Some Cat Foods May Cause 'severe Illness'

[Scottsmum]

OK - so not dog food but it's not surprising and it's a really interesting read - basically Usyd faces backlash as they have an article peer reviewed and published but refuse to name names.

A number of commercial pet food brands sold in supermarkets may cause "severe illness or injury" to adult cats, a Sydney University study has found.

Key points:

Study finds some supermarket and pet shop cat food brands may cause lameness, diabetes, obesity or anaemia

Out of 20 products tested eight products did not meet Australian nutritional standards

The authors of the study will not release the names of the brands

The peer reviewed study, published in the Australian Veterinary Journal, tested 20 supermarket or pet store products.

Nine of them did not adhere to the Australian standards in regards to their "guaranteed analysis" claims.

Eight products did not adhere to the standards in regards to nutrient content for adult cats because they had too much, or too little, protein and fat.

The study found some of these products could cause lameness, diabetes, obesity or anaemia.

Neither the authors of the study, the University or the Australian Veterinary Journal would release the names of the offending brands of pet food.

Even the $2 billion-a-year pet food industry is calling for the release of the products' names.

Duncan Hall from the Pet Food Industry Association said: "We do want to know more. We have flagged it with members."

"Of course we have concerns with regards to findings where the nutrient levels are not what is expected, and certainly the degree of some of those changes are a surprise," he said.

It continues....

Withholding brand names 'absurd'

Sydney veterinarian Tom Lonsdale, a fierce critic of the pet food industry, does not agree with the University's reasoning.

Sydney Veterinarian Tom Lonsdale

PHOTO: Dr Lonsdale said Sydney University appeared to be backing away from its research. (ABC News: James Thomas)

"That's absurd. If they were going to stand by what they wrote then they would be prepared to publish the names," Dr Lonsdale said.

Dr Lonsdale, who is a proponent of raw food diets, said the university seemed to be backing away from its research.

"It's ridiculous now to start to denigrate their own research project," he said.

"I mean they must have spent endless hours in the lab and quite a lot of money and then gone through the peer review process to make sure this is kosher or authentic and fit for public consumption.

"So for them to now turn around and say, 'well actually we don't stand by our own work' is absurd.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-21/some-supermarket-cat-food-brands-may-cause-severe-illness-study/7263634

*edited to fix title

Edited March 25, 2016 by Scottsmum

[Kirislin]

Maybe Choice should review cat foods.

[Rebanne]

all my cats over the years have lived well into their teens and they have been fed on supermarket food. I'm not about to rush out and change their food.

[Dame Aussie]

What's the point in doing the study if people can't get the details they need to choose to stop feeding the food that is no good/possibly harmful?? Load of rubbish

Edited March 21, 2016 by Dame Aussie

[_PL_]

all my cats over the years have lived well into their teens and they have been fed on supermarket food. I'm not about to rush out and change their food.

Granny was the same, she did add meat too from memory. And all the cats lived healthily forever; no crystals in the urine, no sudden kidney failure. But I think with most supermarket foods, it's been devolving to keep costs lower and more competitive. More and more cheap flavours, colours, soy, imported ingredients and fillers. So they look the same as years ago, but aren't what they used to be.

Same as people fed their dogs on tinned food and it lived healthily for years - our family dog was 17 when he passed - but it would have been far simpler processing and basic ingredients, all the bits that didn't make it into a meat pie.

[Scottsmum]

What's the point in doing the study if people can't get the details they need to choose to stop feeding the food that is no good/possibly harmful?? Load of rubbish

That was kind of the angle I was taking it from Dame Aussie. They said it was a Masters student - so I'd say they've let some 'insignificant' student do a piece of work / the proposal has slipped by unnoticed and now it's causing an upraor because you it's (most likely) found something negative against a major funder.

all my cats over the years have lived well into their teens and they have been fed on supermarket food. I'm not about to rush out and change their food.

all my cats over the years have lived well into their teens and they have been fed on supermarket food. I'm not about to rush out and change their food.

