A professor at Chapman University in Calfornia just completed a study of the actual contents of dog and cat food with some shocking results.
Of the 52 products tested, only 31 were labeled correctly. Of the about 20 that were potentially mislabeled, seven were cat food and 13 were dog food. What kind of discrepancies did the researchers find?
*MOUSE PRINT:
Sixteen contained a certain kind of meat that was not specified on the label. In three cases, one or two meats were substituted for the meats listed in the ingredients. Pork was the usual addition. On the bright side, no horse meat was found.
The study did not specify the brand names of the affected products (and our request of the author to provide specifics was denied): “It was not our intention to single out pet food brands, but rather to investigate the issue as a whole. Therefore, we will not be releasing the names of the brands or specific products that were tested in this study.”
A pet advocate who has written extensively on this subject at TruthAboutPetFood.com paid for a copy of the study and posted examples of some of its findings:
Sample number P017 – Cat Food (wet). Meat ingredients listed on the cat food label: “Liver (turkey), Turkey, Meat by-product, Chickenâ€. Testing found: “Chicken and Goatâ€. This pet food was a ‘turkey’ cat food – but testing found no turkey.
Sample number P019 – Dog Food (dry). Meat ingredients listed on the dog food label: “Chicken, Chicken meal, Beef fatâ€. Testing found: “Beef, Lamb, Chicken, Turkey, and Porkâ€. This chicken and beef fat dog food included 3 other animal species that were not listed on the label (lamb, turkey and pork).
We unfortunately have to conclude that in too many cases, the ingredients listing on pet foods is merely a suggested list of what might be in the bag or can.
Therefore, we tested 52 products but we won’t specify product names, rendering the study “inconclusive” for the retail customer. We prefer to have all 52 under suspicion and promote pet owner paranoia instead. Yup.
What good does a study, that has been released to the press, do if it doesn’t name names (or products)? Are we just supposed to guess which ones ‘might’ contain the listed ingredients? Have the affected companies been informed of the results? Have they responded?
Anybody could have done this ‘study’ and come up with the results as posted.
Did they find any evidence of ‘foreign material (melamine, etc)? So, if the issue is that it didn’t contain the proper ingredients, then it might be a labeling issue or dost-cutting measure. My dog still likes his Mighty Dog even though it might not contain the listed meat product.
Add to my previous comment:
Who paid for this study? If it was some sort of public funding, then we are entitled to the full results. Any other funding is suspicious with a certain agenda (either pro or cone pet foods).
Not releasing the pet food brand names doesn’t necessarily hurt the study, but it would have been important to list those brand names so that people could replicate the exact samples used. Perhaps they tried to avoid litigation, but if their results are true there shouldn’t be much to worry about.
I suspect that manufacturers think they can get away with mislabeling pet food because most pet owners wouldn’t care exactly what their pet in eating as long as it doesn’t harm them. There isn’t as much of an incentive to monitor pet food versus food for human consumption.
It’s still improper for those manufacturers to mislabel products. Plain and simple.
I know exactly what is in my Dogs food…how? because I feed my dogs raw food, ever since that 1st dog food scare about 8/7 yrs ago I started doing research and found what kinds of “beef”, “chicken” and other proteins are really in a bag of dry food and when I found out that even animals that had died were taken to a rendering plant and processed for dog food manufacturers…even those that had cancer and the meds that go with trying to save your pet, that is when I said ‘my baby” is not going to eat that crap. My baby is now a 10 yr. old mini schnauzer who has never been sick since I changed the way I feed her, but before that she was always getting UTI’s hasn’t had one since. I also don’t give all the unnecessary shots, only rabies and wouldn’t even do that if the law didn’t say so.
Chapman University charges to get a copy of the study. That’s offensive.
The refusal to name names casts doubt on the credibility of the study. And, allows companies to get away with this sort of conduct. Sort of like how no one went to jail for the mortgage debacle–whatever happened to accountability?
Without providing specifics, exactly how is a concerned pet parent supposed to react to this? Suspect whatever brand of food, regardless of the price or claims of being “natural” or “high quality”? Refusing to release the names of the brands (allegedly) studied makes this yet another pointless and useless consumer study.
My one cat refuses to eat canned food (the only kind she can have due to health issues) that contain chicken or turkey. Now I know why she’ll sometimes turn her nose up at cat food that theoretically doesn’t have chicken or turkey in it.
How about bird food? What’s best for my parrots?
I read the entire paper. My takeaway was they used pet food but was referencing published articles on cross-contaminated human food in other countries. Suggesting that we are now in a global food supply and ALL food needs more testing as some is accidental and other times it’s fraud.
There was no mention of who provided the grant in the acknowledgments….
I have a feeling that many of the meats that were found via DNA testing, but were not listed on the label were those used in the generic Meat-meal and meat by-product meal. Generic meat/meat by-product meals can contain any kind of meat or animals by-product (feathers, fur, hair, beaks, feet, etc.), including euthanized lab and zoo animals and roadkill.