So Your Charging More For Dog Food/ What About The Last Salmonella Outbreak

So now our pet food will be going up or you can say the bags will be weighing less. Hill's Science Diet dog chow went up 2 bucks while Pedigree and Purina will be putting less in their bags.
It’s just a shame that they are doing the same thing they did to us a few years ago. Do you remember when you got a can of coffee that was a pound?
Read the article here.

So after all that when on with the dog food last year, you would think that the manufacturers would be bending over to get us to by their food.

Here is an update on the Salmonella outbreak last year.

Photo by CDC

Multistate Outbreak of Human Salmonella Infections Caused by Contaminated Dry Dog Food --- United States, 2006—2007


During January 1, 2006--December 31, 2007, CDC collaborated with public health officials in Pennsylvania, other states, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate a prolonged multistate outbreak of Salmonella enterica serotype Schwarzengrund infections in humans. A total of 70 cases of S. Schwarzengrund infection with the outbreak strain (XbaI pulsed-field gel electrophoresis [PFGE] pattern JM6X01.0015) were identified in 19 states, mostly in the northeastern United States. This report describes the outbreak investigation, which identified the source of infection as dry dog food produced at a manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania. This investigation is the first to identify contaminated dry dog food as a source of human Salmonella infections. After handling pet foods, pet owners should wash their hands immediately, and infants should be kept away from pet feeding areas.


On May 8, 2007, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Laboratories reported three cases of S. Schwarzengrund infection with indistinguishable PFGE patterns to CDC's PulseNet.* On June 9, 2007, after PulseNet identified cases in Ohio and other states, CDC's OutbreakNet† team was notified of a potential multistate outbreak of S. Schwarzengrund infections. During June 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) interviewed persons identified by PulseNet as infected with the outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund. These initial interviews suggested exposure to dogs or dry dog food as a possible source of infection. Thirteen infected persons from Pennsylvania were questioned about dog-related exposures: eight (62%) owned one or more dogs, and the other five reported regular contact with a dog. Seven of the eight persons who owned dogs were able to recall the types of dog food they had purchased recently. Several brands had been purchased, but persons in the households of six patients recalled purchasing dog food products made by manufacturer A. These interviews suggested exposure to dogs or dry dog foods as a possible source of infection.


PADOH collected dog stool specimens and opened bags of dry dog food from the homes of the 13 Pennsylvania patients. The outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund was isolated from five of 13 dog stool specimens and two of 22 dry dog food specimens collected from the homes. The contaminated dry dog food bags were two different brands (brand A and brand B), both produced by manufacturer A at plant A in Pennsylvania.


In July 2007, the Ohio Department of Health also interviewed persons infected with the outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund and collected two dog stool specimens from one patient's home. The outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund was isolated from one of the dog stool specimens. The dog recently had been fed brand A dry dog food, but the bag of dog food was no longer available for testing.


Epidemiologic Investigation


A case was defined as a laboratory-confirmed infection with the outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund in a person residing in the United States who either had symptoms beginning on or after January 1, 2006, or (if the symptom onset date was unknown) had S. Schwarzengrund isolated from a specimen on or after January 1, 2006. During January 1, 2006--December 31, 2007, a total of 70 human cases of the outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund were reported to CDC via PulseNet from 19 states (Figures 1 and 2). The last reported illness onset date was October 1, 2007. No illness was reported in pets.


The largest number of reported cases was in Pennsylvania (29 cases), followed by New York (nine) and Ohio (seven) (Figure 1). Among 61 ill persons whose age was available, the median age was 3 years (range: 1 month--85 years), and 24 (39%) were aged <1 year; of 45 persons whose sex was known, 22 (49%) were female. Of 38 ill persons for whom clinical information was available, 15 (39%) had bloody diarrhea; of 45 persons whose hospitalization status was known, 11 (24%) had been hospitalized. No deaths were reported.


Case-Control Study


To determine the source of infections caused by the outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund, the OutbreakNet team coordinated a multistate case-control study during July 17--September 28, 2007. Case-patient households were defined as those with at least one member infected with the outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund with an illness onset date or isolation date occurring during January 1, 2006--August 30, 2007. For each case-patient household, one to three geographically matched control households were recruited using a reverse--digit-dialing system. Persons in each case-patient and control household were asked whether they had been exposed to dry dog or dry cat food, which brands they usually purchased, and which brands they purchased in the 2 weeks before illness onset (for cases) or the 2 weeks before interview (for controls). Data were analyzed as a matched case-control study, and a multivariable logistic analysis was conducted to control for confounding from coexposures.


