

I've always been suspicious about that website and it seems to be supported by "independent Pet Food Stores" as if they sell much safer products. I don't think they like any big brands, do they? Anyhow, I wouldn't worry too much about the Chapman report, it says, Of the 52 products tested, 31 were labeled correctly, 20 were potentially mislabeled, and one contained a non-specific meat ingredient that could not be verified." What does "potentially mislabeled" even mean? Sounds like it means, "it's possible it was mislabeled, but we really don't know. Only one out of the 52 had "contained a non-specific meat ingredient that could not be verified." By the way, they don't say, what the ingredients had claimed they contained, many products just say, "meat by products", so they could have several types of meat and still meet laws. Only 13 of the 20 were dog foods, and the fact of the matter is many small companies don't even have their own processing plant, so unless that plant is cleaned thoroughly between processing, you are going to get other things in the final product. Let's focus on the fact that OVER half the foods tested were labeled correctly. There are some good brands out there, but I think that particular site doesn't want you to believe it's the big brands, but only small independent brands, that take care in processing. I think the reverse is more likely to be true.

[mimimomo]

Susan Thixton just reports from other sources, it has nothing to do w/other independent companies. The independent companies sign a pledge, to provide 'the truth' in their labeling & food processing, handling of recalls (no silent recalls), etc. She links all her sources in her articles. This is nothing to take lightly, they do find 'unknown' meat according to DNA tests in cat & dog food! Like this one:

Chapman University Research on Meat Species in Pet Foods Shows not all Brands follow Regulations | Press Room

Researchers in Chapman University’s Food Science Program have just published a study on pet food mislabeling. The study focused on commercial pet foods marketed for dogs and cats to identify meat species present as well as any instances of mislabeling. Of the 52 products tested, 31 were labeled correctly, 20 were potentially mislabeled, and one contained a non-specific meat ingredient that could not be verified.
“Although regulations exist for pet foods, increases in international trade and globalization of the food supply have amplified the potential for food fraud to occur,” said Rosalee Hellberg, Ph.D., and co-author on the study. “With the recent discovery of horsemeat in ground meat products sold for human consumption in several European countries, finding horsemeat in U.S. consumer food and pet food products is a concern, which is one of the reasons we wanted to do this study.”
Chicken was the most common meat species found in the pet food products. Pork was the second most common meat species detected, and beef, turkey and lamb followed, respectively. Goose was the least common meat species detected. None of the products tested positive for horsemeat.

Of the 20 potentially mislabeled products, 13 were dog food and 7 were cat food. Of these 20, 16 contained meat species that were not included on the product label, with pork being the most common undeclared meat species. In three of the cases of potential mislabeling, one or two meat species were substituted for other meat species.
In the study, DNA was extracted from each product and tested for the presence of eight meat species: beef, goat, lamb, chicken, goose, turkey, pork, and horse.
“Pet food safety was another area of concern, particularly with pet foods that are specifically formulated to address food allergies in both cats and dogs,” continued Dr. Hellberg.
The pet food industry is a substantial market in the United States. Nearly 75 percent of U.S. households own pets, totaling about 218 million pets (not including fish). On average, each household spends $500 annually on their pets, equating to about 1 percent of household expenditures. In the past five years, pet industry expenditures have increased by $10 billion, with $21 billion spent on pet food alone in 2012.
The foods developed for pets are regulated by both federal and state entities. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine regulates animal feed and pet foods. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates the interstate transportation and processing of animal products, as well as the inspection of animal product imports and exports.
While a seemingly high percentage of pet foods were found to be potentially mislabeled in this study, the manner in which mislabeling occurred is not clear; nor is it clear as to whether the mislabeling was accidental or intentional and at which points in the production chain it took place.
The study was published in the journal Food Control and was completed with Chapman undergrad student Tara Okuma.


http://blogs.chapman.edu/press-room/...g.-1-Color.jpg

This chart shows that there are horse meat & pork, beef etc in some dog foods & it is not on the label. This is VERY disconcerting to me, bc I have one that gets colitis whenever she eats beef. She poops blood for days!

[Nancy1999]

I'm saying that the way she reports new is slanted. She tends to write stories that scare the reader. While I believe the report, since it doesn't give us the names of the offending companies, all it does is make us not trust dog food, in general, well all except those independent companies who advertise on her website. Here's another example of her reporting. The Feather Meal Fluff | Truth about Pet Food She talks about how Royal Canin is using feather as a protein source, but she leaves out the information that they have been testing this for 10 years and it's for dogs who are extremely allergic to most foods and many dogs lives have been saved using this food. She makes it sound like RC is just trying to cut corners and willing to give our dogs crap. She mixes truth with lots of misleading opinions. Seriously, what real facts did we learn from the Chapman report? Some dog food companies mislabel their product. I'm pretty sure I knew that. This to me means, buy from a company that you trust, and one that has it's own processing plant.

[mimimomo]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I'm saying that the way she reports new is slanted. She tends to write stories that scare the reader. While I believe the report, since it doesn't give us the names of the offending companies, all it does is make us not trust dog food, in general, well all except those independent companies who advertise on her website. Here's another example of her reporting. The Feather Meal Fluff | Truth about Pet Food She talks about how Royal Canin is using feather as a protein source, but she leaves out the information that they have been testing this for 10 years and it's for dogs who are extremely allergic to most foods and many dogs lives have been saved using this food. She makes it sound like RC is just trying to cut corners and willing to give our dogs crap. She mixes truth with lots of misleading opinions. Seriously, what real facts did we learn from the Chapman report? Some dog food companies mislabel their product. I'm pretty sure I knew that. This to me means, buy from a company that you trust, and one that has it's own processing plant.

I see what you're saying...I remember that article. There was a thread here on YT about it & I thought it was yucky. Then someone posted that it saved her dog (Alfie), he had severe allergies.

I highly doubt that any of the foods tested above were RX foods. RX foods saves dogs.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by mimimomo

I see what you're saying...I remember that article. There was a thread here on YT about it & I thought it was yucky. Then someone posted that it saved her dog (Alfie), he had severe allergies.

I highly doubt that any of the foods tested above were RX foods. RX foods saves dogs.

My point is that she seems to have an agenda and people read her view before they read the actual article, than they read the article with her point of view influencing them. I've read several things written by her that are highly exaggerated, so I tend to not believe what she has to say. I will admit to be happy, that we have advocates that help keep the pet food industry in check and if I had a allergic pet, I would really want to know, the ingredients in his food for sure!

[Wylie's Mom]

Interesting..I too wonder which brands...

[107barney]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

My point is that she seems to have an agenda and people read her view before they read the actual article, than they read the article with her point of view influencing them. I've read several things written by her that are highly exaggerated, so I tend to not believe what she has to say. I will admit to be happy, that we have advocates that help keep the pet food industry in check and if I had a allergic pet, I would really want to know, the ingredients in his food for sure!

Agree! Well said Nancy!