Granny was the same, she did add meat too from memory. And all the cats lived healthily forever; no crystals in the urine, no sudden kidney failure. But I think with most supermarket foods, it's been devolving to keep costs lower and more competitive. More and more cheap flavours, colours, soy, imported ingredients and fillers. So they look the same as years ago, but aren't what they used to be.Same as people fed their dogs on tinned food and it lived healthily for years - our family dog was 17 when he passed - but it would have been far simpler processing and basic ingredients, all the bits that didn't make it into a meat pie.

All our dogs before Scottie have been "Pal and meaty bites" dogs. Major - the big boy I posted about a few days ago literally ate a large can of pal and big scoop of meaty bites every night for his entire life, as did Guinea - but after Major passed away we stopped buying pal and moved her over to "my dog" as it came in smaller cans.

Scottie would have been fed on supermarket food too but he was really fussy and we struggled to get him to eat when we bought him home (still is) and we noticed as soon as we put him on just cooked mince and veg (the only thing he'd eat) that his gooby eyes, terrible body odour and hot oily coat cleared up.... Hence our introduction to dogs with food allergies began.

I agree with Rebanne too on the bolded point above too. Certainly in the last 5 years or so I've been caught out buying "toppers" (meat in jelly really) with no nutritional value at all.

I also think it's up to the consumer to buy what they wish, spend the amount of money they want (or can) and make their own choices and there was a time when I didn't have a problem with supermarket food - and still dont. I still feed a grain free supermarket kibble in the mix of things. I believe in "do what's right for you, at the time" - no matter what that is - but I think it's a real shame that these findings aren't being released. I would be devastated to know that something I had fed in good faith was harmful.

[The Spotted Devil]

1. Anecdotal reports are not evidence. It's like the folk who live to 100 on a diet of cigarettes and coffee.

2. The study analysed a random sample of products and compared them with (I imagine) NHMRC nutritional guidelines.

3. There is an assumption that you would feed these diets exclusively AND that the nutritional content doesn't change batch to batch. I suspect close to 100% cats in the past were outdoors and supplementing their diet with mice, birds and geckos. And there's a lot who still do.

[Dewclaws]

The university gets grants from hills and royal canin . Two pet feeds not sold in supermarket pet feeding departments .

Considering they are not being transparent with their findings makes me think their findings are not significant enough to get the companies producing these feeds in to trouble . But naming and shaming them could get them a defamation case .

[JulesP]

Don't some of the tinned cat foods say something like 'not a complete diet' or something like that on them?

Just looked at the Fancy Feast Broth on the website for instance and it says - Intended for occasional or supplemental feeding.

[Scottsmum]

So lots of comments up there. I went and had another look at the article.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate if the label information and nutrient composition of commercial cat foods are accurate and compliant with the Australian Standard (AS 5812-2011) and if they meet the nutritional requirements of an adult cat.

METHODS:

A chemical analysis of 10 wet and 10 dry commercial cat foods labelled as 'nutritionally complete' for the adult cat was performed. The results were compared with the package composition values, the Australian Standard and the unique dietary requirements of the cat. In addition, the results of the chemical analysis were compared with the nutrient requirements published by the Association of the American Feed Control Officials and the National Research Council.

RESULTS:

When compared with the Australian Standard, 9 of the 20 cat foods did not adhere to their 'guaranteed analysis' and 8 did not adhere to the standards for nutrient composition. Also, various deficiencies and excesses of crude protein, crude fat, fatty acid and amino acid were observed in the majority of the cat foods.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results of this study highlight a need for an improved method of ensuring that label information and nutrient composition are accurate and comply with the Australian Standard (AS 5812-2011) to ensure the adult cat's unique dietary requirements are being met by commercial adult cat food

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26763535

TSD - Basically they're saying what they claim is in the can isnt.

Dewclaws - Fair point.

Jules - You're right - cans must say if they're not complete and intended for occasional use only. My point was 10 years ago, even 5 really - you didn't see that at all.

[Scottsmum]

Interesting - as someone pointed out here - Hills and Royal canin aren't supermarket brands ... yet the plot thickens.

update: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-24/cat-food-study-leads-to-ethics-overhaul-at-university/7272488

The ABC has obtained documents which reveal The University of Sydney's Faculty of Veterinary Science is conducting an overhaul of its corporate sponsorships following the ABC's exposure of corporate deals between the Veterinary Faculty and large pet food companies Hills and Royal Canin.