One person was interviewed in each of 43 case-patient households and 144 control households in eight states: Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Case-patient and control households were excluded from analysis where questions were not answered. Contact with a dog was reported by 34 (79%) persons in case-patient households compared with 86 (60%) persons in control households (matched odds ratio [mOR] = 2.7) (Table). Dry dog or cat food produced by manufacturer A usually was chosen for purchase by members of 19 (44%) case-patient households compared with 14 (10%) of control households (mOR = 7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.6--27.8).


Among the 19 persons in case-patient households who usually purchased manufacturer A pet food, 11 purchased brand A, three brand B, five brand C, and three brand D. All four brands were produced at plant A. Among the four brands, brand A typically was purchased by 11 (26%) persons in case-patient households compared with six (4%) persons in control households. In multivariable analysis, purchase of brand A was associated with illness (mOR = 23.7) (Table). In Pennsylvania alone, purchase of brand A also was associated with human illness in multivariable analysis (mOR = 15.4; CI = 2.1--infinity).


Environmental Investigation


During 2007, plant A produced approximately 25 brands of dry pet food; specific distribution information for brands produced in plant A was not available. Plant A labeled these dry pet foods with a 1-year shelf life (i.e., sell-by date). On July 12, 2007, PADOH staff members visited plant A and collected 144 swabs of specimens from environmental surfaces; the outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund was isolated from one sample. FDA tested previously unopened bags of seven brands (brands E, F, G, H, I, J, and K) of dry dog food produced at plant A. Two brands of dry dog food (E and F) yielded the outbreak strain of S. Schwarzengrund. On August 21, 2007, manufacturer A announced a voluntary recall of 50-pound bags of brand E dry dog food and 5-pound bags of brand F dry dog food. On July 26, 2007, manufacturer A suspended operations at plant A for cleaning and disinfection. In mid-November 2007, plant A resumed normal operations.


Reported by: A Ferraro, PhD, M Deasy, V Dato, MD, M Moll, MD, C Sandt, PhD, J Tait, B Perry, MS, L Lind, MPH, N Rea, PhD, R Rickert, MPH, C Marriott, MPH, C Teacher, MSN, P Fox, MS, K Bluhm, V Urdaneta, MD, S Ostroff, MD, Pennsylvania Dept of Health. E Villamil, MPH, P Smith, MD, Regional Epidemiology Program, New York State Dept of Health. Ohio Dept of Health. JL Austin, PulseNet; T Ayers, MS, S Alexander, DVM, RM Hoekstra, PhD, I Williams, PhD, Div of Foodborne, Bacterial, and Mycotic Diseases, National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases; C Barton Behravesh, DVM, EIS Officer, CDC.


Editorial Note:


The laboratory and epidemiologic evidence in this investigation indicates that dry dog food produced by manufacturer A at plant A in Pennsylvania and sold under several brand names caused human illness during 2006--2007. Although previous reports in North America have associated Salmonella infection with certain pet treats, this report is the first to associate Salmonella with contaminated dry dog food. The case-control study found an association between infections in households and use of dry dog food or dry cat food produced by manufacturer A. In addition, the outbreak strain was isolated from 1) opened bags of dry dog food (brands A and B) that were produced in plant A by manufacturer A, 2) stool specimens from dogs in case-patient households that ate dry dog food produced in plant A, 3) an environmental sample from plant A, and 4) two bags (brands E and F) of previously unopened dry dog food produced in plant A.


A voluntary recall of specific-sized bags of two brands of dry dog food issued by the manufacturer in August 2007 was based only on lot-specific testing of finished unopened bags found to be positive for Salmonella by official FDA testing. Other sizes of bags of the two brands of dry dog food, although produced at plant A, were not recalled. Other brands of dry dog or cat food produced at plant A, including brands associated epidemiologically and microbiologically with illness, also were not included in the recall.


Plant A ceased operations during July--November 2007 to allow for cleaning and disinfection. However, because dry pet food has a 1-year shelf life and all contaminated products were not recalled, contaminated dry pet food might still be found in homes and could provide the potential for causing illness. Only an estimated 3% of Salmonella infections are laboratory-confirmed and reported to surveillance systems (2); therefore, this outbreak likely was larger than the 70 laboratory-confirmed cases identified.


