|
September 9, 2010: Blue Buffalo has announced a recall of dog food products due to dangerous levels of Vitamin D, which has resulted in kidney failure in some pets. Additionally, Diamond Pet Foods has announced a recall of Nutra and Premium Edge cat foods deficient in thiamine. July 16, 2010: Test results are back on a number of pet food samples recently tested. The first page of the report is chewable Iverhart Plus tablets, which tested negative for salmonella. We also tested dry dog food samples, believed to be Eukanuba Large Breed Puppy Formula, Iams Puppy Biscuits, lot 21NOV10, and a composite of Iams and Eukanuba Large Breed Adult Formula. All three of these samples had far higher levels of iron than any dog food samples pfpsa.org has previously tested, at 360 ppm, 350 ppm, and 460 ppm respectively. Per Mineral Tolerances of Animals (Second Revised Edition, 2005, p. 203), a single dose of 200 mg per kilogram of body weight is lethal to dogs. For example, a dose of 3000 mg for a 33 pound dog (15 kg) would likely result in death. The same dog eating one pound of the 460 ppm sample would receive a 210 mg daily dose of iron. A value for chronic toxicity in dogs is not provided in the literature, however, studies have shown that iron overload occurs when diets excessively high in iron are fed over an extended period of time. The iron level in this sample is approximately 20 times the amount recommended by NRC. Prolonged feeding of this food would likely result in adverse health consequences. Zinc levels in these samples are also above what pfpsa.org research indicates is safe for long term feeding. The remaining samples of pet foods tested are Iams Indoor Weight & Hairball care, lot 01SEP11 (dry cat food), Iams Filetsw/Skipjack Tuna, lot 12/20/12 and Iams Pate w/Lamb & Rice, lot 1/20/12 (wet cat foods). The values for these foods, for the substances tested, generally came within tolerable levels. The two wet foods were part of the Iams recall, which volunteers working with pfpsa.org were able to obtain from store shelves days after the recall was announced. It is deeply disturbing that dangerous products are not being taken off the market as soon as known problems have been identified. In separate recall news, Feline's Pride Raw cat food is being recalled due to salmonella contamination. June 9, 2010: Iams is recalling wet cat foods because of dangerously low levels of thiamin, which may be lethal to your pet if not treated in time. If you have suffered damages because of the recalled products, you should contact the company for full compensation and take legal action if the company refuses to compensate you for your damages. You should also keep samples of the recalled food as potential evidence in the event legal action becomes necessary. May 14, 2010: Consumer Affairs has this article up on the Nutro test results. Of special interest is Nutro DID NOT test the food sent by the pet owner, but chose instead to test its "retained samples". If there is a fact in this matter which is beyond doubt, it's that the pet owner's cat did not consume any "retained samples". Almost as interesting is the lab Nutro picked to do the testing. Source Watch provides this write up on Covance Laboratories. How much credibility does a lab have after "proving" second hand smoke is perfectly safe and which has had past problems with, and I quote, "Intoxicated employees performing lab procedures", "Lack of employee training and supervision.", and, "Falsifying records to cover up problems with ... worker incompetence."? Apparently, if you need a lab to "prove" Nutro and cigarettes are safe and healthy, Covance is the place to go. May 8, 2010: As questions are arising as to the seriousness of the most recent Nutro misformulation, additional research, information and analysis on the problem is being added in this update. Some misconceptions should be cleared up first. Pfpsa.org is NOT a laboratory. When samples are tested, they are sent to accredited commercial labs. The lab we send a particular sample to depends on what we want tested and the services offered by various labs. What we do, primarily, is help pet owners match symptoms to possible toxins/diseases, then identify a lab able to test for those substances. In special circumstances, pfpsa.org will pay for the testing if we have funds available from donations to cover the cost. That is not always possible due to lack of funds. The circumstances and seriousness of the most recent Nutro problem were such that we felt justified in using the project's limited funds to test the food. No one connected with pfpsa.org receives any compensation for our efforts whatsoever. In fact, most of the donations come from those most closely associated with the effort. What we do, we do because we care, based on the belief that no one should lose a pet because the food they bought to preserve its life, ended its life. Pfpsa.org has been accused of having a "vendetta" against Nutro. