|
JJ
|
 |
« Reply #825 on: August 20, 2008, 08:48:17 PM » |
|
Didn't someone have a topic on here with links so you can read what's really in pet food? On the ASPCA site they go into a great deal of detail spelling out whats really in pet food. If you really want to find out its a good eye opening read.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'Life isn't about how to survive the storm, But how to dance in the rain.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offly_irked
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #827 on: August 21, 2008, 04:14:36 AM » |
|
Last nite I surfed looking at peroxidation and thought, wait, there are preservatives in the food for that... natural or synthetic... for shelf life and such.. So, were the antioxidants/preservatives omitted the preservative formula wrong or something used in its place in error? (selenium?) The other player in the oxidation process - metal ions. IMO Something in the production/processing had to have failed for the peroxidation to happen .... the best by dates might be something to show how soon the failure occurred.. I don't know, but one thing I do know is that pet food companies & manufacturers seem to need have shown over the past year + a glaring need for better quality control and ingredient processing control procedures. http://www.perstorp.com/upload/en_protain_001.pdfhttp://www.kemin.com/petfoods/antioxidantsP.S. If the pet food companies use a formula from a place like these, thanks to the labeling requirements, they don't have to list the ingredients in what Somebody Else used.. so if the label doesn't show ethoxyquin, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't in it... only knowing the formula of the additives can help you truly know what's in the pet food from Kemin site: Numerous antioxidants used in the production of pet food, including BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole), BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene), ethoxyquin and propyl gallate. All of these antioxidants do an effective job of controlling the free radical chain reaction associated with the autoxidation process.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 04:28:07 AM by Offy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
5CatMom
|
 |
« Reply #828 on: August 21, 2008, 04:24:39 AM » |
|
Offy, We'll just keep helping the PF companies. Someday, they'll get it. LOL, maybe we should apply for a federal grant to study the subject. Since FDA is so busy, we'd just give them a hand. Looks like Marcy in Ohio got $32K. http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?recip_id=108488&detail=-1Hummmmm. Now that would test a lot of pet food. What 'ya think? 5CatMom =^..^ =
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"What is man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected." Chief Seattle
"We are the caretakers of our creatures . . . the peacekeepers of our planet"
|
|
|
|
Offly_irked
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #829 on: August 21, 2008, 04:30:53 AM » |
|
Marcy Kaptur is a congresswoman??
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Offly_irked
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #830 on: August 21, 2008, 04:43:38 AM » |
|
I was just reading in Strombeck's book that many pet foods have high levels of endotoxins given off by various bacteria like salmonella and e coli. The food may not have any actual bacteria on or in the food, but the endotoxins remain after the bacteria are killed off from cooking. They can damage the liver, cause gastroinestinal problems, and cause other diverse symptoms.
He said no PF companies test for endotoxins, and meat meal is the most suspect for having the highest amounts. Not sure if he's talking about the generic meat meal most of us avoid in pet foods, or specific types like chicken meal.
I hadn't considered the endotoxins.... sigh.. http://njboxers.com/Question.htm"Manufacturers do not analyze processed pet foods for endotoxin, but it can be present. The fact that coliforms can be cultured from meat meal shows that it contains endotoxin. The pet food industry uses inexpensive sources of protein in order to produce an inexpensive product. Thus, meat-meal protein continues to be used. Coliform bacteria such as Escherichia coli have been isolated from meat products. This problem is solved by cooking meat for longer times and higher temperatures. Because Escherichia coli is a coliform, it is another source of endotoxin. Heat does not destroy endotoxin, and it can be a cause of illness. So Escherichia coli can produce disease by more than one means, with one still potent after thorough cooking. Nothing can be done to decontaminate a food containing endotoxin." I guess they don't test for it because they can't "decontaminate" it if found in the product.. but, sheesh, it's ok to feed it to the animals..... don't ask, don't tell .. another policy that leaves pet owners choosing in the dark with no help from pfcs.. ETA: You know what, I'm sending that to Evanger's who claimed the temperature of their cooking process eliminated all the stuff...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 04:49:47 AM by Offy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sandi K
|
 |
« Reply #831 on: August 21, 2008, 07:59:35 AM » |
|
So Don, can endotoxins be tested for and if so, Im wondering what the cost of a test like that would be? I keep thinking perhaps we need to submit another to test on that dry food you got recent results on.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
petslave
|
 |
« Reply #832 on: August 21, 2008, 09:48:21 AM » |
|
I was going to say that was what Strombeck had in his book, word for word, but looks like it IS from his book. Thanks for finding that, Offy, he says it better then I can. I'm sure most of the meat meals, especially the "meat meals" that are from many sources, do have bacteria in them at the start since they sit around at a number of places before getting rendered - slaugherhouse, storage, trucks, more storage, render, storage, truck to PF co, storage, process.