Most Salmonella infections are acquired by handling or consuming contaminated food products, particularly foods of animal origin. Infections also are acquired by direct and indirect contact with farm animals, reptiles, and occasionally pets. Investigations are ongoing to determine how persons might acquire Salmonella infections from dry pet food. Factors under review include the handling and storage of dry pet food, hand-washing practices, exposure of children to dry pet food, and location in the home where pets are fed. Although a specific source of contamination for the pet food from plant A was not identified, the plant equipment might have been contaminated, or contaminated ingredients might have been delivered to plant A. Dry pet foods typically are extruded, and production includes heat treatment, but the extruded food also is spray-coated with a taste enhancer, usually an animal fat.


Outbreaks of human illness associated with animal-derived pet treats have been described previously in North America (3--6). These include outbreaks of Salmonella Infantis infection caused by contaminated pig ear pet treats (3,4), Salmonella Newport infection caused by contaminated pet treats containing dried beef (5), and Salmonella Thompson infections associated with contact with contaminated pet treats made from of beef or seafood (6). Follow-up investigations of these outbreaks demonstrated that pet treats were frequently contaminated with Salmonella organisms. After a 1999 outbreak in Canada, Salmonella organisms were isolated from 48 (51%) of 94 samples of pig ear pet treats purchased from local retail stores (5). During 1999--2000 in the United States, Salmonella strains were isolated from 65 (41%) of 158 samples of pig ear and other animal-derived pet treats purchased from retail stores (7).


FDA regulates pet foods, treats, and supplements. If Salmonella is present, these products are considered adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FDC) Act.§ During January 1--July 27, 2007, at least 15 pet food products were recalled because of Salmonella contamination (8). On November 2, 2007, a single brand of pet vitamin was recalled voluntarily by the manufacturer because of possible Salmonella contamination (9). Salmonella contamination has not been identified in canned pet food, probably because the manufacturing process eliminates contamination. However, Salmonella contamination has been associated with raw pet food diets (10).


Persons who suspect that contact with dry dog food has caused illness should consult their health-care providers. Most persons infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12--72 hours after infection, and Salmonella infection usually is diagnosed by culture of a stool sample. Illness typically lasts 4--7 days, and most persons recover without treatment. Infants, elderly persons, and persons with impaired immune systems are more likely than others to develop severe illness. To prevent Salmonella infections, persons should wash their hands for at least 20 seconds with warm water and soap immediately after handling dry pet foods, pet treats, and pet supplements, and before preparing food and eating. Infants should be kept away from pet feeding areas. Children aged <5 years should not be allowed to touch or eat pet food, treats, or supplements.¶


Acknowledgments


This report is based, in part, on contributions by LS Kidoguchi, MPH, LM Gross, Bur of Communicable Disease; L Kornstein, PhD, B Tha, MS, Public Health Laboratory, New York City Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene. G Johnson, M Fage, Regional Epidemiology Program; D Nicholas, MPH, A Mears, MS, Food Protection; T Quinlan, Y Khachadourian, D Schoonmaker-Bopp, MS, L Armstrong, T Root, T Passaretti, K Musser, PhD, Wadsworth Center Laboratory, New York State Dept of Health. Food and Drug Admin.


References


1. CDC. Salmonella annual summary 2005. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2007. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/phlisdata/salmtab/2005/salmonellaannualsummary2005.pdf.
2. Voetsch AC, Van Gilder TJ, Angulo FJ, et al. FoodNet estimate of the burden of illness caused by nontyphoidal Salmonella infections in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:S127--34.
3. Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Public Health Agency of Canada. Human health risk from exposure to natural dog treats. Can Commun Dis Rep 2000;26:41--2.
4. Clark C, Cunningham J, Ahmed R, et al. Characterization of Salmonella associated with pig ear dog treats in Canada. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:3962--8.
5. Pitout JD, Reisbig MD, Mulvey M, et al. Association between handling of pet treats and infection with Salmonella enterica serotype Newport expressing the AmpC ß-Lactamase, CMY-2. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:4578--82.
6. CDC. Human salmonellosis associated with animal-derived pet treats---United States and Canada, 2005. MMWR 2006;55:702--5.
7. White DG, Datta A, McDermott P, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility and genetic relatedness of Salmonella serovars isolated from animal-derived dog treats in the USA. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;52:860--3.
8. Food and Drug Administration. CVM update: FDA tips for preventing foodborne illness associated with pet food and pet treats. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 2007. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cvm/cvm_updates/foodbornetips.htm.
9. Food and Drug Administration. The Hartz Mountain Corporation recalls Vitamin Care for Cats because of possible health risk. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 2007. Available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/hartz10_07.html.
10. Finley R, Reid-Smith R, Weese JS. Human health implications of Salmonella-contaminated natural pet treats and raw pet food. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:686--91.


