June 20, 2009: A concerned pet owner provided pfpsa.org with funds and a variety of unrecalled dry cat food samples, which we received in ziplock bags, to have tested through the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab. Toxicology testing is done through WADDL by the Analytical Sciences Laboratory University of Idaho. We tested 5 samples believed to be three each of Nutro, one Wellness and one Purina. The tests show two of the three Nutro samples contained zinc at levels that would be illegal for sale in the European Union, at 270 ppm and 380 ppm. The third Nutro sample came in at 230 ppm. Purina and Wellness both came in at 190 ppm, which is still 40 ppm higher than the European Union’s recommended maximum of 150 ppm. The huge variation in Nutro results suggests very poor consistency and quality control. From one bag to the next, it’s about like playing Russian Roulette. It’s important to keep in mind pet food is typically the only thing our pets eat, day in and day out, month after month, year after year. Chronic exposure to over supplemented food, especially metals, hasn’t been studied enough to justify over supplementation as an industry standard.

Consumer Affairs has a new article up on the Nutro results, which the LA Times appears to have picked up.

June 17, 2009: To help better visualize the Nutro test results, the graph below gives a scale comparison to the NRC recommended minimum, the AAFCO recommended minimum, the European Union recommended maximum, the European Union absolute maximum allowed, the AFFCO absolute maximum allowed, and the actual Nutro test results for zinc. All numbers are converted to the actual daily dose in 3 ounces of kibble with a 10% moisture content.

Lisa McCormick of Consumer Affairs has written several articles recently related to problems with Nutro cat food, here and here. Those who prefer well written investigative journalism, to the kind of corporate sponsored “stories” reported by the mainstream media, should find Ms. McCormick’s work pleasantly refreshing.

June 16, 2009: The test results are back from an unopened bag of Nutro Max Cat Adult Roasted Chicken Flavor, Best by: 07 JUN 2010 07:17 2AD6 "A". Zinc, as fed, came in at a deadly 2,100 parts per million. Using this food by Nutro recommended feeding guidelines, a pet eating this food would receive over 38 times the amount of zinc recommended by the National Research Council, or 175 mg. zinc a day. Using the most frequently cited median lethal dose for zinc of 100 mg. per kilogram of body weight, a 4 kilogram cat (9 pounds) would be exposed to the median lethal dose of zinc in slightly over 2 days. It is highly unlikely a pet exposed to this food would survive after being exposed to it for more than a few days to a week. Clinical symptoms consistent with pancreatitis would be the most likely outward signs of exposure to this food, with possible liver and kidney damage.

A receipt provided with the food we tested showed this bag was purchased a day after the recall was announced. It is our understanding the store had not been informed there was a problem with the food. Nutro doesn't appear overly concerned if a few more pets are killed by their poisoned food after a recall is announced, but who knows, maybe Nutro would be more agressive about getting its deadly products off store shelves if it knew there are concerned pet owners out there who will intentionally buy recalled products strictly for testing purposes. Pfpsa.org is more than willing to cooperate in any way possible with any lawfirm willing to pursue a class action against Nutro.

May 26, 2009: What a difference an international border makes! The European Union sets a maximum of 250 ppm zinc in all animal foods, with a recommended maximum of 150 ppm (mg/kg). (Scroll down to page 43) Compare that to the AAFCO maximum of 1,000 ppm in dog food and 2,000 ppm in cat food. By any measure of such things, the EU is light years ahead of the US in food safety. It makes a difference when food safety is regulated by industry lobbyists versus responsible professionals who recognize the fact they may have to consume the products they regulate.

Most of us remember the deadly pet food recalls of 2007. What few pet owners realize, however, is that AAFCO aggressively lobbied for allowing nonprotein nitrogen in pet food and in fact was able to slip the allowance past numerous state legislatures, including Washington State. By AAFCO standards, melamine and cyanuric acid in pet food was nothing more than a labeling violation, as AAFCO sees nothing wrong with including those substances in pet food at up to 1.25%. Using cyanuric acid, for example, by AAFCO standards, would allow 5,875 ppm cyanuric acid content in pet food, provided the label included a decidedly deceptive disclaimer of “This includes not more than 1.25% equivalent crude protein, which is not nutritionally available as protein”. The reckless and incompetent disregard for pet food safety by AAFCO is monumentally staggering. In one study, as little as 30 mg/kg day destroyed the kidneys of lab animals in six months. As an ancient Roman once said, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will guard us from the guardians?

