Pet Food Industry from Inception to Perception
That endless flow of scraps and rejects left over from virtually every huuman food enterprise today … rejected for huumans, yet OK for your pets? Restaurants, meat packers, cereal makers, supermarkets: they all produce waste. Each and every day, every one of them must ultimately face the same dilemma: what to do with tons of inedible waste; by-products classified “unfit for human consumption”. Would it not be nice if all that garbage could be recycled … re-used to generate more cash profits for the food industry?
The Solution ….
More than 95 percent of pets today derive their nutritional needs from a single source: high carb-based processed pet food. When people think of pet food, many envision whole chickens, choice cuts of beef, fresh grains, and all the nutrition that a dog or cat may ever need – images that pet food manufacturers promote in their advertisements. But far from the truth, what these companies do not tell you is that instead of whole chickens they have substituted chicken heads, feet, and intestines – McKibble and McCan.
Some make use of mechanically de-boned meat (MDM) (see: Wikipedia). Those choice cuts of beef are really cow brains, tongues, esophagi, fetal tissue dangerously high in hormones, and possibly diseased and even cancerous meat (see: “Raw Meaty Bones Promote Health”). Those whole grains have had the starch removed for corn starch powder and the oil extracted for corn oil, or they are hulls and other remnants from the milling process. Grains used that are truly whole have usually been deemed “unfit for human consumption” because of mold, contaminants, poor quality, or poor handling practices. Pet food is one of the worlds most synthetic edible products, containing virtually no whole ingredients.
Not all offal are bad – fresh offal (kidneys, heart, liver and tripe for example) is highly nutritional, but the processes used by the commercial pet manufacturers is what renders them useless. What makes some by-products edible (and others not) is not just a matter of what they are but how they’re handled after slaughter.
McKibble and McCan manufacturers have become masters at inducing pet parents and guardians to feed things to their pet that cat and dogs would normally spurn. Pet feed scientists have learned that it’s possible to take a mixture of inedible scraps, fortify it with artificial vitamins and minerals (therefore, synthetic), preserve it so that it can sit on the shelf for many years, add dyes to make it attractive, and then extrude it into whimsical shapes that appeal to the pet parents and guardians – a matter of convenience over nutrition. It is indeed the only industry where the marketeers are trained to sell in-directly – they sell to you and me, not to our pets.
From Scraps and By-products …
For years, and based on misdirected advise that emanated from the Pet Food Institute in the early days, many pet parents, guardians and slaves have tried to avoid feeding their pets people food leftovers, having been warned by veterinarians about the heath problems they can cause. Yet much scrap material from the human food industry is ending up in your fur kids’ dinner bowls in any case, just in another form!? What you as the pet parent and guardian purchases and what the manufacturer advertises are often two entirely different products, and this difference threatens our pets’ health, especially as they age.
Learning to read ingredient labels and taking the time to read them carefully is crucial to making an educated choice when purchasing pet food. Unfortunately, the average pet parent, guardian and slave has no idea what the definitions for the listed ingredients mean. Preservatives, vitamins, minerals, flavorings, and cereal make up most of what our pets eat today, neatly encoded with medical and scientific terms – in other words – hide the truth by obscuring the reality with terms and definitions that most of us don’t care to know about or don’t want to know about.
Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.~ Edsger W. Dijkstra
It is not coincidence that top major pet food companies in the United States and Europe are subsidiaries of major multinational food production companies. As this landscape changes often, the details will be outdated tomorrow:
- Nestlé’s bought Purina to form Nestlé Purina Petcare Company (Fancy Feast, Alpo, Friskies, Mighty Dog, Dog Chow, Cat Chow, Puppy Chow, Kitten Chow, Beneful, One, ProPlan, DeliCat, HiPro, Kit’n’Kaboodle, Tender Vittles, Purina Veterinary Diets);
- Del Monte gobbled up Heinz (MeowMix, Gravy Train, Kibbles ’n Bits, Wagwells, 9Lives, Cycle, Skippy, Nature’s Recipe, and pet treats Milk Bone, Pup-Peroni, Snausages, Pounce);
- MasterFoods owns Mars, Inc., which consumed Royal Canin (Pedigree, Waltham’s, Cesar, Sheba, Temptations, Goodlife Recipe, Sensible Choice, Excel);
- Procter and Gamble (P&G) purchased The Iams Company (Iams, Eukanuba) in 1999. P&G shortly thereafter introduced Iams into grocery stores, where it did exceptional. However, it sold this business to Spectrum Brands/United Pet Group recently;
- Colgate-Palmolive bought Hill’s Science Diet (founded in 1939) in 1976 (Hill’s Science Diet,Prescription Diets, Nature’s Best).
