Just read about what is really in cat food

Steve wrote:

Reality is that the vast majority of pet
foods use a described meat meal -
chicken, lamb, beef, kangaroo, ostrich,
duck etc. Very few use the generic term
"meat meal". *AND* even in that case
FDA and USDA testing proved that there
was no trace of cat or dog DNA in the
hundreds of foods tested.

First you say that "very few" use meat meal, yet you then say "hundreds"
of foods were tested.

So, accuracy of such testing notwithstanding (and apparently the tests
were developed by the testers and not an outside source), which is it?

Hundreds of foods that contain "meat meal" or hundreds of foods that
contain different types of meals?

If the foods tested contained specific types of animal meals - poultry
or beef for example - then wouldn't testing for dog/cat DNA be moot
other than to confirm that the meals were as described? It would be easy
to say Brand X did not contain dog/cat DNA, but if the meat ingredient
is chicken meal of course you would not expect to find it.

Can you provide a list of the foods that were tested?

Megan



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."

-Edmund Burke

Learn The TRUTH About Declawing
http://www.stopdeclaw.com

Zuzu's Cats Photo Album:
http://www.PictureTrail.com/zuzu22

"Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one
elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and
splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then
providence moves too. A whole stream of events issues from the decision,
raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and
material assistance, which no man could have dreamt would have come his
way."

- W.H. Murray

Good Morning,

My name is Ann Martin and I am the author of "Protect Your Pet:" and
"Food Pets Die For:" I've just become aware of your discussion on the
testng of dry commercial dog food undertaken by the FDA/CVM.

This study was undertaken because veterinarians reported they required
more of the drug, sodium pentobarbital, to euthanize dogs. The study
was two part, ascertain levels of this drug in pet food and undertake
DNA testing to find if dogs and cats were used as sources of protein
in the foods. If you read the report on the sodium pentobarbital
testing very carefully you will find that, according to their data,
many dogs would be ingesting toxic levels of this drug.
Because these posts relate to the DNA testing I won't get into the
pentobarbital issue at this point.

First, there is no doubt that euthanized dogs and cats are rendered
and used in pet foods (meat meal). In I letter from the CVM they did
admit that they were aware that this is happening and that it is a
means of disposal for unwanted pets. In the last couple of years
three rendering plants have stated that they will no longer render
companion animals for use in pet food. Be assured these are just
three out of many, many rendering plants that continue this practice.

In a report released by the FDA/CVM in February of 2002 they stated
that they found no dog and cat DNA in the foods they tested. They
further stated that the pentobarbital was coming from cattle and
horses that were euthanized with this drug. I contacted agriculture
vets all over the U.S. and Canada and asked if they used this drug for
cattle and horses. Very few stated that cattle are ever euthanized
with pentobarbital, "it's cost prohibitive." As with cattle, few
horses are euthanized. Because the report was so vague I requested,
under the FOIA, all documentation relating to this study. This was
two days after their report came out. After waiting months I
contacted the Ombudsman for both the CVM and FDA. In December of 2002
I received a report that was "similar" to the DNA testing I
reequested. If I had of wanted something similar that is what I would
have requested. In January of 2003 the Ombudsman for the FDA advised
me that my request for the information had been denied. In February
of 2003, I filed an appeal, drafted by a lawyer in the U.S. (I'm
Canadian), requesting that this information be released. To date,
I've received nothing.

I have to question what this agency is hiding. If all was above board
there would be no need to keep this report confidential.

Hope this sheds a little more light on the topic.

Good Morning,

My name is Ann Martin and I am the author of "Protect Your Pet:" and
"Food Pets Die For:" I've just become aware of your discussion on the
testng of dry commercial dog food undertaken by the FDA/CVM.

This study was undertaken because veterinarians reported they required
more of the drug, sodium pentobarbital, to euthanize dogs. The study
was two part, ascertain levels of this drug in pet food and undertake
DNA testing to find if dogs and cats were used as sources of protein
in the foods. If you read the report on the sodium pentobarbital
testing very carefully you will find that, according to their data,
many dogs would be ingesting toxic levels of this drug.
Because these posts relate to the DNA testing I won't get into the
pentobarbital issue at this point.

First, there is no doubt that euthanized dogs and cats are rendered
and used in pet foods (meat meal). In I letter from the CVM they did
admit that they were aware that this is happening and that it is a
means of disposal for unwanted pets. In the last couple of years
three rendering plants have stated that they will no longer render
companion animals for use in pet food. Be assured these are just
three out of many, many rendering plants that continue this practice.