* PulseNet is the national molecular subtyping network for foodborne disease surveillance.


† OutbreakNet is a national network of epidemiologists and other public health officials who investigate outbreaks of foodborne, waterborne, and other enteric illnesses in the United States.


§ Available at http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact4.htm.


¶ Additional information available at http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/schwarzengrund.html.

Read the article here.

What is salmonellosis?

Is Your Dog Getting Sick From Eating NUTRO- Pet Food

As the title said, is your dog getting sick from eating NUTRO- pet food?

There has been a lot of reports by dogs & cats owners that their pets have been getting sick in the past few months. Some owners talked about their pet losing weight and some talked about digestive problems from eating the pet food.

NUTRO has even defended their product and asked those owner’s to contact their company with any complaints. @ 800-833-5330 or visit their site www.nutroproducts.com .

Dr. Robert Backus, an assistant teaching professor and director of the Nestle-Purina Endowed Small Animal Nutrition Program at the University of Missouri's College of Veterinary Medicine said: Food can cause GI upset if sudden changes are made in the type of food you're feeding.

As far as pet food manufacturing goes, I'm not an authority. There are many ingredients that go into these products and there could be problems with an ingredient source. There also could be problems with the formulation. And there are occasional processing problems -- maybe the food was over-processed or under processed -- which could affect GI health and pets could end up with diarrhea.

I don’t know but there seems to be a lot of dogs getting sick so just in case, you might what to keep an eye out and watch your dog’s behavior.

Read the full article by Lisa Wade McCormick from Consumer Affairs

Do You Really Know What’s In Dog Food - Part 1

Here is an article from the FDA on just what in your Pet’s food and how to understand the label.I think we should know what we are really feeding are buddies.
INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
CENTER FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE

INTERPRETING PET FOOD LABELS

The following consumer information is provided by David A. Dzanis, DVM, Ph.D., DACVN.

Pet food labeling is regulated at two levels. The Federal regulations, enforced by the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), establish standards applicable for all animal feeds: proper identification of product, net quantity statement, manufacturer's address, and proper listing of ingredients. Some States also enforce their own labeling regulations. Many of these have adopted the model pet food regulations established by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). These regulations are more specific in nature, covering aspects of labeling such as the product name, the guaranteed analysis, the nutritional adequacy statement, feeding directions, and calorie statements.

Product Name

The product name is the first part of the label noticed by the consumer, and can be a key factor in the consumer's decision to buy the product. For that reason, manufacturers often use fanciful names or other techniques to emphasize a particular aspect. Since many consumers purchase a product based on the presence of a specific ingredient, many product names incorporate the name of an ingredient to highlight its inclusion in the product. The percentages of named ingredients in the total product are dictated by four AAFCO rules.

The "95%" rule applies to products consisting primarily of meat, poultry or fish, such as some of the canned products. They have simple names, such as "Beef for Dogs" or "Tuna Cat Food." In these examples, at least 95% of the product must be the named ingredient (beef or tuna, respectively), not counting the water added for processing and "condiments." Counting the added water, the named ingredient still must comprise 70% of the product. Since ingredient lists must be declared in the proper order of predominance by weight, "beef" or "tuna" should be the first ingredient listed, followed often by water, and then other components such as vitamins and minerals. If the name includes a combination of ingredients, such as "Chicken 'n Liver Dog Food," the two together must comprise 95% of the total weight. The first ingredient named in the product name must be the one of higher predominance in the product. For example, the product could not be named "Lobster and Salmon for Cats" if there is more salmon than lobster in the product. Because this rule only applies to ingredients of animal origin, ingredients that are not from a meat, poultry or fish source, such as grains and vegetables, cannot be used as a component of the 95% total. For example, a "Lamb and Rice Dog Food" would be misnamed unless the product was comprised of at least 95% lamb.

