Another AAFCO meeting is complete.
The future of AAFCO is in deep trouble. The FDA recently withdrew from their agreement to work with AAFCO on approving new ingredients (more on this soon), and pet food manufacturer members of the Pet Food Institute are is trying to push a bill through Congress that would ultimately put pet food just under. the FDA’s jurisdiction, eliminating all state regulation of pet food. If the PURR Act is passed, many State Feed Officials (who make up AAFCO’s membership) will be out of a job – and AAFCO will have no meetings to attend (since most of them are pet food related). It was clear at this meeting that AAFCO members were concerned about the future.
It’s ironic that the very people AAFCO has supported most over the years – the pet food manufacturer members of the Pet Food Institute – are the ones who may be responsible for AAFCO’s demise.
It is concerning that we clearly saw the FDA advancing elements of the PURR Act even before a vote on the Act occurred in Congress. It is abundantly clear that the commitment of the FDA for Veterinary Medicine to the Pet Food Institute is stronger than we have witnessed in the past.
In a brief FDA briefing on their new decision to approve pet/animal food ingredients (separate from AAFCO), Dr. Timothy Schell (of the FDA) that the old system at AAFCO is ending in part because of “instability caused by the industry”. He said nothing about the concerns we (consumers) have had with the FDA for years about AAFCO’s flawed nutritional profiles, the state regulations AAFCO wrote behind a paywall, or the long-standing lack of concern for pet owners from (most but not all. ) AAFCO members. Just mentioned by Dr. Schell the issues facing the industry.
An example of what AAFCO did, that the FDA has already taken over is the salmon fish feed ingredient “Antarctic Krill Meal” was discussed (voted to approve) at this recent meeting. The ingredient is already FDA approved, AAFCO is just adding it to their library of approved ingredients.
Although Antarctic Krill Meal seems safe for a salmon feed ingredient, the reality is very different. “Antarctic Krill Meal – The intended use is in salmonid feed to enhance the pink to orange-red flesh color of salmonid fish.” This ingredient is used to make farmed salmon look like wild salmon. The ingredient is allowed to be dyed, so that farmed salmon fed the dyed ingredient have the same beautiful orange-red flesh color as wild salmon.
And…the ingredient Antarctic Krill Meal is legally allowed (by definition) to contain:
- “250 mg/kg of ethoxyquin;
- 2 mg/kg of lead;
- And 170 mg/kg of astaxanthin.
Remember…the farmed salmon that consumes this ingredient is NOT just for pet food, the salmon that eats this ingredient is loaded with dye, a dangerous chemical preservative, and lots of heavy metals is also served to you. It is permitted by federal regulations (FDA) and now state regulations to color the fish you and your pet eat.
During the session of the Ingredient Definitions Committee, Dr. Mary-Grace Danao from the University of Nebraska explained about High Pressure Pasteurization (HPP). Pet owners can read more about HPP from Dr. Available here: https://fpc.unl.edu/petfoodworkshop
At the Pet Food Committee session, we learned that updates to the pet food label – which took more than 10 years to pass before AAFCO – won’t be implemented for another six years (need to be implemented by 2030). BUT, there is a possibility that these label updates may not occur due to the PURR Act (from the Pet Food Institute). We were told that some states are NOT using these AAFCO label updates due to the uncertain future of state pet food regulation.
The most telling and troubling event of the entire meeting was when the Pet Food Committee briefly discussed the much-needed voluntary copper maximum in pet foods.
Background: in the last few years, science has proven that there is an increase in copper storage disease (liver disease) in dogs, and many scientists (independent of the influence of Big Pet Feed) directly link the increase in liver disease in pet food with no maximum. of copper established. Cat and dog food manufacturers can add any amount of supplemental copper currently (above the required minimum). There have been years of arguments against a copper maximum – mainly from scientists representing the Pet Food Institute (although working directly with Hill’s Pet Food). A working group was formed, Dr. William Burkholder of the FDA is the chairman of this working group, and Dr. personally refused. . The only consensus of the working group was an opportunity for pet food manufacturers to voluntarily limit the level of copper in their pet foods, allowing them to make a ‘limited copper’ claim on their label.