If we review the Petfood Industry’s annual Top Pet Food Companies as published in CY 2015 issue, it highlights the shifts within the world’s pet food industry that have taken place globally.
As a whole, the world’s top 40 pet food companies that made the list earned nearly US$46 billion in annual revenue in 2015. Once again, the major earners – Mars Petcare and Nestle Purina PetCare – ranked No. 1 and No. 2 with US$17.224 billion and US$11.917 billion, respectively, in 2015 annual revenue.
Like Mars and Nestle, a majority of the top companies are based in the U.S. While one of the major US players from 2014, P&G Pet Care, sold its pet food business and exited the market, another U.S. company now ranks on the list as a result. After acquiring P&G’s European pet food businesses at the end of 2014, including the Iams and Eukanuba brands, Spectrum Brands / United Pet Group brought in US$800 million in annual revenue in 2015 to sit at No. 7 on the Top Companies list.
Newly ranking in the Top 10 for 2015 was Japan-based Unicharm, which drew US$722.6 million in annual revenue in 2015–notably higher than its 2013 revenue of US$268.8. Unicharm’s significant growth over the past two years highlights the growth in Asian pet food market as a whole, which, according to Euromonitor International (see: “Tope Pet Food Companies Current Data”, PFI) data, ranks among the highest rate around the world for 2015.
From a business standpoint, multinational food companies owning pet food manufacturers is an ideal relationship. The multinationals have captive market in which to dump their waste products, and the pet food manufacturers have a direct source of bulk materials. Both make a profit from selling scraps that originate from places far worse than the dinner table. In his 1986 book, “Pet Allergies”, veterinarian Al Plechner, DVM, sums up what typically goes into commercial kibbled pet food: “condemned parts and animals rejected for human consumption are routinely rerouted for commercial pet foods.” 1
The US Pet Food Institute (PFI) has acknowledged the use of by-products in pet foods as additional income for processors and farmers: “The growth of the pet food industry not only provided pet owners with better foods for their pets, but also created profitable additional markets for American farm products and for the byproducts of the meat packing, poultry, and other food industries which prepare food for human consumption.” (see: Pet Food Institute. Fact Sheet 1994. Washington: Pet Food Institute, 1994, WikiVet).
A similar fate applies to so-called 4-D animals. These are animals picked up Dead, or that are Dying, Diseased, or Disabled, and do not meet human-food qualifications (4-D). They are processed straight-away for pet food consumption. Little goes to waste. Says Dr. Plechner in his book titled “Pet Allergies”, “Food processing refuse of all sorts winds up in your animals dinner bowls. Moldy grains. Rancid foods. Meat meal. The latter is ground-up slaughterhouse discards often containing disease-ridden tissue and high levels of hormones and pesticides, the very things that may have contributed to the death of the steer or hog”.1 More than a decade later, his words still apply. When cattle, pigs, chickens, lambs, or other animals meet their ends at a slaughterhouse, the choice cuts – lean muscle tissue and organs prized by humans – are trimmed away from the carcass, for human consumption. Whatever remains of the carcass (bones, blood, pus, intestines, ligaments, subcutaneous fat, hooves, horns, beaks, and any other parts not normally consumed by humans) is, according to the pet food industry, perfectly fit as a protein source for your fur kids.
The Pet Food Institute, acknowledges the importance of using by-products in pet foods as additional income for processors and farmers. However, many of these remnants are indigestible and provide a questionable source of nutrition. The amount of nutrition provided by meat by-products, meals, and digests varies from vat to vat of this animal protein soup. A vat filled with chicken feet, beaks, and viscera is going to make available a lower amount of protein than a vat of breast meat. Dr. James Morris (UC Davis) and Quinton Rogers, professors with Department of Molecular Biosciences at the University of California at Davis Veterinary School of Medicine, assert that there is virtually no information on the bio-availability of nutrients for companion animals in many of the common dietary ingredients used in pet foods. These ingredients are generally by-products of the meat, poultry and fishing industries, with the potential for wide variation in nutrient composition.