The "25%" or "dinner" rule applies to many canned and dry products. If the named ingredients comprise at least 25% of the product (not counting the water for processing), but less than 95%, the name must include a qualifying descriptive term, such as "Beef Dinner for Dogs." Many descriptors other than "dinner" are used, however. "Platter," "entree," "nuggets" and "formula" are just a few examples. Because, in this example, only one-quarter of the product must be beef, it would most likely be found third or fourth on the ingredient list. Since the primary ingredient is not always the named ingredient, and may in fact be an ingredient that is not desired, the ingredient list should always be checked before purchase. For example, a cat owner may have learned from his or her finicky feline to avoid buying products with fish in it, since the cat doesn't like fish. However, a "Chicken Formula Cat Food" may not always be the best choice, since some "chicken formulas" may indeed contain fish, and sometimes may contain even more fish than chicken. A quick check of the ingredient list would avert this mistake.

If more than one ingredient is included in a "dinner" name, they must total 25% and be listed in the same order as found on the ingredient list. Each named ingredient must be at least 3% of the total, too. Therefore, "Chicken n' Fish Dinner Cat Food" must have 25% chicken and fish combined, and at least 3% fish. Also, unlike the "95%" rule, this rule applies to all ingredients, whether of animal origin or not. For example, a "Lamb and Rice Formula for Cats" would be an acceptable name as long as the amounts of lamb and rice combined totaled 25%.

The "3%" or "with" rule was originally intended to apply only to ingredients highlighted on the principal display panel, but outside the product name, in order to allow manufacturers to point out the presence of minor ingredients that were not added in sufficient quantity to merit a "dinner" claim. For example, a "Cheese Dinner," with 25% cheese, would not be feasible or economical to produce, but either a "Beef Dinner for Dogs" or "Chicken Formula Cat Food" could include a side burst "with cheese" if at least 3% cheese is added. Recent amendments to the AAFCO model regulations now allow use of the term "with" as part of the product name, too, such as "Dog Food With Beef" or "Cat Food With Chicken." Now, even a minor change in the wording of the name has a dramatic impact on the minimum amount of the named ingredient required, e.g., a can of "Cat Food With Tuna" could be confused with a can of "Tuna Cat Food," but, whereas the latter example must contain at least 95% tuna, the first needs only 3%. Therefore, the consumer must read labels carefully before purchase to ensure that the desired product is obtained.

Under the "flavor" rule, a specific percentage is not required, but a product must contain an amount sufficient to be able to be detected. There are specific test methods, using animals trained to prefer specific flavors, that can be used to confirm this claim. In the example of "Beef Flavor Dog Food," the word "flavor" must appear on the label in the same size, style and color as the word "beef." The corresponding ingredient may be beef, but more often it is another substance that will give the characterizing flavor, such as beef meal or beef by-products.

With respect to flavors, pet foods often contain "digests," which are materials treated with heat, enzymes and/or acids to form concentrated natural flavors. Only a small amount of a "chicken digest" is needed to produce a "Chicken Flavored Cat Food," even though no actual chicken is added to the food. Stocks or broths are also occasionally added. Whey is often used to add a milk flavor. Often labels will bear a claim of "no artificial flavors." Actually, artificial flavors are rarely used in pet foods. The major exception to that would be artificial smoke or bacon flavors, which are added to some treats.

Net Quantity Statement

The net quantity statement tells you how much product is in the container. There are many FDA regulations dictating the format, size and placement of the net quantity statement. None of these do any good if the consumer does not check the quantity statements, especially when comparing the cost of products. For example, a 14-ounce can of food may look identical to the one-pound can of food right next to it. Also, dry products may differ greatly in density, especially some of the "lite" products. Thus, a bag that may typically hold 40 pounds of food may only hold 35 pounds of a food that is "puffed up." A cost-per-ounce or per-pound comparison between products is always prudent. Manufacturer's Name and Address The "manufactured by..." statement identifies the party responsible for the quality and safety of the product and its location. If the label says "manufactured for..." or "distributed by...," the food was manufactured by an outside manufacturer, but the name on the label still designates the responsible party. Not all labels include a street address along with the city, State, and zip code, but by law, it should be listed in either a city directory or a telephone directory. Many manufacturers also include a toll-free number on the label for consumer inquiries. If a consumer has a question or complaint about the product, he or she should not hesitate to use this information to contact the responsible party. Ingredient List All ingredients are required to be listed in order of predominance by weight. The weights of ingredients are determined as they are added in the formulation, including their inherent water content. This latter fact is important when evaluating relative quantity claims, especially when ingredients of different moisture contents are compared.