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What we have against Nutro is a seemingly endless flood of complaints, and test after test that shows the food is unsafe. If there is any confusion, that happens to be the effort's purpose in the first place. Any pet food company with a track record comparable to Nutro will get equal treatment. Nutro has earned its reputation as the worst of the worst through its own actions, not ours. It's quite simple, any pet food company seeking to avoid negative attention need only keep adequate quality control measures in place to ensure the food is always safe. BACKGROUND: The cat was an approximately one year old, neutered male, kept indoors only, weighed 12 pounds, with no known health problems, and had tested negative for common feline viruses. The Nutro was introduced on a Tuesday evening, mixed with the pet's previous brand of food for the first few days, in gradually increased proportions. Late afternoon Saturday began the onset of vomiting and diarrhea. The cat was weak to the point of being unable to stand and appeared to be in considerable pain. The cat was rushed to the vet and tests were done. Elevated: lymphocytes, white blood count, red blood count, hemoglobin, hematocrit. Decreased: platelets. Calcium (CA) 10.6, which is in the top 25% of high normal. Phosphate (PHOS) is 8.9, with high normal at 8.5. BUN is at the highest end of normal at 29. ALT is 178, or nearly double high normal. It's worth noting the symptoms of Vitamin D toxicity as copied from the Hazardous Substances Data Bank on Toxnet. Weakness, vomiting, sometimes bloody, and diarrhea continued that evening and the pet's condition gradually improved over the course of the following week after the Nutro was removed from its diet. ANALYSIS: High white blood cells and high lymphocytes generally indicate some kind of immune response. Diseases, allergies, toxins, drugs and foreign bodies can all trigger such a reaction See link. The other high values are consistent with liver problems and possible impairment of the kidneys. Assuming the symptoms were food related, the key to narrowing down a cause seemed to be the delayed onset of symptoms. As it seemed unlikely anaerobic bacteria, such as botulism, would thrive in dry food, we only ordered aerobic cultures, which would show growth for bacteria such as salmonella. No growth was detected on the results (See: March 22 update). We also ordered tests for two of the most common mycotoxins; aflatoxin and vomitoxin. Both tend to have a delayed onset of symptoms and target liver and kidneys. Both were negative or below the lab's level of detection. All tests were done through Washington State University's Diagnostic Lab. We also ordered an element screen offered by the lab, which quantifies 17 different substances, and which pfpsa.org has found especially useful in analyzing pet food. Calcium and phosphorus were not only extremely high, 32,000 ppm and 21,000 ppm respectively, but also present in the wrong proportions. Calcium and phosphorus should be balanced in a ratio of approximately 10 parts calcium to 9 parts phosphorus. The ratio here is 10 parts calcium to 6.5 parts phosphorus. Zinc levels were also high. Overall, although the food was fantastically poor in formulation for long term feeding, the results did not suggest a cause for the severity of problems observed over the course of about 5 days. Vitamin D toxicity was a possibility on our suspect list. Among other considerations, the slow onset of symptoms related to Vitamin D intoxication is what makes it an ideal rat poison. We haven't previously screened for Vitamin D levels, partly because the test is relatively expensive, and partly because the screen isn't offered by the labs we've worked with most often. After more exhaustive research on Vitamin D toxicity, and a careful review of the information we had available, toxic levels of Vitamin D appeared to be the most likely cause. We ordered the screen through NPA Laboratories in California, an independent lab, using standard protocols. Vitamin D levels came in at an extremely high 197 UI per gram. POST ANALYSIS: Over the past several days we have redoubled our investigative efforts, reviewing literally hundreds of published research studies on Vitamin D toxicity. As of the May 4 update, the most relevant seemed to be a 1995 study on cats, which was apparently done in response to previous pet food recalls. This was a longer term study showing toxic effects of Vitamin D at levels approximately 1/3rd of that detected in the most recent sample. At that time, we had also found a few somewhat vague references to the roll calcium levels may play in Vitamin D toxicity. Our subsequent research nails this aspect down beyond reasonable dispute. This 1930 study was done on mice under carefully controlled experimental conditions to determine the effects of calcium and phosphorus on Vitamin D toxicity. While a rather long and tedious read, the findings are especially pertinent to the tests results for this sample of cat food. The most important findings related to the current problem is that: 1. A high, but less than toxic dose of Vitamin D, produces increasingly toxic effects as calcium and/or calcium and phosphorus is increased. 2. There is a threshold limit where the toxic effect is maximized and can't be increased beyond that point. 3. If calcium and phosphorus are at normal or low levels, it takes far more Vitamin D to produce toxicity. High levels of phosphorus alone with Vitamin D does not appear to increase toxicity. 