May 22, 2009: After over 9 months of denying pfpsa.org findings that Nutro products contain unsafe levels of zinc, Nutro, while still denying those findings, yesterday announced a massive recall of dry cat food. Consumer Affairs has the story. From available information, these products were apparently manufactured in December 2008 and January 2009, leaving vulnerable pets exposed to toxic levels of zinc for half a year. This is in spite of Nutro's adamant proclamations of enhanced product testing and oversight. If Nutro actually had quality control procedures in place as claimed, it would have cost less than $40 to test these ingredients before going into production.

This recall is based on excessive levels of zinc, and low levels of potassium. That potassium has to be supplemented at all is an indication of a very substandard quality of cat food. Cats are obligate carnivores. What this means is that meat protein is the only food source their bodies are able to use as food. Meat is naturally very high in potassium. In other words, a need to supplement the food with potassium indicates there is very little meat content.

From our research, a pet food company could formulate a product within AAFCO guidelines, and actually produce a product that would be lethal to pets within a matter of days to weeks. Pfpsa.org advocates formulating to National Research Council (NRC) minimums, within a small margin of error. NRC does hard research. AAFCO is for all practical purposes an industry lobbyist, and appears to do no original research. AAFCO allows a maximum of 2,000 parts per million of zinc in cat food. The median lethal dose (LD50) for zinc is 100 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. For a 4 kilogram cat (9 pounds), this would translate to 400 milligrams of zinc being lethal to half the cats exposed to it in a single feeding. A cat exposed to food with 2,000 ppm zinc, that eats approximately 1/3 pound of food per day, would be receiving approximately a 300 mg. dose, each and every day.

According to Nutro, the recalled cat food had "excessive" levels of zinc. As Nutro has previously denounced that zinc levels in dog food were "excessive" according to AAFCO standards, we may presume the recalled cat food contained zinc above the 2,000 ppm level. According to Nutro, it has received no complaints related to the recalled cat food. But, then again, that's what Nutro said about the over 800 complaints reported on its dry dog food. In light of zinc's known toxicity, and the length of time these products were on the market, it is impossible to imagine this was anything other than an extraordinarily deadly event.

While pfpsa.org does not endorse the use of commercial pet food because of lack of FDA oversight of the industry and the typically poor quality of ingredients, if you do have to use commercial pet food, it is pfpsa.org's view that Mars/Nutro products are among the worst of the worst. This is a company, that by its own actions, has clearly demonstrated it simply does not care if your pet lives or dies as long as it can make a quick buck, while being totally unaccountable to those they harm with their deadly products.

February 6, 2009: Two law firms are investigating suspected problems with pet food. In general, pfpsa.org supports the concept litigation may be an effective tool in promoting pet food safety, by holding pet food companies directly accountable to pet owners. Simply stated, when pet food companies cut corners on quality control to increase profits, holding pet food companies liable for damages caused by unsafe pet food has the potential to remove such incentives.

Canidae Dog Food Class Action

Information about the lawsuit may be found here.
Phone: 312-787-2717
Email: Khurram Qidwai

Nutro Dog Food

Information about the law firm may be found here.
Phone: 1-888-230-2622
Email: Brent Irby

If your pets have suffered health problems suspected of being connected to either of these brands, pfpsa.org would suggest you contact the attorney handling the case and provide any information you may have which would help support their efforts.

September 19, 2008: Pet Food Products Safety Alliance response to recent statements made by Nutro.

