Misrepresentation On Ingredients In Dog Food.

[sandgrubber]

Just came across a well-referenced article that reviews investigations into what protein source is actually in dog foods. Apparently there's a lot of misrepresentation. . . lot That 'venison' may be mostly chicken, and the 'soy-free' foods often contain soy. It's worth reading the blog post. I'll clip some teaser extracts below.

https://thesciencedog.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/whats-in-your-food-2/

Several research studies published in the scientific literature over the past four years have shown that at least some brands of commercial dog foods have ingredient lists that do not always conform to what is actually in the food.

Study 1: Four brands of dry dog food that are marketed as novel protein source diets containing venison were tested for the presence of other protein sources ...

Study 2: The same team of researchers tested four retail dry dog foods that carried a “No Soy” label claim and seven therapeutic dry foods marketed to veterinarians for use in diagnosing soy allergies in dogs ...

Study 3: Eleven limited ingredient diets (LIDs) and one veterinary-prescribed hydrolyzed protein food were tested for the presence of animal origin ingredients not reported on their ingredient label

Study 4: Most recently, a comprehensive study published in the journal Food Control examined the content of 52 brands of commercial dog and cat food using DNA analysis. Results: Of the 52 products, 31 (60 %) had no labeling violations, meaning that the protein ingredients that were reported in the ingredient list completely matched the sources that were identified via DNA analysis. However, 21 brands (40 %) contained protein sources that were not listed on the ingredient list or in one case, a protein source that could not be identified. In three of these products, the protein source listed on the ingredient panel was entirely absent from the food. Chicken was the most commonly undeclared protein source in the mislabeled foods.

Edited February 21, 2015 by sandgrubber

[Danois]

The article is a Norweigan one on HD??

Is the study you're referring to American? Might have very little relevance here given there is a Standard for the manufacturing and labelling of pet food.

[sandgrubber]

The article is a Norweigan one on HD??

Is the study you're referring to American? Might have very little relevance here given there is a Standard for the manufacturing and labelling of pet food.

No. Nothing to do with the Norwegian study on HD. Here are the references:

• Raditic DM, Remillard RL, Tater KC. ELISA testing for common food antigens in four dry dog foods used in dietary elimination trials. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2010; 95:90-97.
  
• Willis-Mahn C, Remillard R, Tater K. ELISA testing for soy antigens in dry dog foods used in dietary elimination trials. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 2014; 50:383-389.
  
• Ricci R, Granato A, Vascellari M, Boscarato M, Palagiano C, Andrighetto I, Diez M, Mutinelli F. Identificatin of undeclared sources of animal origin in canine dry foods used in dietary elimination trials. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2013; 97:32-38.
  
• Okuma TA, Hellberg RS. Identification of meat species in pet foods using a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Food Control2015; 50:9-17.
  

Pretty sure they're all American. I would say they are quite relevant in Australia because: (a) the testing required isn't the sort of thing regulators do. ELISA and PCR are not used by regulators;. and (b) a large fraction of the dry food sold in Australia is imported from the USA.

p.s. ELISA is an immunoassay technique. It might be used in human food testing to ensure that peanuts or other allergens are not present in food . . . although this is not common and mostly used for tasks like ensuring that "gluten-free" foods are actually gluten free. Usually labels contain some caveat such as "this product may contain traces of XYZ allergen" which gets around the need to test. PCR is full DNA work.

Edited February 21, 2015 by sandgrubber

[Danois]

No - the link you have put in your post is to a HD one.

And actually - based on sales, the vast majority of dog food sold in Australia is actually manufactured in Australia. Imported products in pet stores make up a small majority of sales by volume.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Danois

[sandgrubber]

No - the link you have put in your post is to a HD one.

And actually - based on sales, the vast majority of dog food sold in Australia is actually manufactured in Australia. Imported products in pet stores make up a small majority of sales by volume.

Oops. I must have done something wrong on copy and paste. Here is the link. I've corrected it above as well. Sorry.

https://thesciencedog.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/whats-in-your-food-2/

Btw, I looked up the Australian standards for pet food

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal-plant/animal-health/pet-food-safety/enclosure-7.doc

Not much there. Some sanitation requirements. You can't sell diseased animals or stuff that's not fit for pet food. Not much by way of labelling requirements.

Edited February 21, 2015 by sandgrubber

[Danois]

Your own link actually refutes your claim of "not much there" - it refers people to the AU Standard 5812 re labelling and manufacturing of pet food in Australian and that's where you find the information.

[sandgrubber]

Your own link actually refutes your claim of "not much there" - it refers people to the AU Standard 5812 re labelling and manufacturing of pet food in Australian and that's where you find the information.

You're correct, I missed AU Standard 5812. On trying to figure out how effective this standard is, I hit a few problems. First it would cost me $96.79 to get a copy. It's only 29 pages long so that's absurd. And if I opt for the digital copy it can only be printed once and is no copy/paste. What about transparency? http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/Details.aspx?ProductID=1454233 (this is the source suggested by the PFIAA)

Second it is a voluntary standard, albeit, with a high compliance rate. It is supposed to be enforced through companies hiring an outside company to do inspections.

Do they do ELISA to figure out whether 'no soy' products contain soy? or to ensure that chicken (cheap) isn't substituted for other more expensive protein sources? Or do they hire 'friendly' third parties to do the inspections. One can only hope.

In the US, the FDA requires truth in labelling, etc. Problem is, enforcement is weak.

[Danois]

Australian Standards always cost to get hold of a copy - regardless of what the subject matter is - because they are licensed documents.

We have the Standard here and we have comprehensive laws in the Consumer Law re advertising and labelling. And an active regulator who regularly takes actions against companies for misleading and deceptive advertising.

The US position is rather irrelevant to Australia and maybe you would find more traction raising the issues you are on a US forum.