4. Hypercalcaemia (high blood calcium) and/or hyperphospatemia (high blood phosphate) are both observed in Vitamin D poisoning. This 1956 study was the accidental result of a feed misformulation in an Army lab doing radiation research on monkeys. Monkeys, weighing up to 10 kg (22 pounds), were fed 114 grams of food, which contained a total of 162,000 IU Vitamin D, 3.5 grams of calcium, and 2.9 grams of phosphorus per day. For comparison, assuming a 3 ounce daily serving of the tested pet food, a 4 kg cat would receive 16,500 IU Vitamin D (.4 mg), 2.7 grams of calcium, and 1.8 grams of phosphorus. This accidental study veers somewhat as many of the references are to the primary radiation study. It takes a certain amount of information sifting to sort out the effects of the feed solely on those monkeys that were not exposed to radiation. It's important to note that monkeys are not cats. As a general rule, in any substance that affects the kidneys, the effect is magnified in cats. The most relevant aspect of this study are that the first monkey died about a month after the toxic food was introduced, that an inflammatory immune response was observed, and, unfortunately, a high mortality rate continued long after the food was removed. This study provides additional information on Vitamin D toxicity. At page 2, it gives .5 mg per kilogram of body weight as the level where clinical signs of toxicity may appear. For a 4 kg cat, receiving .4 mg per day, that level would be reached on day 5. The half life of Vitamin D is such that chronic exposure would result in rapid accumulation to toxic levels in a relatively short period of time. In absence of statements to the contrary, it may be assumed this research is related to Vitamin D toxicity alone, without the compounding effects of high calcium and phosphorus levels. CONCLUSION: Based on the above, unbiased, peer reviewed, independent research, this food is one of the most deadly pfpsa.org has tested to date. No reasonable person, of average intelligence, could view the research, data, circumstances and symptoms, without reaching the inevitable conclusion this food was the sole cause of this pet's near death experience. FWIW, the FDA did eventually call me back, but has no intention of acting on the complaint as of that discussion. Apparently the FDA has procedures they must follow. Evidently, informing the FDA of the brand, style, and lot number, plus certified lab results showing the food is toxic, does not meet that criteria. I asked what the FDA would do if terrorists poisoned the food supply. I was assured there are "procedures" for dealing with that sort of thing. Under the circumstances, the assurance did little to raise my level of confidence. SIDE NOTE: Some folks have asked why we use the expression "believed to be" in reference to the identity of most dry pet foods. Dry pet food is sold in large bags, not individual containers. Pet owners do not purchase multiple bags of the same lot number in order to have an unopened bag available for testing. We typically receive these samples in ziplock bags, not in the original package. While we have no reason to doubt the samples are exactly as described by pet owners, we will not, for legal reasons, state with certainty the brand, style and lot unless we are able to verify it ourselves. If anyone is able to obtain a factory original, sealed bag of this lot, and would like to discuss getting it tested, please feel free to contact us. We would also be interested in hearing from anyone that has had similar problems with other lots of this product. May 4, 2010: RED ALERT!!! Test results are back on a sample of what is believed to be Nutro Chicken Meal and Rice cat food Lot # 09 01 10 11:03. This is from the same batch of food we tested below on the March 22, 2010 results. The pet owner's cat nearly died after eating the food for 5 days and the symptoms appeared to be consistent with toxic levels of Vitamin D. The Vitamin D levels on this sample are incredibly high. 197 IU/g would be the same as 197,000 IU/kg (1,000 grams (g) per kilogram (kg)). On a dry matter basis, assuming 10% moisture for dry food, that would come to 219,000 IU/kg. The maximum allowed by AAFCO standards is 10,000 IU/kg on a dry matter basis. In other words, this sample is 22 times the maximum amount allowed. The daily dose of Vitamin D in this food is over 1,000 times the National Research Council recommendation. High levels of Vitamin D3, aka cholecalciferol, is the main ingredient in many rat poisons. Of special interest is the reference to the mechanism of vitamin D toxicity related to calcium. Previous tests on this sample showed extremely high levels of calcium in the food. Where is the FDA? Where are the class action law firms? Why is Nutro able to continue poisoning our cherished companion animals with no accountability or competent oversight whatsoever? More Information: Blood work on the affected cat. This abstract provides some information on a chronic feeding study done on cats fed 6,370 IU/100g of diet, describing the chronic toxic effects of Vitamin D. For comparison, the Nutro sample was at 19,700 IU per 100 grams, or over three times the level fed in the study. As the primary toxic effect of Vitamin D is calcification of tissues, this was likely aggravated by the massive doses of calcium found in this food, which was 15 times the