In a report released by the FDA/CVM in February of 2002 they stated
that they found no dog and cat DNA in the foods they tested. They
further stated that the pentobarbital was coming from cattle and
horses that were euthanized with this drug. I contacted agriculture
vets all over the U.S. and Canada and asked if they used this drug for
cattle and horses. Very few stated that cattle are ever euthanized
with pentobarbital, "it's cost prohibitive." As with cattle, few
horses are euthanized. Because the report was so vague I requested,
under the FOIA, all documentation relating to this study. This was
two days after their report came out. After waiting months I
contacted the Ombudsman for both the CVM and FDA. In December of 2002
I received a report that was "similar" to the DNA testing I
reequested. If I had of wanted something similar that is what I would
have requested. In January of 2003 the Ombudsman for the FDA advised
me that my request for the information had been denied. In February
of 2003, I filed an appeal, drafted by a lawyer in the U.S. (I'm
Canadian), requesting that this information be released. To date,
I've received nothing.

I have to question what this agency is hiding. If all was above board
there would be no need to keep this report confidential.

Hope this sheds a little more light on the topic.

I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.

May I ask Steve what "law" stepped in and made them change the
wording? The only regulations that I am aware of within the pet food
industry are those that govern the labeling text. As far as the
ingredients used, anything is fair game. The AAFCO sets guidelines
and it is up to each state to adopt these guidelines. In reading the
"ingredient definitions" which the AAFCO lists, I'd be a little
concerned. "hydrolyzed hair," hydrolyzed poultry feathers," Spray
dried animal blood," "dehydrated garbage," "dried ruminant waste,"
"dried swine waste," and the list goes on. Dr. David Dzanis, formerly
with the CVM, advised that these ingredient definitions applied both
to livestock feed and pet food. The CVM regulates labeling text and
drugs used in pet foods, nothing more.

If you are purchasing a product containing meat meal ask the company
if they actual test the raw materials to ascertain the sources of
protein. Companies claim that their foods contain no euthanized
companion animals. They ask that the rendering plants sign a document
that states there are no dogs and cats in the raw material. Unless
the pet food companies actually test the raw material the document is
not worth the paper it is written on.

Ann


You should be aware that the term "Human Grade" means absoutely
NOTHING under law. In fact it has been so misused by various companies
that the term is being considered for legislation to stop the misuse
of the term and the deception of consumers.

Companies used the term "organic" then the law stepped in and made
them actually be organic - now there are no companies using the term
organic- wonder why?

Then came "All Natural" and the law stepped in and made them actually
be "All Natural" what happened to all those hundreds of companies
claiming to be "All Natural" they moved on to...

"Holistic" and "Human Grade" - another meaningless term with
absolutely no teeth whatsoever. I could market used crankcase oil and
sewage and call it holistic and human grade it would mean nothing.
When "human grade" gets smacked by the law, these same companies will
move on to other terms that have no meaning at all but fool consumers
everyday. There ought to be a pool for the next meaningless term to be
created by a fanciful marketing department.

I'd have to disagree with Steve. Some companies *do* use human grade
ingredients. Ingredients that are inspected and past as "fit for
human consumption." One company that I know of actually produces
their product in USDA kitchens and as you are aware these facilities
only produce foods that are fit for human consumption.

May I ask Steve what "law" stepped in and made them change the
wording? The only regulations that I am aware of within the pet food
industry are those that govern the labeling text. As far as the
ingredients used, anything is fair game. The AAFCO sets guidelines
and it is up to each state to adopt these guidelines. In reading the
"ingredient definitions" which the AAFCO lists, I'd be a little
concerned. "hydrolyzed hair," hydrolyzed poultry feathers," Spray
dried animal blood," "dehydrated garbage," "dried ruminant waste,"
"dried swine waste," and the list goes on. Dr. David Dzanis, formerly
with the CVM, advised that these ingredient definitions applied both
to livestock feed and pet food. The CVM regulates labeling text and
drugs used in pet foods, nothing more.

If you are purchasing a product containing meat meal ask the company
if they actual test the raw materials to ascertain the sources of
protein. Companies claim that their foods contain no euthanized
companion animals. They ask that the rendering plants sign a document
that states there are no dogs and cats in the raw material. Unless
the pet food companies actually test the raw material the document is
not worth the paper it is written on.

Ann


You should be aware that the term "Human Grade" means absoutely
NOTHING under law. In fact it has been so misused by various companies
that the term is being considered for legislation to stop the misuse
of the term and the deception of consumers.

Companies used the term "organic" then the law stepped in and made
them actually be organic - now there are no companies using the term
organic- wonder why?

Then came "All Natural" and the law stepped in and made them actually
be "All Natural" what happened to all those hundreds of companies
claiming to be "All Natural" they moved on to...

"Holistic" and "Human Grade" - another meaningless term with
absolutely no teeth whatsoever. I could market used crankcase oil and
sewage and call it holistic and human grade it would mean nothing.
When "human grade" gets smacked by the law, these same companies will
move on to other terms that have no meaning at all but fool consumers
everyday. There ought to be a pool for the next meaningless term to be
created by a fanciful marketing department.