For example, one pet food may list "meat" as its first ingredient, and "corn" as its second. The manufacturer doesn't hesitate to point out that its competitor lists "corn" first ("meat meal" is second), suggesting the competitor's product has less animal-source protein than its own. However, meat is very high in moisture (approximately 75% water). On the other hand, water and fat are removed from meat meal, so it is only 10% moisture (what's left is mostly protein and minerals). If we could compare both products on a dry matter basis (mathematically "remove" the water from both ingredients), one could see that the second product had more animal-source protein from meat meal than the first product had from meat, even though the ingredient list suggests otherwise.

That is not to say that the second product has more "meat" than the first, or in fact, any meat at all. Meat meal is not meat per se, since most of the fat and water have been removed by rendering. Ingredients must be listed by their "common or usual" name. Most ingredients on pet food labels have a corresponding definition in the AAFCO Official Publication. For example, "meat" is defined as the "clean flesh of slaughtered mammals and is limited to...the striate muscle...with or without the accompanying and overlying fat and the portions of the skin, sinew, nerve and blood vessels which normally accompany the flesh." On the other hand, "meat meal" is "the rendered product from mammal tissues, exclusive of any added blood, hair, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents." Thus, in addition to the processing, it could also contain parts of animals one would not think of as "meat." Meat meal may not be very pleasing to think about eating yourself, even though it's probably more nutritious. Animals do not share in people's aesthetic concerns about the source and composition of their food. Regardless, the distinction must be made in the ingredient list (and in the product name). For this reason, a product containing "lamb meal" cannot be named a "Lamb Dinner."

Further down the ingredient list, the "common or usual" names become less common or usual to most consumers. The majority of ingredients with chemical-sounding names are, in fact, vitamins, minerals, or other nutrients. Other possible ingredients may include artificial colors, stabilizers, and preservatives. All should be either "Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS)" or approved food additives for their intended uses.

If scientific data are presented that show a health risk to animals of an ingredient or additive, CVM can act to prohibit or modify its use in pet food. For example, propylene glycol was used as a humectant in soft-moist pet foods, which helps retain water and gives these products their unique texture and taste. It was affirmed Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) for use in human and animal food before the advent of soft-moist foods. It was known for some time that propylene glycol caused Heinz Body formation in the red blood cells of cats (small clumps of proteins seen in the cells when viewed under the microscope), but it could not be shown to cause overt anemia or other clinical effects. However, recent reports in the veterinary literature of scientifically sound studies have shown that propylene glycol reduces the red blood cell survival time, renders red blood cells more susceptible to oxidative damage, and has other adverse effects in cats consuming the substance at levels found in soft-moist food. In light of this new data, CVM amended the regulations to expressly prohibit the use of propylene glycol in cat foods.

Another pet food additive of some controversy is ethoxyquin, which was approved as a food additive over thirty-five years ago for use as an antioxidant chemical preservative in animal feeds. Approximately ten years ago, CVM began receiving reports from dog owners attributing the presence of ethoxyquin in the dog food with a myriad of adverse effects, such as allergic reactions, skin problems, major organ failure, behavior problems, and cancer. However, there was a paucity of available scientific data to support these contentions, or to show other adverse effects in dogs at levels approved for use in dog foods. More recent studies by the manufacturer of ethoxyquin showed a dose-dependent accumulation of a hemoglobin-related pigment in the liver, as well as increases in the levels of liver-related enzymes in the blood. Although these changes are due to ethoxyquin in the diet, the pigment is not made from ethoxyquin itself, and the health significance of these findings is unknown. More information on the utility of ethoxyquin is still needed in order for CVM to amend the maximum allowable level to below that which would cause these effects, but which still would be useful in preserving the food. While studies are being conducted to ascertain a more accurate minimum effective level of ethoxyquin in dog foods, CVM has asked the pet food industry to voluntarily lower the maximum level of use of ethoxyquin in dog foods from 150 ppm (0.015%) to 75 ppm. Regardless, most pet foods that contained ethoxyquin never exceeded the lower amount, even before this recommended change.