August 14, 2008: Lab results are back on samples believed to be Nutro Natural Choice Chicken Meal, Rice and Oatmeal Formula, Lot # 25/Jul/2009 19:59 and Nutro Max Puppy, lot # unknown

Pfpsa.org acquired and tested these samples in response to numerous consumer complaints, related to suspected problems with Nurto dry dog food, as reported by Consumer Affairs. The samples were sent to the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab to be tested for e-coli, salmonella, and listeria, which all tested non-detected. WADDL then forwarded the samples to the Analytical Sciences Laboratory, University of Idaho, to be tested for aflatoxin and a variety of minerals and metals. Aflatoxin was non-detected on both samples at 100 ppb.

By AAFCO guidelines levels on a number of these substances are far higher than AAFCO recommendations. Most notable are copper and zinc. Copper in the two samples were approximately 2 and 3 times higher than AAFCO recommendations. As previously reported by pfpsa.org, some species of dogs are exceptionally sensitive to excess copper.

AAFCO recommends zinc in dog food, on a dry matter basis, at a level of 120 ppm (mg/kg), with a maximum acceptable level of 1,000 ppm. At this point, pfpsa.org would openly question the AAFCO recommendation, as it appears to be on the order of 10 times the amount recommended for humans on a body weight basis. Did AAFCO drop a decimal point on zinc? The daily recommended dosage of zinc in humans is 15 mg.. A 60 pound dog, that ate a little over a pound of dry dog food, would receive 60 mg zinc at the AAFCO recommended level of 120 ppm. Unless dogs have dramatically different metabolic requirements for zinc, as compared to humans, the dosage for a 60 pound dog vs. a 150 pound human, would come to exactly 10 times the required amount based on AAFCO recommendations.

The samples believed to be Nutro dry dog food tested positive for zinc at levels of 260 ppm (ug/g) and 400 ppm as fed. Assuming 10% moisture content �as fed�, vs. �dry matter� as calculated by AAFCO, the 400 ppm sample is over 4 times the recommended amount, and at half the maximum amount allowed. This would come to on the order of 40 times the amount of zinc recommended for human dietary requirements.

This report by the College of Veterinary Medicine, at the University of Georgia, describes zinc toxicity in dogs. The symptoms are consistent with the majority of those reported by consumers suspecting problems believed to be associated with feeding Nutro dry dog food.

July 16, 2008: A composite of samples of Nutro Max Cat Gourmet Classics "California Chicken Supreme Dinner" Lot JUN 21 09, Lot SEP 05 09, and Lot MAY 16 09 tested postive for cyanuric acid. This is pet food manufactured prior to the March 2007 recall period. There is a growing body of evidence that Chinese gluten was not solely responsible for the estimated quarter million recall related pet deaths. This body of evidence indicates pet food companies were illegally spiking pet food with cyanuric acid to fraudulently inflate the apparent protein content. A study conducted by UC Davis last year confirmed neither melamine nor cyanuric acid alone are toxic. These tests show the most likely cause of death in many affected pets was the result of a mixture of both illegally adulterated recalled and unrecalled pet food. Test Results

June 14, 2008: Additional test results are back on the Fancy Feast samples we�ve been working on. Ethylene glycol and DEG were not detected. Organic acids were undetected at a level of sensitivity of 1,000 ppm, with the exception of lactic acid, which was present in the food at 2,200 ppm. In a three ounce can of food, at this level of lactic acid, there would be approximately 170 mg. lactic acid present in one can. Based on available research, it is our current view it�s unlikely this level of lactic acid would be toxic. We will continue to investigate the possibility this food either contained toxic adulterants and/or unsafe levels of additives.

A pet owner with unopened samples of pet food manufactured prior to the March 2007 recall period has donated funds to pfpsa.org and supplied samples to be tested through the project. Samples have been submitted to the lab and results should be back in a few weeks.

Pfpsa.org has been helping pet owners with testing pet food suspected in a pet�s illness for almost nine months now. At this time, we felt it would be appropriate to make information on donations and expenses available to persons interested in the progress of this start up phase of the effort. Through June 8, 2008, pfpsa.org has received $2454 in donations and our expenses totaled $2116. To date, pfpsa.org has been operated strictly through the efforts of volunteers. As a result, we�re proud to report that 95% of all funds donated to the effort have been applied directly to the project�s objectives, with the remainder going to merchant services for processing contributions.