He also mentions in his book some of these plants are contaminated with salmonella from start to finish and unless decontaminated, will continue to reinfect the food at each stage. So the opportunity is there for bacteria and their endotoxins at many different points. Not sure how those endotoxins are tested. (also not sure how they culture e coli from their endotoxins?? Didn't understand that in his writeup)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
petslave
|
 |
« Reply #833 on: August 21, 2008, 05:46:54 PM » |
|
Strombeck lists these as the most common contaminating bacteria, with most common at top:
Salmonella Staphylococcus aureus Clostridium perfingens E coli
This article I posted on the Nutro thread about a recall in the Netherlands had this list as what they tested for when trying to find out what was killing the cats. Some of these have been addressed, maybe there are others that can be looked at? Vitamin D is a concern too since there have been problems in the past, but don't think the symptoms are the same as what is being seen in Nutro:
"Because contamination of the food batches in question was most likely the cause of the outbreak, both the end product and the various components were examined for the presence of bacterial contamination, selected bacterial toxins, mycotoxins, coccidiostats, heavy metals, pesticides, organophosphates, strychnine-and cyanide-containing substances, selenium, and vitamin B1.10 All tested substances except the coccidiostatic drug salinomycin were excluded."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
5CatMom
|
 |
« Reply #834 on: August 22, 2008, 12:44:38 PM » |
|
Some of those food strategies where you provide the meat, organs, etc., and then mix in a prepared supplement look like good alternatives to commercial pet food. There are just too, too many reports of problems with various foods/feeds. Today, it's excess copper in Purina Mills feed. How'd that happen? And it's becoming clear that pet food was contaminated prior to the recall of 2007. The industry is in chaos.  5CatMom =^..^ =
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 22, 2008, 02:24:37 PM by 5CatMom »
|
Logged
|
"What is man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected." Chief Seattle
"We are the caretakers of our creatures . . . the peacekeepers of our planet"
|
|
|
|
5CatMom
|
 |
« Reply #835 on: August 27, 2008, 06:38:31 AM » |
|
Gee, this sounds like a good idea: April, 2008 Final Rule "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations to prohibit the use of certain cattle origin materials in the food or feed of all animals. Specifically, 21 CFR 589.2000 is amended and 21 CFR 589.2001 is added. Together, these changes identify cattle materials prohibited in animal feed (CMPAF) as follows: (1) the entire carcass of bovine spongiforrn encephalopathy (BSE)-positive cattle; (2) the brains and spinal cords from cattle 30 months of age and older; (3) the entire carcass of cattle not inspected and passed for human consumption that are 30 months of age or older from which brains and spinal cords were not effectively removed or otherwise effectively excluded from animal feed; (4) tallow that is derived from BSE-positive cattle; (5) tallow that is derived from the other materials prohibited by this rule that contains more than 0.15 percent insoluble impurities; and (6) mechanically separated beef that is derived from the materials prohibited by this rule."http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/FDA-2002-N-0031-fons.pdfWhat took 'ya so long, FDA? 5CatMom =^..^ =
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 27, 2008, 06:55:10 AM by 5CatMom »
|
Logged
|
"What is man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected." Chief Seattle
"We are the caretakers of our creatures . . . the peacekeepers of our planet"
|
|
|
|
5CatMom
|
 |
« Reply #836 on: August 29, 2008, 06:52:36 AM » |
|
Letter to the Editor, Canadian Vet Journal, by Carol Auld "Dear Sir,
I am moved to respond to the June 2007 ethical question of the month (Can Vet J 2007;48:571), since, like many people, I fed my cats an exclusive diet of prescribed dry food, because I was told by my veterinarian that it was “the very best food that you could feed your cat.”
After 10 years of continuous feeding of prescribed dry cat food, my first female Siamese developed kidney problems and my second, feline diabetes. I then researched cat nutrition and learned that dry cat food is just meat-flavored cereal — corn, rice, and wheat, laced with questionable additives and preservatives — cooked in large vats and through a process of extrusion molded into kibble. This product is so unpalatable to cats, who have reputations as discerning gourmets, that the manufacturing process necessitates spraying “digests,” fermented meat byproducts, onto the kibble. This is healthy and balanced?
I understand that many veterinarians receive very little in the way of impartial scientific training in nutrition, although many are embarrassed to admit this. What they learn comes from the pet food industry, which, I also understand, as standard practice, provides students with free pet food. Business marketing plans are directed at veterinarians to encourage a lifetime of feeding commercial dry cat food. The sale of dry cat food can amount to 35% of a clinic’s income (1). Cats are obligate carnivores, no veterinarian would dispute that fact, so how is it that most veterinarians prescribe and sell only prescription diet dry cat food?
