Unfit for Humans… Legal for Dog Food?

I like the idea, the lion lays down with the lamb and all, but I’ve read the Bible and it does not say we’ll see our animals in Heaven, though I hope we do. Chapter and verse please.

Shawna,

“… I can’t wipe every … Unless I’m absolutely sure…”

Absolutely! And that’s part of what I’m hoping to accomplish in this discussion. I’m hoping that we can get to the bottom of it.

In the meantime, something that I mentioned in my transferred post: are they seeing symptoms? Not every critter has the same sensitivity. There are a whole lot of variables. If a dog that’s glowing in health, there’s a little more wiggle room. His healthy immune system may be able to handle it, to prevent it from doing damage.

I think you may remember Dr. Blaylock’s list of susceptible individuals? “the old, the young, the infirm…” their blood brain barriers are compromised, therefore more toxins get in there fore,( and this part is from Kidd) more glutathione is used up, therefore there isn’t enough available to detox the excitotory neuro toxins. There fore (and this is from me) if you or your pet show symptoms of health harm, it’s always in your best interest to eliminate as many toxins from your diet and environment as possible, to allow your immune systems to repair themselves. If you catch it sooner, you don’t get chronically ill. This is a situation where an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure!!! IMO.

The sicker you or your critter are the more imperative it is for you to avoid toxins. So, not everybody needs to, but estimates that I’ve furnished to the CDC, and that I’m starting to see used, are 85% (conservatively) of the human population has some kind of chronic health condition due to consumer product and environmental toxins. Actual figures support 95% from mild to severe, as a more realistic estimate, but that would start a general panic. Not many people read every word carefully for content, you know. They’d blank on “mild.” and many people don’t understand the word “chronic,” as used in medical terms… but 85% is still alarming.

“… Then so would any other amino acid…”

Not necessarily so, not all bonds are formed at the same strength. However, I think that’s an excellent research project for future consideration. I think it would be equally as shameful for people feeding this for its alledged nutritive value to discover that they weten’t getting those either. Are we getting back to ground zero? Raw and lightly cooked are best.

Toxed ~~ can boiling alone break the protein chain and free the amino acids or is a solvant or enzymatic process (etc) always involved?

Does dry rendering look problematic to you?

Score

“Process variations
The rendering process varies from plant to plant in many ways.

1.Whether the end products are to be used as human food is based on the type of raw material and the processing methods.
2.Whether the end products are to be used as animal or pet food.
3.The material may be processed wet or dry. In wet processing, either boiling water or steam is added to the material, causing fat to rise to the surface; in dry processing, fat is released by dehydrating the raw material.
4.The temperature range used, whether high or low.
5.Processing may be either in discrete batches or in a continuous process.
6.The processing plant may be operated by an independent company that collects the material on the open market, or by the packing plant that produced the material.

Rendering processes for edible products
Edible rendering processes are basically meat processing operations and produce lard or edible tallow for use in food products. Edible rendering is generally carried out in a continuous process at low temperature (less than the boiling point of water). The process usually consists of finely chopping the edible fat materials (generally fat trimmings from meat cuts), heating them with or without added steam, and then carrying out two or more stages of centrifugal separation. The first stage separates the liquid water and fat mixture from the solids. The second stage further separates the fat from the water. The solids may be used in food products, pet foods, etc., depending on the original materials. The separated fat may be used in food products, or if in surplus, it may be diverted to soap making operations. Most edible rendering is done by meat packing or processing companies.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_(animals)#Process_variations

Toxed ~~ didn’t see your reply til just now when viewing Richard’s comments (yes Richard, okay with me to copy/pasted to Brother’s).

I had a conversation with Scott from Nature’s Logic a couple years ago. Asked him where there chickens (for their chicken meal) come from. He told me that when orders are placed by grocery stores for, example, 10 breasts, 4 thighs, 4 wings and 6 legs — there is going to be 6 thighs, 6 wings and 4 legs not used. This is where his chicken is sourced for the chicken meal.. High quality human grade chicken (prior to becoming a meal). I commented about this conversation with Scott in March of 2010 on Mercola Healthy Pets http://healthypets.mercola.com/groups/healthypets/forum/p/105824/255394.aspx

Now, if the processing of the meat to make it a meal does in fact free glutamic and aspartic acid then I have a BIG problem with that and will change my recommendations to those in my classes, Mercola etc.. BUT, I can’t wipe every 4 and 5 star kibble (except Great Life and maybe a few others) of my radar without making absolute sure.. I know you will understand that …

Shawna and Toxed

It seems you have discovered a “loophole” that the industry appointed watchdog (AAFCO) has conveniently provided so it is hard or practically impossible for the consumer to differentiate between high quality food and poor quality food – or even awful food – by just reading a label.