daily NRC recommendation. March 22, 2010: Test results are back on samples believed to be "Nutro Natural Choice Chicken Meal and Rice" cat food, and "ProPlan Beef & Barley" and "Orscheln's Oatmeal for Seniors" dog foods. It is the view of pfpsa.org that Nutro is the most dangerous and poorly formulated pet food on the market today. Zinc was detected at levels 9 times that recommended by the National Research Council. The ratio of calcium to phosphorus isn't even close. Calcium came in at 32,000 parts per million and phosphorus at 21,000 ppm. Various sources give slightly different figures for the correct calcium to phosphorus ratio, but they are all close to 8-9 parts phosphorus for every 10 parts calcium. In addition to calcium levels being 15 times higher than needed for good health, the ratio is 6.5 parts phosphorus to 10 parts calcium. The cat affected is about one year old, was kept indoors only, and had been eating Nutro for about five days. Blood and urine tests indicated liver and possibly kidney problems, all of which have apparently cleared up since the pet owner stopped feeding the food. In addition to the mineral screen, we also tested for aflatoxin and vomitoxin, both of which came back non detected. We are currently considering running additional tests on the food and will provide additional information if it becomes available. It has also come to our attention that the previously reported PetAg milk replacer problems are ongoing and that the milk formula is continuing to kill baby animals. With kitten season coming up, this is a product to avoid for anyone involved in rescue work. October 9, 2009: Tests are back on 5 samples of pet food. A sample believed to be recalled Nutro Complete Care Adult Ocean Fish tested positive for zinc at 2100 parts per million. This pet owner's beloved cat died after eating the food. Two samples believed to be Nutro dog food manufactured in 2007 tested positive for arsenic. A sample believed to be California Natural Lamb Meal & Rice has the highest levels of barium of any pet foods we've tested at 38 parts per million. The calcium and phosphorus ratio is seriously misformulated in this sample. In dog food calcium and phosphorus should be present in approximately equal amounts. In this sample calcium is at 29,000 ppm and phosphorus is at 18,000 ppm. We've also updated our chart to include recent test results from WADDL with the numbers broken down into a more user friendly format. October 6, 2009: The folks at Animal Advocates were kind to provide us with test results the organization ordered on Esbilac Puppy Milk Replacer. The results are interesting when compared to PetAg data sheets posted on the company's website. The "guaranteed analysis" for protein is a minimum 33%, yet the test shows only 24.8%. Fat content is guaranteed to be a minimum 40%, but the lab only detected 31.5%. PetAg warrants there is NO fiber in the product. The lab results show fiber at 17.6%. It's worth noting that if you add up the missing fat and protein, the result is very close to being equal to the mysterious fiber content the company asserts is not in the product. Lead came in at 3.7 ppm and copper at 20.5 ppm. The National Research Council recommends 1.5 mg copper for a 33 pound dog (15 kg). On a body weight basis, this works out to .1 mg/kg bw (1/10th milligram per kilogram of body weight). Converting the feeding and mixing instructions from PetAg to metric, a one kilogram puppy would consume 48.2 grams (dry weight) of the milk replacer per day. On a body weight basis, with elemental copper at 20.5 ppm, this works out to 1 mg/kg bw per day, or ten times the NRC recommendation. 20.5 ppm is approximately three times AAFCO's recommendation of 7.3 ppm on a dry matter basis. Unfortunately, AAFCO's dry matter recommendations have no relationship whatsoever to nutrient content "as fed". Based on our own testing, and manufacturer feeding guidelines, dry food typically averages over 2 times the amount of trace elements found in wet pet food when formulated to AAFCO standards. The reason should be fairly obvious to everyone except AAFCO. Feeding instructions typically call for feeding twice as much wet food as dry. Dry food typically contains 90% dry matter vs. 20% dry matter for wet food. So, double the dry matter in wet food to compare - the result is 40% dry matter for wet food vs. 90% dry matter for kibble. In other words, if food is over supplemented on a dry matter basis, the toxicity risk more than doubles when kibble is fed. With the above as background, the parts per million content in pet food has little meaning until converted to an "as fed basis". While the levels in many of our own testing efforts have come in at over the 20.5 ppm copper levels found in the milk replacer, none of the foods we've previously tested have come in as high as the milk replacer when calculated on the amount of copper consumed on a body weight basis. Per PetAg's literature, copper is added in the form of copper sulfate. Additionally, casein, an ingredient in the product, typically has copper sulfate added during the manufacturing process. Based on this information, it can be assumed virtually all the elemental copper found in the product was added in the form of copper sulfate, which is 25% copper. On that basis, the copper