The draft document, obtained by the ABC, is titled "Faculty of Veterinary Science Local Provisions for Sponsorship" and acknowledges "gifts and sponsorship, no matter how small, have been shown to influence recipients".

The document aims to "ensure freedom from bias or inappropriate influences that might otherwise occur as a consequence of support from external entities".

Earlier this week, ABC's Lateline program questioned whether a university study into harmful cat food withheld company names of product tested to protect corporate sponsors.

While the university denies corporate funding of the study, it acknowledges sponsorship arrangements with Hills and Royal Canin.

"Because it compromises the ability to give unbiased scientific information to veterinary students about the best way to feed animals," Sydney University's own academic Dr Richard Malik, a feline specialist, said of the sponsorships

[Christina]

Protein, fat content & the main source of protein & all other ingredients are listed on the bag of all dry food & all cans. It is up to the buyer to check these levels but premium foods are often the same or with little difference if one really reads it all. Grain free dry being the exception.

Obesity is always caused by feeding too much, no matter what it is. Diabetes is usually caused by obesity, although not always. So both are avoidable to a degree no matter what is fed, generally but not always.

One has to wonder at all this fuss & scare tactics & owner worry when the owner often feeds themselves ready made convenience & frozen foods as well as threats & take aways.

Despite all this media scare mongering, selling tactics, advertising, telling everything alive what they should be eating both humans & their pets still live longer lives than they did even 30 years ago. So eat or feed your pets a basic diet of whatever in the right amounts with an odd treat just now & then & they will mutate & survive on the supermarket food like we do, if that is your choice IMO.

[Scottsmum]

Protein, fat content & the main source of protein & all other ingredients are listed on the bag of all dry food & all cans. It is up to the buyer to check these levels but premium foods are often the same or with little difference if one really reads it all. Grain free dry being the exception.

Obesity is always caused by feeding too much, no matter what it is. Diabetes is usually caused by obesity, although not always. So both are avoidable to a degree no matter what is fed, generally but not always.

One has to wonder at all this fuss & scare tactics & owner worry when the owner often feeds themselves ready made convenience & frozen foods as well as threats & take aways.

Despite all this media scare mongering, selling tactics, advertising, telling everything alive what they should be eating both humans & their pets still live longer lives than they did even 30 years ago. So eat or feed your pets a basic diet of whatever in the right amounts with an odd treat just now & then & they will mutate & survive on the supermarket food like we do, if that is your choice IMO.

That's one of the disturbing things about the report.

RESULTS:

When compared with the Australian Standard, 9 of the 20 cat foods did not adhere to their 'guaranteed analysis' and 8 did not adhere to the standards for nutrient composition. Also, various deficiencies and excesses of crude protein, crude fat, fatty acid and amino acid were observed in the majority of the cat foods.

Basically - what was on the label (at least in the bag/can they tested) did not align with what they found. So you're a diligent pet owner and you've spent hours reading labels... well fat lot of good that'll do you.

[Maddy]

Protein, fat content & the main source of protein & all other ingredients are listed on the bag of all dry food & all cans. It is up to the buyer to check these levels but premium foods are often the same or with little difference if one really reads it all. Grain free dry being the exception.

Obesity is always caused by feeding too much, no matter what it is. Diabetes is usually caused by obesity, although not always. So both are avoidable to a degree no matter what is fed, generally but not always.

One has to wonder at all this fuss & scare tactics & owner worry when the owner often feeds themselves ready made convenience & frozen foods as well as threats & take aways.

Despite all this media scare mongering, selling tactics, advertising, telling everything alive what they should be eating both humans & their pets still live longer lives than they did even 30 years ago. So eat or feed your pets a basic diet of whatever in the right amounts with an odd treat just now & then & they will mutate & survive on the supermarket food like we do, if that is your choice IMO.

That's one of the disturbing things about the report.

RESULTS:

When compared with the Australian Standard, 9 of the 20 cat foods did not adhere to their 'guaranteed analysis' and 8 did not adhere to the standards for nutrient composition. Also, various deficiencies and excesses of crude protein, crude fat, fatty acid and amino acid were observed in the majority of the cat foods.

Basically - what was on the label (at least in the bag/can they tested) did not align with what they found. So you're a diligent pet owner and you've spent hours reading labels... well fat lot of good that'll do you.

