Dr. Pitcairn's Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats Read Online Free PDF Page B

computerized analyses, they draw from these constituents to presumably make a product that meets or exceeds minimal nutritional standards for dogs and cats. Two questions concern us now: What are these standards, and are they enforced?
    The usual standard is that set by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) which “is a private advisory body whose members are representatives of individualstate and government agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other federal and foreign agencies that share responsibilities in the regulation of animal feed.”
    Like me, you likely assumed that pet food is regulated as to quality by organizations like this, right? AAFCO, however, has no input as to the ingredients actually used in pet foods, as it has no enforcement authority and does no analytical testing on pet food or the sources of protein, fiber, or fats used. Feeding trials, which are done for some (not all) of the foods are “either run by the company itself or by a contracted facility, and the company then attests to the results.”
    Even more disappointing, as Ann Martin reports in her book Food Pets Die For , acceptance of even the AAFCO standard of quality is not universal. She sent a letter to each state asking, “Could you please advise if your state adheres to the AAFCO guidelines regarding pet food ingredients?” Ann had replies from only 20 states. Of these 20, just 13 stated that they adhere to AAFCO guidelines. Some officially have no guidelines at all.
    Some of the food you buy might say “USDA inspected.” But the point to realize is that the inspection was to determine if the food was suitable for human consumption . What was not edible goes into pet food. So it is incorrect to think that because the food is inspected, what your pet is eating is of high quality. It actually means the opposite—that because it is inspected, your dog or cat is eating the discarded remnants. An even more shocking fact, to me, is that the standard for human beings, which is higher than that for animal food, is so low.
    Prevention magazine once published a letter from a reader who offered an inside glimpse of the pet food industry:
    I once worked in a chicken butchering factory in Maine. Our average daily output was 100,000 chickens… . Directly ahead of me on the conveyor line were the USDA inspectors and their trimmers. The trimmers cut the damaged and diseased parts off the chickens and dropped them in garbage cans, which were emptied periodically. These parts were sent to a pet food factory .
    So the next time you hear a pet food commercial talk about the fine ingredients they use in their product, don’t you believe it .
    Similarly, a story appeared in our local paper revealing that dead animals found on the highway are sent to rendering plants, where they are used in pet food. The reporter actually talked to the Road Department, which led him to Animal Control, which then led him to Eugene Chemical & Rendering Works, where he was told the rendered material was sold to companies that make pet (and livestock) feed. Similar reports have surfaced, so I don’t think this is just a local phenomenon. Ann Martin offers considerable evidence in her book that pets are routinely rendered by veterinary hospitals or shelters and recycled into pet food.
    It is very difficult to determine exactly what pet food makers are using as ingredients. It can change on any day, and they don’t volunteer information like this. It takessome insider information or good detective work to find these things out. There are no federal regulations against using what are called 4-D sources—that is, tissues from animals that are dead, dying, disabled, or diseased when they arrive at the slaughterhouse.
    H EALTH E FFECTS ?
    What effect might these wastes be having on animals? After all, maybe it is entirely acceptable to feed these by-products to animals. Don’t they eat all sorts of stuff off the ground, even digging up dead