By: Jon Frey
Industry Regulators
For years, I trusted that the government regulators had a tight handle on commercial pet food manufacturers regarding what ingredients were used in my pet’s food. I just assumed that if they advertised and labeled a product, then the product legally would have to be what they said it was. The industry is free to use rendered animal by-products that a human would not eat and still call them by a name that a human would consume. Labeling is important because there is so little regulation relative to what specific ingredients can be included and described.
Government agencies involved in the regulation of the pet food industry are the Federal Trade Commission, primarily in the area of false or misleading advertising; the Federal Drug Administration, concerning the use of drugs in food; and the Center For Veterinary Medicine, concerning pet food health claims and ingredients. However, no single agency was monitoring and enforcing the regulations in place until 1992, when the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) was appointed by the FDA to regulate compliance of the ambiguous and minimal standards that were in place. AAFCO is an association, not a government agency or department. There are those who suggest that AAFCO represents the pet food industry interests, rather than acting as a watchdog for FDA compliance.
Another non-profit association, The Animal Protection Institute, has then taken on the task of monitoring AAFCO, acting in the interest of pet owners, but API has no real authority to do anything but act as a watchdog for our dogs. So we have the FDA, the FTC, the CVM, then AAFCO, then the API. It is rather like a casino, where the pit boss watches the floor man, who watches the dealer. Who’s on first. Who’s on second. What’s on first. Who’s on first, What’s on second.
As it turns out, what we really get is lawyers writing the rules, then lawyers interpreting the rules that other lawyers wrote, and finding ways of circumventing, or changing the intent of the rules. Just as one word in one clause of a legal contract can change the meaning of the entire document, one word added to a label on a bag of dog food can change what it has to contain.
I am not a Ralph Nader type, out to revolutionize an industry or even attempt to change it. I am only interested in the health and well being of canine companions. In concert with that objective, I feel we need to know and understand how they are being protected by the industry manufacturing their food, and how the industry is regulated. So, in the interest of making intelligent decisions based on factual information, knowledge of industry standards and regulations is helpful.

The first thing that comes to mind when observing the commercial pet food industry is that the pet food manufacturing gorilla’s adhere to their definition of the “Golden Rule,” that being, “he who has the gold, makes the rules.” In this case, with revenues of an estimated eleven billion a year, the pet food industry is a larger-than-life King Kong of rule makers.

Understanding the Industry Standards
Commercial pet food may be labeled “complete and balanced” if it meets standards set by AAFCO. A pet food may be certified either by meeting AAFCO’s published standard for content or by passing feeding tests or trials conducted by laboratories actually feeding the product to dogs and monitoring them. Scientific studies have confirmed that even foods that conform to AAFCO standards or pass feeding trials may still be inadequate for long-term maintenance. The standards set only “minimums and “maximums,” not “optimums.”
So commercial foods may be adequate for the average dog, but not adequate for an individual dog’s needs. Products certified by passing “feed trials” are preferable to those simply meeting the standards set by AAFCO. This certification is supposed to appear on the label of the bag or can. Feeding trials were at one time required to label the food “complete and balanced,” but are no longer required; however, some of the more reputable companies still perform them. They are conducted by feeding one set of dogs a new food and a “control” group the current formula. The total volume of food eaten is used as a gauge for the palatability of the food.

Understanding Pet Food Labels
When I first started collecting wine (a hobby I kicked some years ago), I was confused by exactly how to read the label to determine whether the wine was an appellation wine, a blend of several appellation grapes, whether it was bottled au chateau, or nos chais. There was just a heck of a lot to think about. Well, pet food labels are far more confusing than wine labels, believe me. Wine labels provide origin, grape or blend of grape used, vintage, bottler, whether it was aged in the bottle, the barrel, or the vat, and so on.
A look at the following “rules” for labeling should be sufficient to get any wine connoisseur completely confused:

The 95% Rule: If a label says “Beef and Chicken,” 95 percent of the product must comprise the named ingredients, and there must be more beef than chicken, since beef was named first on the label. The 95% Rule tells us that the main ingredient represents 95 percent of the mass. It does not identify specific ingredients, such as strip steak, chuck roast, intestines, or lungs. It tells us only that the food contains beef in some form.
In fact, the “beef” ingredient may be “meat meal” made from beef by-products rendered in very high heat to “clean” the ingredients. But then, we as consumers should be knowledgeable enough to know that we can’t buy prime beef for $1.19 a pound, which is about what we could expect to pay for “premium” dry dog food. Given high enough heat over a long enough time, I can render a carrot completely devoid of any measurable nutritional elements. So to achieve any real benefit from that carrot, I would have to replace the original nutritional elements with dietary supplements mixed in with the carrots.
Basically, because most manufacturers of pet food are dealing with by-products that are highly suspect in terms of harmful bacteria, it is necessary to process the product in very high heat, eliminating most or all of the nutrients the product may have contained in the first place. It becomes simply fill and a way to say that the ingredient exists in some form. To then get the nutrients that are “marketed” on their labels, supplements are introduced to the food.
The 25% or “Dinner” Rule: This rule is a way of getting around the 95% Rule by simply adding a qualifying descriptor term like “dinner,” “entrée,” “formula,” etc. If the label says, “Beef Dinner for Dogs,” then beef in some form must comprise at least 25 percent of the ingredients. So, by adding just one descriptive word to the label, the manufacturer can reduce the stated main ingredient by 70 percent and still may state that beef (in some form) is the main ingredient.
The 3% or “With” Rule: A product may be labeled “Dog Food with Beef” if it contains only 3 percent of the named ingredient. Well, it just gets worse. If you see the word “with” before the main ingredient, manufacturers can reduce the main ingredient by 92 percent from the 95% Rule. So now, although the product has almost none of the labeled main ingredient in it, the consumer is led to believe that beef is the main ingredient.
The “Flavor” Rule: As long as there is a “sufficiently detectable” amount of the named ingredients flavor present, then the named ingredient does not have to be present in any form. In other words, a product can be named “Beef Flavored Dog Food,” as long as in someone’s opinion it has some detectable amount of beef flavor. In this case, just by adding the word “flavor,” manufacturers can put damned well anything they please into the product, none of which has to be beef. Oh, to be a food taster for a dog food company.
So in the dog food production world, “Chateau” doesn’t always mean “Chateau.” A one- word change creates a different rule application. The consumer sees the word “beef” on the bag, but may not realize that the word “flavor” means that the product may contain no beef whatsoever, just the “flavor” of beef. The term “Chateau” on a wine label indicates that the wine was bottled at the winery; however, one must look further to find out whether that wine was made up of only that winery’s grapes or maybe a blend of the appellation grapes.

Natural and Organic Labels
The “hot tickets” in the world of nutrition and food today are “natural” and “organic” foods. Both terms imply to the consumer that they are produced and sold free of any kind of artificial preservatives or supplements. AAFCO addressed both names in January of 2001 with guidelines for how these names can be used on a dog food label.

Natural
AAFCO determined that the term “natural” is false and misleading if any chemically synthesized ingredients are present in the product. However, it then made exceptions in cases when synthesized vitamins, minerals, or other trace nutrients are present as ingredients in the product (all dog food products).
Recently, a new product was introduced to the market using the word “Natural” as a part of the name of the dog food, implying that the food was made up of “natural” ingredients. The company does in fact claim that they do not use “chicken by-products” in the food, however it lists both “chicken meal” and “lamb meal” as main ingredients, but doesn’t mention that it doesn’t use lamb by-products. Meat or chicken meal is the result of rendering out moisture and fat from the product by use of high heat processing. It also lists chicken fat and twelve vitamin supplements as ingredients. On the company web page, a company representative answers a consumer’s question how the product is cooked, with a brief explanation that it is “extruded,” the common method for manufacturing dog food.
In other words, this company is manufacturing the food the same way as the other manufacturers, utilizing high heat, meals and supplements, and extruders to make the food. Four of the sixteen ingredients listed in its brochure are not recognized as an essential nutrient by AAFCO. In a response to my questions concerning their product, a company spokesperson claimed that the meat (or chicken) meal is made from “human grade” product, and that it contains no by-products. Subsequent to these conversations the FDA verified that pentobarbital was discovered in this and twenty-five other manufactured foods, meaning that the source of the protein was a rendering plant.

Organic
Since the FDA’s legal beagles (no pun) concluded that pet foods do not fall under the proposed USDA Organic Rules, they proposed to allow the term “organic” into a pet food label if a formula feed or a specific ingredient within a formula feed has been produced and handled in compliance with the requirements of the USDA National Organic Program (7 CFR Part 205). Is that ambiguous enough for you? I suppose that as long as the lungs included in the food came from a free-range chicken, then the ingredient might qualify as both “natural” and “organic” and that the label could claim that the food “includes free-range chicken.”

