Some Cat Foods May Cause 'severe Illness'

[Scottsmum]

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.

Yep

When i started reading labels properly i was mortifed. I'll never feed another smacko or goodo again.

[Sagittarian]

Excellent explanation of labels, wish more people understood about fat. I am constantly explaining to owners of overweight dogs, as they vigilantly check for fat content on bags, that they need to look for kilo calories and then the other components. Fat for dogs is not a baddie, unless there is an underlying health issue or in excess.

Sags

:)

(Sorry Maddy, stuffed your quote up).

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.".

Edited March 28, 2016 by Sagittarian

[tdierikx]

I find that portion control is a good way of maintaining optimal weights... *grin*

... and no treats for no good reason...

T.

[corvus]

The differences between the RDIs and what was found in the foods is in some cases quite dramatic. You can see for yourselves if you follow the link in the OP. This is my faculty, but I know nothing about this study and the controversy. Reading the paper, I think the journal editor is correct in pointing out that the data are preliminary. It would be premature to name and shame at this point, and it could be quite damaging to the companies involved. If it might be damaging, then we should be very cautious and replicate the study with a larger sample size first. The faculty does have sponsorship deals with pet food companies, which is well known, I think. Why wouldn't they? They are essentially a business after all. If they failed to acknowledge funding, though, they can get in a lot of trouble. It would not be worth it. Pet food companies have their own scientists. They don't fund a lot of external research, but academics depend on their reputation for quality work and honesty.