As a result, claims of nutritional adequacy of pet foods based on the current the US Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) nutrient allowances (profiles) do not give assurances of nutritional adequacy and will not until ingredients are analyzed and bio-availability values are incorporated. As explained by Marion Nestle in her book titled “Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine” 2, the most commonly used method or test to measure protein levels, does not gauge the actual or true protein amounts in these by-products (or any for that matter). The Kjeldahl test estimates the protein by calculating the nitrogen levels of a food and correcting for the presence of non-protein nitrogen. This means one could “inflate” the protein levels by adding chemicals to the base and so artificially raise the non-nitrogen levels, resulting foodstuff appear to be higher in protein isolate. Meat by-products, the catch-all term of the pet food industry, is a misnomer because these by-products contain little if any meat, as a matter of discussion, most “by-products” contain little if any meat. By-product are animal parts leftover after the meat has been stripped from the bone. Chicken by-products include heads, feet, entrails, lungs, spleens, kidneys, brains, livers, stomachs, noses, blood, and intestines free of their contents. What many of the pet food manufactures fail to mention is that most by-products, digests and meals could also be filled with other substances, such as cancerous tissue cut from the carcass, plastic foam packaging containing spoiled meat from supermarkets, ear tags, spoiled slaughterhouse meat, road kill, and pieces of downer animals.
To Canned Cannibalism …
Another source of meat that isn’t mentioned on pet food labels is pet by-products, the bodies of dogs and cats. In 1990 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that euthanized companion animals were found in pet foods. Although pet food company executives and the National Renderers Association (NRA) vehemently denied the report, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the FDA confirmed the story. Some of the story made it into a patent application, the “Kosher-meat based pet food products, US 6277435 B1” 3. “The pets serve a viable purpose by providing foodstuff for the animal feed chain”, said Lea McGovern, chief of the FDA’s animal feed safety branch. Because of the sheer volume of animals rendered and the similarity in protein content between poultry by-products and processed dogs and cats, rendering plant workers say it would be impossible for purchasers to know the exact contents of what they buy.
Ever wondered how many patents have been filed in the pet food category world wide? Roughly 55,000 … a behemoth industry! And the top patent owners are;- Mars, Nabisco Brands, Nestec, Nestle, Ralston Purina. Just let that sync in for a moment. Patents apply to feed your pets, but you cannot patent food. Snap!
Many vets and industry lobbyist point to actions taken by the US FDA regarding this matter in 2005, yet, if we review the article from Susan Thixton published on the 12th of June 2014, “The Romance is Over“, (see: Article), and the current US FDA Compliance Policy Guidelines, CPG Sec. 690.500 Uncooked Meat for Animal Food (updated 20th of March 2015, and since withdrawn April 30, 2019), stating that “CVM is aware of the sale of dead, dying, disabled, or diseased (4-D) animals to salvagers for use as animal food. Meat from these carcasses is boned and the meat is packaged or frozen without heat processing. The raw, frozen meat is shipped for use by several industries, including pet food manufacturers, zoos, greyhound kennels, and mink ranches. This meat may present a potential health hazard to the animals that consume it and to the people who handle it.”, (see: FDA CPG Sec. 690.500 Uncooked Meat for Animal Food, FDA), (see: Withdraws Outdated Compliance Policy Guides on Use of Certain Animal-Derived Materials in Animal Food, CVM Update) then it seems that this practice is still rive, and should be a matter of concern where cheap kibble is involved.
What about South Africa?
Locally, due to the lack of data, it’s difficult to surmise or theorize on any of the topics we discuss here. We know that the rendering business is declining for various reasons, but as noted by Richard Prentis, representing Renderers RSA (Republic of South Africa) in an online article in CY 2013, “that there used to be 40 red meat rendering plants and 14 chicken rendering plants in South Africa before decentralization. There are now only seven red meat rendering plants but 20 poultry rendering plants. This is the result of the growth in the number of smaller abattoirs from 180 to 640 in the country after 1992.” Either we are importing more rendered protein or the growth in the abattoirs signal higher local usage of produce before deemed “not fit”, a combination of these trends also possible.
Just Add Grease and Grain …
The most nutritious dry pet food is no better than the worst, if an animal will not eat it. Pet feed scientists have discovered that spraying the kibble or pellets with a combination of refined animal fat, lard, kitchen grease, and other oils, too rancid or deemed inedible for humans, makes an otherwise bland or distasteful product palatable. Animal fat is mainly packing house waste or supermarket trimmings from the packaging of meats. Animals love the taste of this sprayed fat, which also acts as a binding agent to which manufacturers may add other flavor enhancers. The pungent odor wafting from an open bag of pet food is created by this concoction. Restaurant grease has become a major component of feed-grade animal fat over the last 25 years. Often held in 50-gallon (190lt) drums for weeks or months in extreme temperatures, this grease is usually kept outside with no regard for its safety or further use. The rancid grease is then picked up by fat blenders who mix the animal and vegetable fats together, stabilize them with powerful antioxidants to prevent further spoilage, and then sell the blended products to McKibble and McCan. Rancid, heavily preserved fats are extremely difficult to digest and can lead to a host of animal health problems, including digestive upsets, diarrhea, gas, and bad breath.