They have made it impossible to tell the quality of the meat in your dog food by reading the label – which is supposed to be the point of having a label with ingredient lists. They limit how a manufacturer can describe their meat meal (they make everyone use the same generic term) and they actually make it illegal to put descriptive words on the dog food label that might help differentiate the quality of the ingredients. This alone tells you they are not really interested in “truth” in labeling. Remember that the board of directors of AAFCO are often dog food industry leaders who have everything to gain by being deceptive.

It’s all very sad and will not soon change – so what can we do about it?

Remember what I have repeatedly said here – you cannot make a quality food cheaply. If you are getting a dog food that is inexpensive then there is a reason for that.

It does not follow that an expensive food is guaranteed to be of high quality (I offer Hill’s prescription diets as a prime example) but I can unequivocally guarantee you that NO ONE is making a dog food with high quality ingredients and selling it for less than it costs to make – NO ONE! If the food is inexpensive then there is a very logical reason for that and it’s not because they’re getting healthy, quality chicken meal (or any other meat meal) for 20% of what everyone else is paying. Con artists make a living taking advantage of people who believe to some degree that they are going to get “something for nothing”.

Well done ladies – very good detective work.

That was “plant” not “pan” darn typos!

Great life grain free, potato free, buffalo is the kibble that I use in my rotation etc. It’s still got a couple of things I’m not completely happy with, but you gotta let a few things go, or you go crazy…. @@ :-p

“the possible inclusion of these ingredients makes chicken meal always considered unfit for human consumption.”

The fact that meals would not be made in human facilities is what would “always” consider them unfit for human consumption.

And yep, I’m hoping Richard has the answer I am hoping for cause that means there are a TON of foods I once recommended that would no longer be an option… That leaves few choices for those wanting high protein kibble diets.

While I admit there are more dog food manufacturers using ‘human grade’ and some that meet the standard of ‘fit for human consumption’ it does not negate the data that says,
“Because meat can be rid of infectious agents through the rendering process, “4D” animals (dead, dying, diseased or disabled) are allowable chicken meal ingredients. While not always present, the possible inclusion of these ingredients makes chicken meal always considered unfit for human consumption.[4]”

I too would like to hear Richard’s take on this and find out if there exists any sources of chicken meal, or other ‘specified meat’ as opposed to unspecified meat meal that are not rendered or in any other way hydrolysed, pressure cooked, processed by long/hot heat or enzymolysis in such a way as to produce free glutamic and aspartic acids… It would certainly give one cause to hope that we had more options… As opposed to the ever narrowing safer food selections that we are faced with. :-}

I think the term “fit for human consumption” may be a bit misleading here. The reason MOST manufacturers can not claim their foods are fit for human consumption is because they are made in dog food plants not human food plants. There are a couple exceptions (Honest Kitchen makes their food in a human facility and can legally claim their food is fit for human consumption on their packaging). Since meals are not used in human foods they would not be made in human food facilities and despite the quality of the ingredient can not ever be titled fit for human consumption.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the meat and everything to do with were it was processed.

Yes, that would be a logical answer, but look at the discription of producing chicken meal… First the rendering vat to separate fat and reduce water… That’s a lot of boiling. Then the drying.

“because meat can be rid of infectious agents by the rendering process…”.

We know what the rendering process is… So why do they use it? The logical answer would be that it’s because the pathogens are more virulent that what is generally encountered in baking chicken for human consumption. If indeed the chicken used in “chicken meal” we’re of the freshness and quality ‘fit for human consumption,’ then baking (or dehydrating) would be sufficient. As baking isn’t apparently sufficient, it leaves us to conclude that chickens that are ‘dead, dying, diseased or disabled’, infact rejected for human consumption, comprise the content of ‘chicken meal.’ But all hypothesis aside, the chickens ARE vat rendered.

First rendered then dried/baked… Has to be, to kill bacterial pathogens.