Many illnesses in cats — diabetes, chronic renal failure, inflammatory bowel syndrome — are caused by dry cat food. Since veterinarians are prescribing food that is creating illness in cats, selling this food constitutes a conflict of interest and makes veterinarians part of the problem. The claims of “health” on these products cannot be verified over the lifetime of a cat, since any trial studies done are shortterm. Cats have become “experimental animals.” The only real long-term tests are those done by cat owners who feed these dry commercial pet food formulations.
As pet owners become more educated to the fact that a dry food diet is a junk food diet, they won’t blame the pet food companies, but the veterinarians who prescribed and sold them these prescription diet kibbles. Safe and effective handling of raw meat, a cat’s natural diet, is of course paramount, and pet owners are not idiots who cannot understand how to make food at home when provided with the correct information.
Legislative changes are needed to strip the claims of “health” from dry cat food, remove the products from the market, and effectively educate owners on how to ensure the health of their cats by feeding natural diets.
Tainted pet food is but the tip of the iceberg: the real scandal is that dry cat food formulations, veterinary-prescribed and sold, are causing so many illnesses in our cats."Ms. Carol Auld 85 Henry Lane Terrace #301 Toronto, Ontario M5A 4B8 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2034416&blobtype=pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"What is man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected." Chief Seattle
"We are the caretakers of our creatures . . . the peacekeepers of our planet"
|
|
|
|
YesBiscuit!
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #837 on: August 29, 2008, 06:58:17 AM » |
|
You can't see me singing and dancing right now (which is for the best) but: Go Carol! Go Carol! It's your birthday! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
5CatMom
|
 |
« Reply #838 on: August 29, 2008, 07:18:48 AM » |
|
YB, That's not "our" Carol, but still a good Carol. Most of us who have been here for a while know about the risks of commercial pet food in general, and dry pet food in particular. There are posts on several threads which address PF company cost cutting in response to rising commodity prices. IMHO, this is a very real concern. A good alternative to commercial food is homemade food, either cooked or raw. Just make sure your recipes are balanced by providing the required vitamins/minerals. Happily, there are "commercial" alternatives to the typical commercial pet food brands. Real frozen foods (Feline's Pride), and supplements (Alnutrin) that you add to your own meats, mail order frozen meats, etc. Many more choices than we used to have  . http://cats.about.com/od/homepreparedfood/tp/toprawdiet.htm5CatMom =^..^ =
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 11:38:08 AM by 5CatMom »
|
Logged
|
"What is man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected." Chief Seattle
"We are the caretakers of our creatures . . . the peacekeepers of our planet"
|
|
|
|
DMS
|
 |
« Reply #839 on: August 29, 2008, 08:34:48 AM » |
|
Gee, this sounds like a good idea: April, 2008 Final Rule "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations to prohibit the use of certain cattle origin materials in the food or feed of all animals. Specifically, 21 CFR 589.2000 is amended and 21 CFR 589.2001 is added. Together, these changes identify cattle materials prohibited in animal feed (CMPAF) as follows: (1) the entire carcass of bovine spongiforrn encephalopathy (BSE)-positive cattle; (2) the brains and spinal cords from cattle 30 months of age and older; (3) the entire carcass of cattle not inspected and passed for human consumption that are 30 months of age or older from which brains and spinal cords were not effectively removed or otherwise effectively excluded from animal feed; (4) tallow that is derived from BSE-positive cattle; (5) tallow that is derived from the other materials prohibited by this rule that contains more than 0.15 percent insoluble impurities; and (6) mechanically separated beef that is derived from the materials prohibited by this rule."http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/FDA-2002-N-0031-fons.pdfWhat took 'ya so long, FDA? 5CatMom =^..^ =Look how much of this was going into animal feed, and still this is less than would be prohibited if they banned all SRM's--and this is being implemented over a year's transitioning time:The EA estimates that, under this final rule, approximately 670 million pounds of cattle by-products that would normally be recycled in animal feed will be diverted to other forms of disposal. This is about one quarter of the quantity that would be diverted under a full SRM ban.....Proposing to prohibit tissues containing approximately 90 percent of potential BSE infectivity, rather than the full list of SRMs, provides protection in proportion to the BSE risk in the United States. ******************************************** I would rather not take my chances. 10% looks kinda risky to me. Although this is better than the "no action" option they were (seriously?) considering.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 08:38:05 AM by DMS »
|
Logged
|
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
|
|
|
|