Chew Bones and Toys Labels
AAFCO also made the policy that all chew bones and toys, whether flavor-coated or unflavored, shall be exempt from state registration and labeling unless the manufacturer claims in its product labeling or advertising that the product provides anything of nutritional value to the animal. So this exemption means that manufacturers are not required to “certify” the product as long as they don’t make claims, such as “digestible.” Chew bones are made primarily from rawhide, wood, hooves, ears, animal bones, and ligaments.

Human Grade Label
AAFCO’s regulation on labeling dog food “human grade” means the food contains ingredients produced wholly from processing facilities whose products are intended for human consumption and are processed, transported, and stored so they remain suitable for human consumption until immediately prior to incorporation into an animal feed. It seems that this leaves substantial room for interpretation from the manufacturer as to how much “human grade” food has to be present en masse to label the package “human grade.” Using the words “Fresh, Natural, Free Range or Organic”, without the human grade claim is unregulated so is a way by which the manufacturer may imply human grade to the consumer while not producing it as human grade.
My top pick for manufactured dog food, Three Dog Bakery does in fact produce their entrée product in “Human Grade” condition and is currently the only company that has applied for “USDA Inspected” certification. They actually conduct tasting events with vets and consumers where they are invited to taste the product themselves.

Skin and Coat Products Labels
The Food And Drug Administration recently addressed pet food manufacturers’ use of the claim of “healthy skin” and “glossy coat” on packaging, noting that any normal animal receiving adequate nutrition through the use of a complete and balanced product should have these qualities. However, health claims to uncategorically improve skin and coat or to cure or prevent disease signs such as dry skin, flaky skin, or itching fall under the domain of the FDA. The FDA describes the use of the claim “hypoallergenic” as “notorious.” The product mentioned above also makes the following claim in a brochure: “Rich in Linoleic Acid—guaranteed to promote healthy skin & coat from the start.”

Niche or Specialty Dog Foods
Health Claims
According to the FDA Center For Veterinary Medicine, the legal definitions of food and drug become intertwined when a food label claims that consumption of the product will treat, prevent, or otherwise affect a disease or condition, or affect the structure or function of the body in a manner distinct from what would normally be ascribed to its “nutritive” value. Also, implied drug claims may include a discussion of a medical condition, reference to an equivalent drug product, or the presence of medical symbols. Such claims establish an intent to offer a product as a drug. Because a product making health claims is not subject to normal clearance mechanisms that demonstrate safety and efficacy as required for drugs, it is unsafe by definition. Pet food products with labels bearing drug claims are subject to regulation by CVM as drugs, as well as foods. A pet food company must remove these claims to restore its regulatory status to simple food. In other words, if a product claims to change a condition apart from its nutritive value, such as urine acidification or improvement in a joint function, it may be considered a drug.
A very large part of the pet food marketing effort is now directed at solving common problems with dogs. Disease prevention, weight control, dental products, skin and coat specialty foods, and Veterinary Medical Foods (VMF) have opened new specialty markets for manufacturers. The consumer can now buy “Lite,” “Extra Lite,” “Mature Dog,” “Puppy,” “Clean Teeth,” and so on. These new market segments have forced the FDA to address ingredients, labeling and the specific claims made by manufacturers. Since there is absolutely no monetary gain to be had from telling people to feed their dogs the same food they feed themselves, it is doubtful that pet stores and veterinarians are going to promote natural food programs to clients.
In a recent consumer information release, the FDA reported that a plethora of products containing lamb and rice have entered the market labeled as “hypoallergenic,” or otherwise espouse the benefits of lamb and rice in the treatment or prevention of food allergies and other skin problems. Some labels even make such claims for products that contain other sources of protein that would disqualify them as effective “elimination” diets. Elimination diets are commonly used by veterinarians to determine a specific food as the cause of an allergy, by process of elimination of foods from a dog’s diet. The FDA said that there is nothing special or unique about these ingredients in terms of allergenicity, and prolonged exposure to these ingredients could also induce an allergic condition. They are simply historically novel sources of protein, since the use of these ingredients is uncommon in commercial dog foods. As such, pre-existing allergy to lamb or rice would be unlikely.