May 8, 2008: Unopened samples of Fancy Feast �Ocean White fish & Tuna Feast�, Lot# 80171160L11651036, tested �non-detected� for unknown toxins and below detectable limits for peroxide and mercury. The circumstances surrounding this food, as outlined by the pet owner that supplied the samples, leaves open questions as to the possibility there may be issues with the pet food. It is unknown if other pet owners have experienced similar problems or if this is an isolated incident. Currently, pfpsa.org has approximately $150, which may be used toward ordering additional tests. If any other pet owners have experienced recent health issues in their pets, which could potentially be related to this pet food, we would appreciate any information you may be able to provide, especially if you have lab work available from your vet. We will continue to research the possibility there is a connection between this pet food and the health issues as reported by the pet owner. Pfpsa.org would like to express its heartfelt appreciation to those who have worked with us and contributed toward investigating this particular issue. Thank you.

February 25, 2008: Test results are back on samples received in ziplock bags, believed to be Evangers pheasant and brown rice, best by Oct. 17, 2009, code #001.

Tests ordered: Solanine tested negative.

Aflatoxin and copper. Aflatoxin tested negative. Copper levels were approximately twice the recommended level for dogs. Copper is a necessary element, but excess levels may cause health problems in some breeds.

In a lab report supplied by a private party, a sample believed to be Hill's Science Diet Adult Dry Cat Food - best before 02/09, tested positive for cyanuric acid and melamine. This food is believed to have been manufactured in July 2007, purchased in October 2007, and apparently caused the owner's cat's death shortly after it was purchased.

NOTICE: No funds are currently available to assist pet owners with pet food testing. Donations are needed to further our efforts. In the mean time, we remain committed to working with pet owners suspecting problems with pet food, and will make every effort to provide information and suggest resources to those interested in getting pet food tested at their own expense.

November 17, 2007: The test results for are back for several samples recently sent to the lab for analysis.

Waggin Trails Brand Chicken Jerky Dog Treats, Lot #946727
Tests ordered: Unknown Toxin Scan and Radiation by Geiger Counter both non-detected.

Hills Science Diet Hairball Control Mature Adult Seniors 7+ Feline Dry Food, Best Before 05 2008 Batch Code KO972120 LD 282 UPC 2121212110074406330, DC 21 WHSE 01 10/23/2006
Test ordered: Acetaminophen only, non-detected.

10 cans of Frisky's, various lots and styles
Test ordered: Sort for plastic or foreign appearing objects and analyze if found. No foreign objects found.

October 21, 2007: Our second test order is off to the lab, thanks to recent donations. This test will be on chicken jerky treats received from a pet owner. Several other suspect samples have been identified and have been offered for testing. About half the funding needed is available to go toward testing pet food suspected of having bits of plastic in it.

October 18, 2007: Consumer Affairs covers the acetaminophen findings in this article.

October 11, 2007: pfpsa.org has received the lab results back from its first order for pet food testing. A composite of Special Kitty "with beef and gravy" Lot DEC 08 08 13:53, Special Kitty "mixed grill in gravy" Lot DEC 07 08 01:39, and Special Kitty "with turkey & giblets in gravy" Lot DEC 06 08 13:47, sent to the lab in original, unopened pouches, tested positive for acetaminophen and melamine. Click here to view the report.

October 6, 2007: Due to a flood of spam sign ups on the message board section of the site, we have decided delete that section of the site because of the excess amount of administration involved in removing inappropriate content. We apologize for the inconvenience to those who aren't selling software, porn, viagra and other junk. Please feel free to contact us by email with any suggestions, feedback or input you may have.

Thanks to those who have joined and/or contributed to the project, we now have funds available to order the first lab test. We were able to acquire samples from the March recall, in the original factory sealed pouches, and have ordered a scan for unknown toxins on a composite of three of those samples. Results on those tests should be back within the next two weeks.

We have a report from a pet owner who has samples available for testing, which may contain foreign objects with the appearance of plastic. Those samples are next in line to be tested when contributions from memberships and donations will cover the costs of lab fees.