Once considered a filler by the pet food industry, the amount of grain products included in pet food has risen over the last decade as the American population has focused its attention away from consuming beef and toward a healthier diet of grains and vegetables. Commonly two of the top three pet food ingredients are some form of grain products.
For instance, some flavor of kibble might list ground yellow corn, soybean meal, and poultry by-product meal as its top three ingredients. Another might list ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, and poultry by-product meal as its top three ingredients. Yet another might list the top four ingredients as chicken, ground yellow corn, ground wheat, and corn gluten meal – but in this instance, two are corn-based products from the same source. This is an industry practice known as “ingredient splitting”. When components of the same whole ingredient are listed separately (ground yellow corn and corn gluten meal) it appears that there is less corn than chicken, even when the whole ingredient may weigh more than the chicken.
Soy is another common ingredient in many pet foods. It is used by many manufacturers to boost the claimed protein content and add bulk (fillers). The challenge with soy is the same as with meat by-products – whole soy is good, like whole meat, but soy by-product (or soy fractions), such as soybean meal, soy mill run, soy grits, etc., are no good at all. As reported by George C. Fahrey, Jr., Dept of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, “Soybean protein has been shown to be of high quality when evaluated in complete and balanced diets fed to dogs and cats. It is inadequate in sulfur-containing amino acids, so other protein sources or supplemental amino acids must be added to pet foods containing soybean products to achieve proper amino acid balance. Soybeans contain many antinutritional factors but, fortunately, extrusion and canning conditions inactivate most of them.” (see: George C. Fahrey, Jr., Dept of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, PDF).
However, the oligosaccharides – stachyose, raffinose, and verbascose remain in soybean products like soybean meal. In addition, the fiber fraction of the plant travels with these products as well. It is not well established exactly how much flatulence results from the presence of the soy oligosaccharides in pet diets, but there is no question that the feces from animals fed soy products contain greater moisture concentrations and is more voluminous. This may be the greatest obstacle in promoting the benefits of soy product inclusion to pet owners. Many health benefits have been attributed to soy consumption by humans, but these have not yet been studied using the companion animal.“
This leads us to conclude that McKibble and McCan ingredients list present a cryptic picture – hiding some of the most grisly and outrageous food rejects you can imagine, neatly wrapped to appease the pet parents and guardians.
And the Flavor with Additives and Processing …
Many of the commercial pet food industry critics’ note that many of the ingredients (such as corn syrup and corn gluten meal) used as humectants to prevent oxidation also bind water molecules in such a way that the food actually sticks to the animal’s colon and may cause blockage. Blockage of the colon may cause an increased risk of cancer of the colon or rectum. Two-thirds of the pet food manufactured in the United States contains synthetic preservatives added by the manufacturer. Of the remaining third, 90 percent includes ingredients already stabilized by synthetic preservatives. Because most pet food contains large percentages of added fat, a stabilizer is needed to maintain the quality of the food. Stabilizers, under specific conditions, has the ability to combine with natural stomach and food chemicals (secondary amends) to create nitrosamines (compounds of this kind are generally carcinogenic), which could become powerful cancer-causing agents.
|Anti-caking agents||Surface active agents|
|pH control agents||Non-nutritive sweeteners|
|Antimicrobial agents||Surface finishing agents|
|Flour treating agents||Firming agents|
|Processing aids||Nutritive sweeteners|
|Formulation aids||Flavor enhancers|
|Sequestrates||Oxidizing and reducing agents|
|Leavening agents||Curing agents|
Many commercial pet foods advertised as “preservative-free” do actually contain preservatives. Almost all rendered meats have synthetic preservatives added as stabilizer, but manufacturers aren’t required to list preservatives they themselves haven’t added based on the current legislation. Premixed vitamin additives can also contain preservatives. Types of additives depend on whether the pet food is semi-moist, dry or canned. Because semi-moist food contains 25-50 percent water, antimicrobial preservatives must be used. Propylene glycol was frequently used in cat food until it was pulled in 1992 for causing a variety of health problems. Processing greatly alters the nutritional value of the food ingredients. Veterinarian R. L. Wysong states in “Rationale for Animal Nutrition” and on his web page: “Processing is the wild card in nutritional value that is, by and large, simply ignored. Heating, freezing, dehydrating, canning, extruding, pelleting, baking and so forth, are so commonplace that they are simply thought of as synonymous with food itself. Because the ingredients that pet food companies use are not wholesome, and harsh manufacturing practices destroy what little nutritional value the food may have had in the first place, the final product must be fortified with vitamins and minerals.” (see: Dr. Wysong, 22 Pet Food Fallacies, Article).