That could be a difference of single digits in percentage though. It could certainly make a difference for a cat prone to weight issues but, in my opinion, most people aren't sitting down and working out approximate caloric content of their pet's food based on nutritional analysis anyway. They buy it, take it home and pour until the bowl is full. On the other side of the issue.. things like lower fat listed in the NA may lead people to believe the food is healthier, even though the difference may be made up by carbs. The owner may be more generous with feeding because they think low fat must mean low calories and once again, you end up with a fat cat.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that the study was not just testing supermarket brands like Chum or Pal..

The peer reviewed study, published in the Australian Veterinary Journal, tested 20 supermarket or pet store products.

Royal Canin and Science Diet are sold in pet shops. Black Hawk is also sold in pet shops and many people consider it to be a quality food.

I think the only thing that can be safely assumed from this study is that quality control for many brands seems to be pretty crap.

[Scottsmum]

That could be a difference of single digits in percentage though. It could certainly make a difference for a cat prone to weight issues but, in my opinion, most people aren't sitting down and working out approximate caloric content of their pet's food based on nutritional analysis anyway. They buy it, take it home and pour until the bowl is full. On the other side of the issue.. things like lower fat listed in the NA may lead people to believe the food is healthier, even though the difference may be made up by carbs. The owner may be more generous with feeding because they think low fat must mean low calories and once again, you end up with a fat cat.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that the study was not just testing supermarket brands like Chum or Pal..

The peer reviewed study, published in the Australian Veterinary Journal, tested 20 supermarket or pet store products.

Royal Canin and Science Diet are sold in pet shops. Black Hawk is also sold in pet shops and many people consider it to be a quality food.

I think the only thing that can be safely assumed from this study is that quality control for many brands seems to be pretty crap.

most people aren't sitting down and working out approximate caloric content of their pet's food based on nutritional analysis anyway.

No - probably not. But there was a time not so long ago that I was advised to feed a low fat dog food and I spent a fair whack of time checking all the options to find the options for us which were low fat. Our family vet (who I adore & I know is pretty good on her continued professional development) still advises this or to check for xxx kcal/cup on label.

I personally believe that there is a huge number of people out there who do simply follow vets instructions and if they're told to check the labels and find a low fat item they will and I think that's OK to a certain extent. I was certainly one of them until I adopted a dog with food allergies and was forced to really look at labels for more than a crude fat content. When I really started reading and thinking about it I was mortified. The majority of cheap supermarket dry out there is just general cereal.

Noted on the brand thing - have edited title of post. Certainly firms up my suspicions that one of the sponsors brands was implicated in the study.

[Maddy]

That could be a difference of single digits in percentage though. It could certainly make a difference for a cat prone to weight issues but, in my opinion, most people aren't sitting down and working out approximate caloric content of their pet's food based on nutritional analysis anyway. They buy it, take it home and pour until the bowl is full. On the other side of the issue.. things like lower fat listed in the NA may lead people to believe the food is healthier, even though the difference may be made up by carbs. The owner may be more generous with feeding because they think low fat must mean low calories and once again, you end up with a fat cat.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that the study was not just testing supermarket brands like Chum or Pal..

The peer reviewed study, published in the Australian Veterinary Journal, tested 20 supermarket or pet store products.

Royal Canin and Science Diet are sold in pet shops. Black Hawk is also sold in pet shops and many people consider it to be a quality food.

I think the only thing that can be safely assumed from this study is that quality control for many brands seems to be pretty crap.

most people aren't sitting down and working out approximate caloric content of their pet's food based on nutritional analysis anyway.

No - probably not. But there was a time not so long ago that I was advised to feed a low fat dog food and I spent a fair whack of time checking all the options to find the options for us which were low fat. Our family vet (who I adore & I know is pretty good on her continued professional development) still advises this or to check for xxx kcal/cup on label.

I personally believe that there is a huge number of people out there who do simply follow vets instructions and if they're told to check the labels and find a low fat item they will and I think that's OK to a certain extent. I was certainly one of them until I adopted a dog with food allergies and was forced to really look at labels for more than a crude fat content. When I really started reading and thinking about it I was mortified. The majority of cheap supermarket dry out there is just general cereal.