Guaranteed Analysis

At minimum, a pet food label must state guarantees for the minimum percentages of crude protein and crude fat, and the maximum percentages of crude fiber and moisture. The "crude" term refers to the specific method of testing the product, not to the quality of the nutrient itself.

Some manufacturers include guarantees for other nutrients as well. The maximum percentage of ash (the mineral component) is often guaranteed, especially on cat foods. Cat foods commonly bear guarantees for taurine and magnesium as well. For dog foods, minimum percentage levels of calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and linoleic acid are found on some products.

Guarantees are declared on an "as fed" or "as is" basis, that is, the amounts present in the product as it is found in the can or bag. This doesn't have much bearing when the guarantees of two products of similar moisture content are compared (for example, a dry dog food versus another dry dog food). However, when comparing the guaranteed analyses between dry and canned products, one will note that the levels of crude protein and most other nutrients are much lower for the canned product. This can be explained by looking at the relative moisture contents. Canned foods typically contain 75-78% moisture, whereas dry foods contain only 10-12% water. To make meaningful comparisons of nutrient levels between a canned and dry product, they should be expressed on the same moisture basis.

The most accurate means of doing this is to convert the guarantees for both products to a dry matter basis. The percentage of dry matter of the product is equal to 100% minus the percentage of moisture guaranteed on the label. A dry food is approximately 88-90% dry matter, while a canned food is only about 22-25% dry matter. To convert a nutrient guarantee to a dry matter basis, the percent guarantee should be divided by the percentage of the dry matter, then multiplied by 100. For example, a canned food guarantees 8% crude protein and 75% moisture (or 25% dry matter), while a dry food contains 27% crude protein and 10% moisture (or 90% dry matter). Which has more protein, the dry or canned? Calculating the dry matter protein of both, the canned contains 32% crude protein on a dry matter basis (8/25 X 100 = 32), while the dry has only 30% on a dry matter basis (27/90 X 100 = 30). Thus, although it looks like the dry has a lot more protein, when the water is counted out, the canned actually has a little more. An easier way is to remember that the amount of dry matter in the dry food is about four times the amount in a canned product. To compare guarantees between a dry and canned food, multiply the guarantees for the canned food times four first.

It is especially important to look at the moisture guarantee for canned foods, even when comparing a canned food with another canned. Under AAFCO regulations, the maximum percentage moisture content for a pet food is 78%, except for products labeled as a "stew," "in sauce," "in gravy," or similar terms. The extra water gives the product the qualities needed to have the appropriate texture and fluidity. Some of these exempted products have been found to contain as much as 87.5% moisture. This doesn't sound like much difference until the dry matter contents are compared. For example, a product with a guarantee of 87.5% moisture contains 12.5% dry matter, only half as much as a product with a 75% moisture guarantee (25% dry matter).

Nutritional Adequacy Statement

Any claim that a product is "complete," "balanced," "100% nutritious," or similarly suggests that a product is suitable for sole nourishment that is not, in fact, nutritionally adequate is a potentially unsafe product. For this reason, an AAFCO nutritional adequacy statement is one of the most important aspects of a dog or cat food label. A "complete and balanced" pet food must be substantiated for nutritional adequacy by one of two means.

The first method is for the pet food to contain ingredients formulated to provide levels of nutrients that meet an established profile. Presently, the AAFCO Dog or Cat Food Nutrient Profiles are used. Products substantiated by this method should include the words, "(Name of product) is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO (Dog/Cat) Food Nutrient Profiles." This means the product contains the proper amount of protein, calcium, and other recognized essential nutrients needed to meet the needs of the healthy animal. The recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC) were once used as the basis for nutritional adequacy, but they are no longer considered valid for this purpose.

The alternative means of substantiating nutritional adequacy is for the product to be tested following the AAFCO Feeding Trial Protocols. This means that the product, or "lead" member of a "family" of products, has been fed to dogs or cats under strict guidelines and found to provide proper nutrition. These products should bear the nutritional adequacy statement "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that (name of product) provides complete and balanced nutrition."