sulfate content of the milk replacer would be 82 ppm. Calculated "as fed" the copper sulfate dose is 4 mg/kg bw. This site gives the low acute lethal dose of copper sulfate for a human as 11 mg/kg bw. Hopefully no people have consumed this product as a three day dose could have deadly consequences. It's our understanding PetAg also manufactures baby formula for people. We certainly hope the products made for human consumption contain substantially less lead and copper. The Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) available at Toxnet provides toxicity information on copper sulfate. Unfortunately, the toxicity of copper sulfate is almost uniquely species specific. A tiny amount is lethal to ruminants, whereas birds can consume massive doses with no ill effects. A dose the size of two asprin tablets could kill a person, but rats and pigs are far less affected. AAFCO's official 2008 publication assigns a maximum of 250 ppm dry matter for dogs, based on what appears to be an arbitrary assumption the value for dogs should be the same as swine. But, then, as many pet owners have learned the hard way, AAFCO is a feed industry lobby that does little more than provide manufacturers with the tools to kill with confidence. September 15, 2009: A new section has been added to the site to provide pet owners with a safe, simple, nutritionally balanced recipe for dog and cat food that can be made at home out of easily obtained ingredients. Results from our most recent tests are below. Tests are back on samples of: 1. "Taste of the Wild" dry cat food Lot# "02-May-10 16:00 RP" 2. Nutro Max Cat "California Chicken Supreme Dinner" Lot# "JUN 21 09 0427C1" 3. Fancy Feast "Tender Liver & Chicken Feast" Lot # "MAY2011 91291162 L11781325" 4. "Diamond Naturals Active Cat Lamb and Rice" Lot# Sept 20105. 5. Nutro Natural Choice “Complete Care Indoor Adult” Lot# "070810" The "Taste of the Wild" and "Diamond Naturals" were also tested for salmonella and aflatoxin, which came back non detected. Dry pet food samples were received in ziplock bags and are believed to be as described above. Wet pet food samples were received in original factory sealed cans and are known to be as described. September 10, 2009: Tests are back on six samples of Newman's Own Organic. The lab detected large, rod shaped, gram positive bacteria. Unfortunately, attempts to culture the bacteria were unsuccessful and follow up efforts to identify the bacteria through DNA sequencing were also unsuccessful. The lab's comments in the report are worth reading. The background on this testing effort is as follows: The samples were obtained from two different pet owners. The first pet owner opened a new can from a recent purchase and put the food out for her three cats. Shortly after eating the food, all three cats began vomiting and were ill for several days. About a month later, one of the three died. It is unknown if the death was directly related to the food or if the food may have aggravated existing health conditions. The second pet owner, after opening a new can of food, noticed an off color and detected a foul odor to the food, then decided not to use it. Based on the above, there is good cause to believe these products are not safe for your pets. From our conversations with the pet owners, it is our understanding Newman's Own was not meaningfully responsive to complaints about the products in question. Newman's Own Organic is imported from Uruguay, which places their manufacturing facilities beyond the scrutiny of the FDA. Under the circumstances, pfpsa.org would recommend not using this product. September 2, 2009: With a little volunteer help (thank you), we now have our WADDL element screen results converted to a format that is easier to read and understand. In the first chart parts per million figures have been converted to the amount of each substance in a daily serving of pet food based on 16 ounces of dry food for a 33 pound dog, and, 3 ounces of dry food, or 5.5 ounces of wet food, for an average size cat. For reference, we've included the recommended daily amounts as provided by National Research Counsil publications. In the second chart we've separated from the raw test results substances that are not part of a pet's dietary needs, or are in fact toxic heavy metals, such as barium. At a glance, it's easy to see why pfpsa.org does not support formulating pet food to AAFCO standards, or perhaps "lack of standards" would be more accurate. AAFCO does not set set safe maximums, its minimums result in radical over supplementation of most nutrients, and its "dry matter basis" does not produce anything even vaguely resembling a consistent daily serving amount of nutrients across a broad spectrum of products with varying moisture content. August 17, 2009: Several concerned pet owners provided pfpsa.org with funds and samples of pet foods. Dry pet foods were received in ziplock bags and are believed to be as described. Wet foods were received in factory original, unopened cans or pouches. A total of 14 samples were tested and the results are here. As pfpsa.org has done quite a bit of this kind of testing lately, we'll be working on putting the information into a more user friendly format over the next week or so. 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. |