Whilst neglecting information on questionable nutrients …
How, then, can any pet food be guaranteed to be 100 percent complete or nutritionally adequate? As long as it meets the AAFCO minimum standards, such a guarantee can be on the label. Even if a pet food meets AAFCO standards, certain nutritional requirements, for example, lysine, can vary between species by as much as seven-fold. Although manufacturers claim that millions of pets can thrive on a diet consisting of nothing by commercial pet food, research and an increasing number of veterinarians implicate processed pet food as a source of disease or as an exacerbating agent for a number of degenerative diseases – you just need to read all of the latest books and publications to gain a better understanding here. Dr Shawn Messonnier, Dr Pitcairn, Dr Karen Becker, and many others are now eco’ing these concerns. Similarly to humans, they can have diabetes, epilepsy, cancer, or arthritis – and these diseases have become more prevalent in the last couple of years. The biggest killer – obesity!
Dr. Wysong adds, “in the last few years, large statistical studies have shown the link between the diet (of processed foods) and a variety of degenerative diseases, including cancer, heart disease, allergies, arthritis, obesity, dental disease, etc.” After extensive research, the Animal Protection Institute (API) (now part of the Born Free Foundation) (Website) published a Pet Food Investigative Report titled “What’s Really in Pet Food” (see: Get the Facts: What’s Really in Pet Food, PDF) to educate pet parents and guardians about pet food ingredients, ingredient definitions, labelling, and dietary ailments resulting from processed commercial pet food. Yet, whether such food is purchased at the supermarket, pet store, or from a veterinarian, it makes little difference in terms of the quality – only in the cost. Since the report was published, Born Free and other institutions such as Reviews.com has conducted more research on holistic pet care and pet food alternatives, but still claims that the vast majority of pet foods available on the market today provide less that optimum nutrition for pets. You can view these reviews online (see: Website) for Dog Food, and (see: Website) for Cat Food. More non-profit food & farm policy research groups are starting to take a closer look, as evident from the recent report that The Cornucopia Institute released. The report and an accompanying buying guide, “Decoding Pet Food: Adulteration, Toxic Ingredients, and the Best Choices for Your Companion Animals” (see: Decoding Pet Food PDF), details how pet food quality varies significantly among brands and all too often includes unnecessary chemical additives.
And then there is the differences between foods and labels. About 40 percent of dog and cat foods tested in a recent study, as noted by Greg Cima (2015) from the American Veterinary Medical Foundation (AVMF), may have contained meats different from those listed on the product labels. Study results indicated that of 52 wet and dry foods and treats, 13 contained meat from species not listed on the label, four lacked one or more meats listed on the label, and three had both problems 4. In addition, one wet cat food tested in the study contained meat from an undetermined species.
Using Spin Doctors and The Ploy of “Delicious” Pet Food Images …
Many pet food ads also make a big point of focusing on how delectable their products are, driving home the point of how much our pets absolutely love and crave the taste of them. Since these ads are obviously not meant for your pets themselves to watch, it’s almost as if the advertisers are trying to make pet parents and guardians mouths’ water with the kinds of graphic descriptions they use to convince us of just how incredibly yummy and delicious these pet foods really are!
Besides the irresistible flavor of the products they’re promoting, these ads also often describe the ingredients pet foods contain as being utterly wholesome, exceptionally nutritious, and totally geared toward promoting the good health of our pets.
Pet food commercials often give us a very warm, fuzzy, comforting feeling. They can be extremely effective at stimulating in us a sense of safety and security, as if to convince us, pet parents and guardians, wholeheartedly that the products they’re selling are a really good, solid, nourishing foundation upon which the health of our pets can be built. These ads can make us feel that if we buy the products they’re selling and feed them to our fur kids, that by doing so we’re taking the best care possible of our beloved furry friends. The ads lead us to believe that by feeding our fur kids their particular brand of products, we’re making the best choice possible to ensure the good health and longevity of our precious, beloved animal companions.