I just know you’re going to want an example of a cleaner meat meal…:-) so here’s what wiki/chicken_meal has to say, LOL

Chicken meal, according to the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), is the dry rendered product from a combination of clean chicken flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from whole carcasses of chicken, exclusive of feathers, heads, feet and entrails.[1] A meal in general is “an ingredient which has been ground or otherwise reduced in particle size.”[2]
Chicken meal is ground up chicken meat that has been carefully dried to a moisture level of 10%. The protein content is 65% and the fat level is 12%. Regular chicken contains about 70% water with 18% protein and 5% fat.

*****To create chicken meal, ingredients are placed into large vats and cooked. [3] This rendering process not only separates fat and removes water to create a concentrated protein product, <<<<<*** (THER IT IS,) it also kills bacteria, viruses, parasites and other organisms. Because meat can be rid of infectious agents through the rendering process, “4D” animals (dead, dying, diseased or disabled) are allowable chicken meal ingredients. While not always present, the possible inclusion of these ingredients makes chicken meal always considered unfit for human consumption.[4]

O.k. Shawna,

Meat meal
Meat and bone meal are a product of rendering, which means long, hot heat, and enzymolysis, both methods of obtaining Free glutamic and Aspartic acids…

Meat and bone meal, meat meal, slaughterhouse by-product meal
(http://www.fao.org/ag/aGa/agap/FRG/afris/Data/316.HTM)

“Description:

Meat and bone meal is prepared from the wastes materials associated with slaughtering operations (carcass trimmings, condemned carcasses, condemned livers, inedible offal (lungs) and bones) and also from the rendering of dead animals. There can be a wide variation between plants and batches in what goes into the meat and bone meal that is being prepared…

…Processing temperature will also effect the availability of the protein fraction. Often pepsin digestibility of the protein fraction is used as a means of determining the extent of processing and availability of the protein fraction. Excessive heating during processing can reduce the digestibility of the CP. 

Caution: 

Proper heat treatment is required to control the spread of disease…
Source:  

Slaughterhouse wastes and dead animals are used to prepare meat and bone meal. Slaughterhouse wastes consist of portions of animals that are not suitable for human consumption; normally hair, hooves and blood are not included. After animals have died their carcasses can be rendered to destroy disease organisms and made also into meat and bone meal. ”

Lee Anderson
I hopped over and took a look at Earthborn. It is a lovely food. I have a theory as to why she’s not eating as much of this as some others. It’s only a theory because you didn’t list the others, so I can’t check.

Many, even 5 star dog foods contain hidden MSG and Aspartic acid by process. Both are addictive excitotory neurotoxins. Your dog may readily eat certain foods, more enthusiastically due to the chemical addictive response. So did your old foods have natural flavor? Did they have citric acid, maltodextrin, barley malt, hydrolized any kind of protein, whey, concentrated anything or meat meal? It’s in there by process. The more processed the for the more naturally occurring, free glutamic acid (a.k.a. MSG) and Aspartic acid. Sensitivity to these vary due to numerous factors. Some animals react to millamoles of excitotory neurotoxins. Reactions vary from addicted behaviors to seizures and evn death.

I’m still confused about which is best and which is cleanest, meat ‘meal’ or fresh meat. Every time I think I have it right, I read info from another Vet who says the opposite like this one: http://www.halopets.com/faqs/spots-stew.html.
Of course, it’s her site and her product, so bias is not out of the question. But why am I hearing so many contradictions? She states that meat meal could contain dead, dying, diseased animal flesh and that makes me sick, never mind my dog.

I’m feeding Josie Earthborn Grain Free Primitive dry, a five star dog food according to your analysis. She likes it but doesn’t eat as much as other foods that weren’t natural, or natural foods ranked 4 and 5 stars like Taste of the Wild, and they’re less expensive. There should be a standard about this meat meal vs fresh meat thing. Why the contradictions? I’m about ready to feed Josie what I eat and get her a vitamin and probiotic supplement.

Hi Mike,

Do you know what those “other” meats (roadkill, euthanised pets, lab animals, etc) are called in an ingredients list? Could it be these “meats” a company is using when they list “meat” without specifying the type, or are they restricted to “meat by-products”, or do they need to be called something else?

rejected by the health services and of course recommended by the VETS