But, when the proposed limited copper label claim was discussed at AAFCO, scientists from the Pet Food Institute (this time Hill’s Pet Food) continued to argue against it. A few months before AAFCO voted on the issue, Hill’s Pet Food scientists published a paper saying their research indicates pet “liver copper concentrations” is not problematic. Dr. Leslie Hancock – co-author and chief medical officer of Hill’s pet food “although there is an increase in copper concentrations, it is not clinically significant.”
(Dr. Leslie Hancock who claimed documented increases in copper concentrations in pet livers was also part of the AAFCO working group. To read the full report from the AAFCO working group, Click Here.)
However, the published paper by Dr. Hancock was withdrawn because significant flaws were found by impartial (not employed by Hill’s Pet Food) scientists.
When the paper was retracted, AAFCO was in a position to discuss the issue again because the author(s) of the flawed paper were part of the AAFCO working group. This new discussion took place during the Pet Food Committee session of this recent meeting. BUT, the discussion only lasted a few minutes, though there were comments from some asking AAFCO to vote again, asking AAFCO to consider the science provided by Dr. Hancock is flawed.
Dr. Karen Donnelly of the FDA almost immediately shut down the discussion. Dr. refused. Donnelly to allow the voluntary limited copper label claim to be voted on again. And clearly informed by Dr. Donnelly to scientists from Hill’s vote that a new vote will not happen. At every other AAFCO discussion on copper, Hill vets are at the meetings ready to argue against limiting copper (based on their flawed science). But this time, they were nowhere to be found. Clearly, they already know. Clearly, informed by Dr. Karen Donnelly told them that she would stop any further voting on the issue.
The AAFCO – led by Dr. FDA’s Karen Donnelly – has refused to allow pet food companies to voluntarily limit the level of copper in their pet foods (with a label claim of limited copper that would alert pet owners to potentially safer levels of copper). Through this highly biased action, AAFCO and the FDA have proven to the industry that the science is flawed. Submit a bad paper with flawed science, take what you want.
If any pet owner wants to give Dr. FDA’s Karen Donnelly of their opinion on a voluntary limited level of copper (with a label claim) in pet food, her email address is: [email protected].
And then at the end of this last session – the Pet Food Committee session – Stan Cook of the Missouri Department of Agriculture, co-chair of the Pet Food Committee informed the attendees that he was retiring from the Pet Food Committee in tears -tears (for him) a few minutes. While some in the audience may have been moved by his words, I thought of the employees working at a pet food plant in Missouri that Mr. Cook and others at the Missouri Department of Agriculture inspected and failed to take any action (Mars Petcare, Joplin MO). While crying Mr. Cook how much he will miss his industry and regulatory friends at AAFCO, I thought of the many employees of that pet food plant who died over the past 11 years related to exposure to phosphine gas (from fumigated ingredients . ), mycotoxins, diacetyl, and other contaminants ignored by regulation (18 employee deaths in the past 11 years, most in their 40s and 50s when they died). I thought of the employees who remain sick today because there is not a single regulatory authority protecting them or the pets who eat the pet food produced there.
Please know, not all state feed officials/AAFCO members are heartless. Many…perhaps better phrased as few…really care about regulating pet foods as they are required by law to do. They often try to perform as their job requires, but are limited by the amount of influence (control) the industry has over regulation.
Is this our last AAFCO meeting? I honestly don’t know what will happen in the future. But I can say that I have serious concerns that the FDA has closed ranks at the Pet Food Institute, and fear that the FDA’s strict loyalty to the industry could make things worse if only the FDA were to regulate pet food. . From the actions and words at the meeting, it certainly appears that the FDA and the Pet Food Institute have decided what the future holds, and we can safely assume that it will NOT be good for our pets. (More info soon on this issue.)
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Buyer Beware of Author, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. The Association for Truth in Pet Food is a stakeholder organization that represents the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and the FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and raise consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Does your dog or cat eat dangerous substances? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells ‘the rest of the story’ on more than 5,000 cat foods, dog foods and pet foods. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview the Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2024 List
List of Susan’s trusted pet foods. Click Here to learn more.
The 2024/25 Treat List
Susan’s List of trusted pet treat manufacturers. Click Here to learn more.