Industry stats indicate that 8 out of 10 pet food buyers are woman, so the marketing and advertising elements play on the mother-instinct and nurturer roles in the family …
By Selling A Brand to the Pet Parents and Guardians, like shoes and cell phones …
We get “branded” when we get sold on a brand and plunk down our hard earned money to buy that particular one.
And yet despite how effectively these pet food ads evoke such feelings in us — feelings of being so safe and secure, so good about ourselves, and so comforted in the notion that the products they’re convincing us to buy are such a good healthy choice for our fur kids to eat on a daily basis – the real and startlingly contradictory truth underlying the pet food industry at large is a subject about which the vast majority of people remain quite blissfully unaware.
Most pet parents and guardians have no idea that virtually all of what goes into those cans and bags of pet food are vast amounts of waste products that are left over from the manufacture of food for human consumption.
Another significant portion of the ingredients used in the manufacture of commercial pet food is derived from genetically modified grain crops, particularly soy and corn, which are virtually always heavily sprayed with toxic petrochemical pesticides and herbicides, and grown in depleted soils treated with synthetic fertilizers.
We believe the term “junk pet food”, which is the phrase we use to describe commercially manufactured pet food, was coined by Dr. Tom Lonsdale. The reason we call it junk, is because after doing a great deal of research and digging deeply into this subject, it has become abundantly evident to us that the majority of McKibble and McCan are of extremely – even shockingly – poor quality. In fact, when it comes to providing the kind of nourishment our fur kids truly require to thrive, the vast majority of these pet foods fail miserably, and many, in our opinion, are downright dreadful.
That many pets can even survive at all on a lifelong diet of such abysmal junk food is truly a remarkable, yet tragic, testament to their incredible resilience and adaptability.
We, who are interested in learning about, purchasing and preparing the most nutrient dense, wholesome foods possible for ourselves and our families, are all too well aware of what a profoundly harmful effect the consumption of poor quality, highly processed junk food can have on our human health. However, we may want our animals to be more civilized, but we’re still not going to feed them the best. In olden times, dog’s bread was considered filth, unfit for human consumption. Today, nothing has changed. You may think we’re feeding our fur kids better, but we’re not. By now, you will understand why we maintain our approach to a natural wholesome diet. And, in most cases, with the total disregard of dogs and cats physiology and nutritional needs.
It is sad to think that the feed provided by animal care givers to their four-legged friends could be hazardous to the animals’ health and longevity. Pet parents, guardians and slaves should assume responsibility for providing as healthful a diet as possible for the fur kids in their care. Be informed: speak with a holistic practitioner or pet nutritionist. Although the ideal solution would be for our fur kids to be fed only wholesome home made and / or natural raw diets, this is not always an option for everyone – the cost, convenience and time commitment is sometimes prohibitive. By taking more moderate steps, however, pet parents and guardians can still greatly improve a pets diet and quality of life.
Additional Articles and Videos
How kibble is made from Discovery Channel
Expose by Canadian Broadcast Corp (CBC) titled Pet Food a Dog’s Breakfast
Of specific interest, forward to 35.19.
What’s Really In Pet Food! The truth will shock you!
Channel 5 – Truth about Dogs Food
The Shocking Truth About Pet Food (Part 1)
The Shocking Truth About Pet Food (Part 2)
The Shocking Truth About Pet Food (Part 3)
Processed Foods and Quality of Ingredients by Dr Nick Thompson
Dr Shawn Messonnier, DVM, What’s really in your pet’s food
Dr Shawn Messonnier, DVM, Pet Foods .. Why you Won’t hear the Truth in the Media
BARFWorld.com: The Truth About Your Dog’s Food
References and Research
- 1.Plechner AJ, Zucker M. Pet Allergies. 1st ed. Very Healthy Enterprises; 1985. https://www.amazon.com/Pet-Allergies-Alfred-Plechner-DVM/dp/0961545208.
- 2.Nestle M. Pet Food Politics. 1st ed. University of California Press; 2010. https://www.amazon.com/Pet-Food-Politics-Chihuahua-Coal/dp/0520265890.
- 3.Lacombe M, Michels M. Kosher-meat based pet food products . 2001. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6277435.
- 4.Okuma TA, Hellberg RS. Identification of meat species in pet foods using a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Food Control. April 2015:9-17. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.08.017