Four years after filing a Freedom of Information Act request, it arrived. FDA tested three products: Earth Animal No Hide, Dreambone(non-rawhide control), and Busy Rollhide (rawhide control). Multiple scientists examined the products.
Jennifer Jones DVM reported, “”No Hide”-wide bands of eosinophilic hyaline material” “”Dreambone” : loose eosinophilic flocculant material..” ,””Busy Rollhide”: ” Rawhide: hyaline fibers similar to those present in Sub 1 [No Hide] ” It seems she is saying she found No Hide and rawhide to look similar to each other and both were very different from the non-rawhide control, Dreambone.
Daniel F.Gross FDA sample 1020256 Rawhide vs No Hide scanning electron microscopy test results: “Cross sections of both products appear indistinguishable from each other. Very fibrous”
David Rotstein DVM MPVM Dipl ACVP reported “The non-rawhide treat[Dreambone] consists of amorphous substance… There were no similarities to Sub 1 [Earth Animal No Hide] and 6[rawhide].. .Collagen bundles in Sub 1 [No Hide] were similar to Sub 6[Rawhide]…The statement that this is a “no-hide” product may not be accurate”
And from the Case Summary attributed to Jennifer Jones ,David Rotstein and Andriy Tkachenko ” The Earth Animal No Hide has characteristics of both the Dreambone (non-rawhide) and the Busy Rollhide (rawhide) products”
IMO this conclusion could make sense because No Hide is a chew roll coated in a flavor slurry, the coating could have the characteristics of the Dreambone, while the roll itself could have the characteristics of rawhide.
I think the FDA investigation was compromised by sampling error. Apparently, the microscopy sample tested was taken from a 1 cm slice off the very end of the chew roll. It appears they primarily tested the flavor coating and little of the actual chew material. I think if they had separated out the coating from the chew roll and tested them separately as Dr. Adam Stern did, they could have reached a conclusion other than “inconclusive”(test 1020257)
Interesting, to me is that nowhere in the ~250 pages did I find that the governmental investigation came to an “undisputable conclusion that Earth Animal No Hide Chews do not contain rawhide” as Earth Animal apparently claims they did in the Truth About Pet Food Website comment’s section of the article” New Study Finds some Rawhide-Free Treats are actually Rawhide”. Instead, the report says “The statement that this is a “no-hide” product may not be accurate” David Rotstein DVM MPVM Dipl. AVVP
Going forward, I think consumers need to do their own tests. Buy the new plant based Earth Animal No Hide (claims the only animal-based ingredient used is egg), a labeled rawhide and a non-rawhide chew with an ingredient list similar to the No HIde. Soak the products in warm water to rehydrate them. Do the products soften or stay intact? Dissect them and examine them under magnification, I used a microscope. Using iodine, test the products for the presence of starch. (This is a very sensitive test wash your hands well before testing each sample.) Test any coating separately from the interior of the chew. If, based on your testing, you think like Dr Rotstein did that “The statement that the product contains “no-hide” may not be accurate” file a report with the FDA. IF they get enough reports there is a chance they may investigate.
