[Mike Sagman]

Batch analysis ratings posted by CleanLabelProject.org and other similar websites can certainly be helpful.

However, we recommend readers exercise a reasonable degree of caution when relying exclusively on these kinds of reports.

That’s because when testing any pet (or human) food, the results can differ from day to day and vary significantly based on the specific farm or batch used as a source for any individual ingredient.

As with any laboratory study, it is absolutely critical to take a statistically significant (large) number of test samples from multiple batches to avoid a potentially misleading variable known as sampling error. You can read about that important subject here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_error

In addition, guidelines used for interpreting the results can also be changed or manipulated. This can cause certain products to be move from one rating to another. And even from “best” to “worst” lists. This has apparently already been a problem. You can read about that issue here:

Here’s Why The Clean Label Project’s Best and Worst Pet Food Results Changed

Giving any one brand a sweeping endorsement (or rejection) based on the sampling of one single batch taken from one individual product line at one point in time could be misleading and provide a false sense of security (or concern) regarding positive test results.

Even with fresh human foods (like strawberries or beef), there can be significant differences associated with test results from one batch of raw materials to the next, many times related to the soil conditions of one plot of land versus another from the same region.

What’s more, conclusions drawn from single batch testing can produce important inconsistencies. For example, on the website you reference, when you use the search box for specific brands (like Nutro, Orijen, Purina, and others), you’ll find 5-star, 3-star and 1-star individual recipes (products).

Try doing the same thing for other brands (like Nature’s Variety or Canidae) and in many cases, you’ll get similar results.

It would seem to us that the fairest way to draw accurate conclusions regarding food testing would be to collect test samples from multiple batches from different lots and collected over an extended period of time.

Otherwise, we could unfairly judge the safety of one food and give a misleading thumbs up for another.

Bottom line?

We commend CLP for its efforts. And we look forward to learning more about how its findings compare with those of others… especially to test results verified by independent third parties, peer-reviewed studies and those of the companies themselves.

Yet we’re also concerned about CLP’s lack of complete transparency and its failure to share actual test results with the public on its website.

In any case, until each batch is tested by every company with results posted on every label…

And since there’s no way of knowing which “top-rated” recipes could unexpectedly contain hidden contaminants and become the low-rated brands of tomorrow…

We continue to urge pet owners to practice the commonsense risk reduction strategies associated with the menu diversification and diet rotation methods favored by this website.

Until CLP becomes more transparent with its test data and its controversial claims have been verified by an independent third party or by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we ask readers to refrain from posting any further references to this organization or its opinions anywhere on this website.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by Mike Sagman.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by Mike Sagman. Reason: "Bottom line" section added to conclusion of comment