Regardless of the method used, the nutritional adequacy statement will also state for which life stage(s) the product is suitable, such as "for maintenance," or "for growth." A product intended "for all life stages" meets the more stringent nutritional needs for growth and reproduction. A maintenance ration will meet the needs of an adult, non-reproducing dog or cat of normal activity, but may not be sufficient for a growing, reproducing, or hard-working animal. On the other hand, an all life stages ration can be fed for maintenance. Although the higher levels of nutrients would not be harmful to the healthy adult animal, they are not really necessary. Occasionally a product may be labeled for a more specific use or life stage, such as "senior" or for a specific size or breed. However, there is little information as to the true dietary needs of these more specific uses, and no rules governing these types of statements have been established. Thus, a "senior" diet must meet the requirements for adult maintenance, but no more. A product that does not meet either of these methods must state that "this product is intended for intermittent or supplemental feeding," except if it is conspicuously identified as a snack or treat.

Feeding Directions

Feeding directions instruct the consumer on how much product should be offered to the animal. At minimum, they should include verbiage such as "feed ___ cups per ___ pounds of body weight daily." On some small cans, this may be all the information that can fit. The feeding directions should be taken as rough guidelines, a place to start. Breed, temperament, environment, and many other factors can influence food intake. Manufacturers attempt to cover almost all contingencies by setting the directions for the most demanding. The best suggestion is to offer the prescribed amount at first, and then to increase or cut back as needed to maintain body weight in adults or to achieve proper rate of gain in puppies and kittens. A nursing mother should be offered all the food she wants to eat. Calorie Statement Pet foods can vary greatly in calorie content, even among foods of the same type (dry, canned) and formulated for the same life stage. Feeding directions vary among manufacturers, too, so the number of calories delivered in a daily meal of one food may be quite different from another. The number of calories in a product roughly relates to the amount of fat, although varying levels of non-calorie-containing components, such as water and fiber, can throw this correlation off. The best way for consumers to compare products and determine how much to be fed is to know the calorie content. However, until recently, calorie statements were not allowed on pet food labels. New AAFCO regulations were developed to allow manufacturers to substantiate calorie content and include a voluntary statement.

If a calorie statement is made on the label, it must be expressed on a "kilocalories per kilogram" basis. Kilocalories are the same as the "Calories" consumers are used to seeing on food labels. A "kilogram" is a unit of metric measurement equal to 2.2 pounds. Manufacturers are also allowed to express the calories in familiar household units along with the required statement (for example, "per cup" or "per can"). Even without this additional information, however, consumers can make meaningful comparisons between products and pick the product best suited for their animals' needs. As with the guaranteed analysis, the calorie statement is made on an "as fed" basis, so corrections for moisture content must be made as described above. To roughly compare the caloric content values between a canned and a dry food, multiply the value for the canned food by four.

Other Label Claims

Many pet foods are labeled as "premium," and some now are "super premium" and even "ultra premium." Other products are touted as "gourmet" items. Products labeled as premium or gourmet are not required to contain any different or higher quality ingredients, nor are they held up to any higher nutritional standards than are any other complete and balanced products.

The term "natural" is often used on pet food labels, although that term does not have an official definition either. For the most part, "natural" can be construed as equivalent to a lack of artificial flavors, artificial colors, or artificial preservatives in the product. As mentioned above, artificial flavors are rarely employed anyway. Artificial colors are not really necessary, except to please the pet owner's eye. If used, they must be from approved sources, the same as for human foods. Especially for high-fat dry products, some form of preservative must be used to prevent rancidity. Natural-source preservatives, such as mixed tocopherols (a source of vitamin E), can be used in place of artificial preservatives. However, they may not be as effective.

"Natural" is not the same as "organic." The latter term refers to the conditions under which the plants were grown or animals were raised. There are no official rules governing the labeling of organic foods (for humans or pets) at this time, but the United States Department of Agriculture is developing regulations dictating what types of pesticides, fertilizers and other substances can be used in organic farming.

Summary

Pet owners and veterinary professionals have a right to know what they are feeding their animals. The pet food label contains a wealth of information, if one knows how to read it. Do not be swayed by the many marketing gimmicks or eye-catching claims. If there is a question about the product, contact the manufacturer or ask an appropriate regulatory agency.

Who's Trying to Kill My Dog

When the FDA learned that certain pet foods from China were sickening and killing cats and dogs. The Federal Grand jury in Kansas City, Mo. sent an indictment against a few companies that used Melamine as an ingredient. I sure hope they don't try and feed me this stuff again.....