Noted on the brand thing - have edited title of post. Certainly firms up my suspicions that one of the sponsors brands was implicated in the study.

Weight management is about more than just fat though. When a vet tells a client to avoid high fat foods, they're not necessarily directing the client to a better food or even a lower calorie food. Dogs and cats need a certain amount of fat in their diets and their bodies are built to digest it. Carbohydrates, on the other hand, not so much. And if a supermarket food is lower in fat, you can safely bet that nine times out of ten, the difference will be made up by carbs.

If your cat or dog has an issue with digesting fat (rather than it being just a weight management issue), odds are, you're not going to be looking to supermarket crap like My Dog anyway, you'd be feeding a prescription diet*.

*I've no idea if prescription diets were included in the study but I'd suspect not.

Just an example of the issue with assuming "light" pet foods are going to be healthier.. (moisture isn't actually listed so I've assumed 9% each, which is average. Also, crude ash is not listed for either so I've assumed 6%. Those values could actually be quite different which could totally change this comparison but we can only work with the information we have.) Calorie content of fibre depends on type of fibre, which isn't noted, so we'll assume soluble.

The NA of Pedigree Beef dry food-

Crude Protein 22.0% = 88

Crude Fat 10.0% = 90

Fibre Crude 2.0% = 8

Moisture 9% = 0

Ash 6% = 0

Carbohydrate ~51% = 204

per 100 = 390

The NA of their Light Lamb dry food

Crude Protein 20.0% = 80

Crude Fat 8.0% = 72

Fibre Crude 2.2% = 8.8

Moisture 9% = 0

Ash 6% = 0

Carbohydrate ~54.8% = 219.2

per 100 = 380

Curiously, only one of those foods had an actual cal per 100g listed and that was the Beef, which was claimed to provide 335 per 100g.

But here's where things get interesting.. if we look closer at the label, to the feeding guides for a 20kg dog on a dry only diet.. (for weight maintainence, not reduction)

Real Beef - 270g per day

Light with Lean Lamb - 220g per day.

So.. feeding the dog 18% less food. And that food has roughly only 2.56% less calories. So as far as weight loss goes, it would seem quantity is doing the heavy lifting, not caloric content.

And what all the above means is that even if we assume labels are correct, they're still misleading to the average consumer, who probably doesn't visit the supermarket with a calculator and a spare 20 minutes to crunch all the numbers. As for vets, rather than recommending low fat foods, perhaps better advice would be "feed less food to start with and budget for additional sources such as treats, table scraps, etc.".

[Scottsmum]

Weight management is about more than just fat though.

Yeh. I get that.

I just think it's really terribly sad that they can get away with the contents of the can/package differing to what is on the label. *assuming it's more than negligible.

There'd be bloody hell to pay if it was baby food. I've put my faith in labels before (and it wasn't for weight management) and it just makes me sad. Yes - I'm more educated now - but we're all on a very long learning spectrum .

[Maddy]

Weight management is about more than just fat though.

Yeh. I get that.

I just think it's really terribly sad that they can get away with the contents of the can/package differing to what is on the label. *assuming it's more than negligible.

There'd be bloody hell to pay if it was baby food. I've put my faith in labels before (and it wasn't for weight management) and it just makes me sad. Yes - I'm more educated now - but we're all on a very long learning spectrum .

Without knowing what sort of percentages are involved, it's hard to say really how serious it actually is.

I think the press release for the study was pretty misleading though, and more than just a bit scaremongering (no food causes diabetes or obesity, it's excessive consumption paired with a variety of other factors). And when you weigh it up against the perfectly legal bullshittery that is pet food labeling, it sort of pales in comparison

In my opinion, pet food labels should be required to have cal per 100g, same as human food, to allow consumers to be able to actually see what is behind the claims on the front of the packet. That, and actually list actual ingredients, not "may contain meats such as.." or.. "meats including..".

[Scottsmum]

Totally agree Maddy. :)

[Roova]

Probably too off track but I was looking at chicken strips in the supermarket yesterday. In woollies there wasn't a single one which had more than 48% chicken! Even then it's guess work what parts of the chicken were used.

We have a long way to go in the pet industry when humans are also fed crappy, chemically laden foods and labelling is deliberately misleading.