Weight Control Products
Recent AAFCO regulations governing the use of terms such as “lite” became effective in 2001. Under the new rules, the term “lite” must be based on a standard reference for all products, regardless of manufacturer. For example, a “lite” or “low calorie” dog food cannot contain more than 3100 kilocalories per kilogram (2.2 pounds). However, for products that are reduced in calories, but not enough to merit a “lite” claim, the rules allow for comparative claims. So if a company produces a very high calorie food and a lower calorie food, it can still make statements such as “25 percent less calories than in our regular product.” The same rules apply to the terms “lean” and “low fat.” People tell me all the time that they are feeding their dog “lite” dog food, but that the dog still isn’t losing weight, or is actually gaining weight. The problem is that folks think that just feeding dogs “lite” or “low fat” helps them lose weight. If the dog is still eating too much “lite” food, and not getting increased exercise, the dog is either going to remain fat, or get fatter.

Dental Products
In recent years, the field of veterinary dentistry and the subsequent awareness of the importance of proper dental hygiene has grown dramatically. The FDA noted that a number of products have gone far beyond claiming to promote strong teeth in dogs, to the extent of claiming to prevent or treat gingivitis or periodontal disease. According to the FDA, these are drug claims. The Veterinary Oral Health Center, an outside organization formed under the auspices of the American Veterinary Dental College, has developed an experimental protocol for companies to follow to demonstrate that their products are useful in reducing plaque and tartar, which is substantially different from a product claiming to prevent gingivitis or periodontal disease. The organization will review data from companies to verify that the claim is true, and if so, allow them to carry its logo on their package. Periodontal disease is a common problem being treated by veterinarians, because people think dogs can clean their teeth on chew bones or hard dog food. They don’t consider regular brushing to be necessary. A regular brushing will go a long way to help prevent diseases, and will also help keep your dog’s breath cleaner.

Veterinary Medical Foods
A “medical food” was originally defined in the Orphan Drug Act as “a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered under the supervision of a physician and is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on sound scientific principles, are established be medical evaluation.” According to the FDA, as foods, VMF are subject to the same labeling requirements as any other pet food. Previously, foods labeled “for veterinary use” were exempt from meeting other AAFCO requirements for “complete and balanced” foods. This appeared contradictory, since assurances of nutritional completeness takes on an even greater significance when used on sick animals. This fact has been borne out by several well-publicized incidents of nutritional deficiencies in animals fed VMF. Thus, products must now substantiate adequacy by meeting the AAFCO nutrient profile or passing an AAFCO feeding trial protocol for adult maintenance, or include the phrase “for intermittent or supplemental feeding only.” Some companies have attempted to circumvent these requirements by listing “intermittent use” on the label, while claiming complete nutritional adequacy in brochures and other sources.

Dietary Supplements
Since dietary supplements have become a way of life for humans in the last few years, with the emphasis on fitness, nutrition, and reduced stress, supplements are now being introduced to our canine companions. The FDA suggests that supplements may actually do more harm than benefit and recommends that that you don’t use them.
The FDA also warns that injudicious use of supplements runs a greater risk of causing dietary imbalances or toxicity than actually improving the diet. Therefore, unless the pet is being fed a homemade diet that requires additional sources of certain nutrients, or unless a veterinarian diagnoses a medical condition that could benefit from supplementation, it is best not to give dietary supplements to pets.
The term “nutraceuticals” was coined to describe products offered for the prevention or treatment of disease but marketed under the guise of dietary supplements. The promise of a “safe” and “natural” remedy for disease is very appealing. Presently these substances are drugs if the labeling bears claims to treat or prevent disease.
After some very careful research, I include two beneficial supplements to include in a mature dog’s nutritional program, particularly dogs with high potential for arthritic problems. They will be discussed in the supplement section, but are Glucosamine Chondroiten and Beta Carotene.


The ‘Buzz Words’
Marketing departments and advertising agencies understand the impact of buzz words related to a products target market and the impact of those words or phrases on product sales. In the dog food world of marketing the words Natural, Holistic, Omega 3&6, Beta Carotene, are hot ticket buzz words meant to associate the product with your dog living a healthy life of untold years. In fact, in almost all cases, they are completely out of context with the actual product.
Read the promotional part of a dog food label and it conjures up visions of human grade chicken and vegetables all smashed into the little brown or red kibble somehow. Then read the actual ingredient list in the small print. When did rendered chicken fat, rendered chicken and animal by-products, ground corn and soy become human grade diet staples?
The argument is not whether dog food manufacturers are including all the nutritional requirements a dog requires, because according to AAFCO they are doing so. The argument is the source of the foods, harmful toxins that still remain in the foods, the processing, and the preservative supplements added to the food. While both people and dogs are very adaptable to foods depending on what is available to them, given a choice, either would prefer foods with taste, texture and variety.