Dr Ms Martin,
I really enjoyed your book. Thanks for all of the research you are
doing on this. It's something I had always wondered about until I read
your book. It makes sense that in a culture where cutting cast is the
name of the game, that all of our trash would go into the food of pets
who cant protest it.
Can you also talk about the larger companies doing the testing on
animals and how you found out about it, why they test, etc? Thats one
of the other big topics on this thread.
Thanks so much for all of your work!
kate

Dr Ms Martin,
I really enjoyed your book. Thanks for all of the research you are
doing on this. It's something I had always wondered about until I read
your book. It makes sense that in a culture where cutting cast is the
name of the game, that all of our trash would go into the food of pets
who cant protest it.
Can you also talk about the larger companies doing the testing on
animals and how you found out about it, why they test, etc? Thats one
of the other big topics on this thread.
Thanks so much for all of your work!
kate

Ther is an MSDS on it that explains
exactly what it is. Go to:
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms
ds146e.html

Just as I expected. A link that doesn't work. This also does nothing to
prove your claim that a specific company, namely OMH, uses bacteria
fromfeces in their foods. Cite?


There's something called "real life". I don't sit in front of my computer and
think that the internet is all there is to life. Try this:
www.hc-sc.qc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms

If you would actually go out into the real world--the one OUTSIDE your front
door and pick up a bag of OMH and look at the ingredient's list you would see
exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm absolutely positive that the book I
saw in the late 80s was by "Ann Martin"
and was published in/about 1979.

First it was the 60's/70's, then the 70's then the late 70's almost
1980, now it's the late 80's. Which is it? If you are certain you swa
this book then you shouldn't have a problem providing an ISBN hmmmm? A
mention of it somewhere, anywhere hmmmmmm? A title perhaps?

You're spinning again. The way you go on about reading comprehension, you'd
think you would do a little of it yourself: In the late 80s I saw a book from
Ann Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody
would. It was copyrighted 1979. Her research was done prior (obviously) to
that time in order for it to be in her book.

Do you have *any* comprehension skills? If I haven't formed an opinion
as to whether there are companies that use dogs and cats in pet food how
could I possibly point a finger at a company for using them? Your ill
logic is astounding.

You're staddling the fence. I'm trying to pin you down on your opinion by
asking you a direct question. You argue strongly that it "happens" since you
don't think that it is illegal and yet you don't have any idea if it ever does
"happen". You want to have both sides of the issue.

If it happens,
please tell me which companies/products
are doing it.

See above. Good god, I don't think I have ever come across someone with
such an astounding lack of comprehension skills.


Perhaps you should read "How to Win Friends, and Influence People", and no, I
don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure you can look it up on the internet
though.

Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to test a theory of mine: Who did you
vote for in the last Presidential Election?

Ther is an MSDS on it that explains
exactly what it is. Go to:
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms
ds146e.html

Just as I expected. A link that doesn't work. This also does nothing to
prove your claim that a specific company, namely OMH, uses bacteria
fromfeces in their foods. Cite?


There's something called "real life". I don't sit in front of my computer and
think that the internet is all there is to life. Try this:
www.hc-sc.qc.ca/pphb-dqspsp/msds-ftss/ms

If you would actually go out into the real world--the one OUTSIDE your front
door and pick up a bag of OMH and look at the ingredient's list you would see
exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm absolutely positive that the book I
saw in the late 80s was by "Ann Martin"
and was published in/about 1979.

First it was the 60's/70's, then the 70's then the late 70's almost
1980, now it's the late 80's. Which is it? If you are certain you swa
this book then you shouldn't have a problem providing an ISBN hmmmm? A
mention of it somewhere, anywhere hmmmmmm? A title perhaps?

You're spinning again. The way you go on about reading comprehension, you'd
think you would do a little of it yourself: In the late 80s I saw a book from
Ann Martin entitled, "Foods Pet Die For". I didn't memorize the ISBN, nobody
would. It was copyrighted 1979. Her research was done prior (obviously) to
that time in order for it to be in her book.

Do you have *any* comprehension skills? If I haven't formed an opinion
as to whether there are companies that use dogs and cats in pet food how
could I possibly point a finger at a company for using them? Your ill
logic is astounding.

You're staddling the fence. I'm trying to pin you down on your opinion by
asking you a direct question. You argue strongly that it "happens" since you
don't think that it is illegal and yet you don't have any idea if it ever does
"happen". You want to have both sides of the issue.

If it happens,
please tell me which companies/products
are doing it.

See above. Good god, I don't think I have ever come across someone with
such an astounding lack of comprehension skills.


Perhaps you should read "How to Win Friends, and Influence People", and no, I
don't have the ISBN number. I'm sure you can look it up on the internet
though.

Actually, maybe you can be so kind as to test a theory of mine: Who did you
vote for in the last Presidential Election?

First you say that "very few" use meat meal, yet you then say "hundreds"
of foods were tested.

Hundreds of foods were tested--just in case. Yet nothing was found. But
that's not good enough for you even though you "don't have an opinion". Just
continue to ignore the facts and think it's all a conspiracy if that's what
floats your boat.