[aimee]

Mutts and Cats,

I have no idea of the why there is an apparent correlation between DCM and pea/legume /potato ingredients. It could be a antinutrient factor, a metabolite, a toxin, possible related to growing conditions, something about the overall formulation, all of the above or none of the above some combination of the above creating the perfect storm. If it was simplistic, like not enough protein from meat, we’d have had the answer by now, but we don’t and who knows if it will ever be discovered. Many years later, the causation of chicken jerky /Fanconi like syndrome hasn’t been found. It is interesting how the pet industry embraced that association, possible because of the “from China” tagline and that it came on the tails of the melamine crisis. but seems they are fighting this one (DCM) with the same vigor the tobacco industry fought the association between its products and cancer.

The idea that FDA was looking to damage small companies never made any sense to me. I suspect the larger companies hold a greater market share of the “grain free” offerings. I think the association just caused so much cognitive dissonance in some people that they had to come up with a way to resolve that.

[aimee]

Hi Mutts and Cats,

I’ll give you my perspective on the other issues you brought up.

Transparency. Like you I’d judge this on the company’s actions not on what they claim.

You asked why wouldn’t a company disclose % protein from meat? I think it could be a difficult question to answer and one that could open a company up to litigation. I previously brought up what is “meat” from the perspective of an AAFCO definition and what is meat from a consumer perspective may be different. And then there are organs, are those “meat”? They have been referred to that way. Is smooth muscle from intestines “meat” ?

As a manufacturer buying a commodity how are they to know how much of the “meat” is striate muscle and how much is connective tissue? Or how much of meat meal is organ vs other tissue, is smooth muscle meat? It might be easier for a company to answer what % of protein comes from animal tissue. But since the quality differs widely I’m not sure of the value of knowing this.

In general I’d consider the bioavailability of AA higher in muscle and organs higher than from plants, but It all goes back to formulation. What is the dog getting out of the food.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by aimee.

[aimee]

Mutts and Cats,

Apparently, though I hit “edit” after I accidently submitted, I must not have edited it quick enough, and my original post was posted.

What I added was that the second manufacturer also confirmed that there was significant bone in their “meat”. It could be that as a commodity, striate muscle may be reclaimed by grinding and then passing a bone /muscle mixture through a screen. The bone that passes through the screen then becomes part of the mix and accepted as a “measure of good processing”. But honestly, I do not know in what forms these commodities are available to manufacturers.

IMO if a manufacturer desires to formulate for high protein from striate muscle they may accept as trade off a high mineral content if using a product of that type.

Personally, I tend to avoid foods with high mineral content.

[aimee]

Hi Crazy 4cats and Mutts and Cats,

AAFCO recently made all ingredient definitions public. You can access them here.
https://www.aafco.org/Publications/OP-Chapter-6-Public-Access

I’ll address your concern about the high mineral content of certain recipes as I understand the issue. It dovetails with the explanation I gave prior regarding % meat in a recipe.

The AAFCO definition for poultry is different than for non poultry “meat” The definition for Duck “is with or without accompanying bone” So while you may envision muscle when you read that ingredient it could be racks stripped of most muscle and therefore have high bone content. Th high mineral content of the formula gives you a tip off that the duck may be have a lot of connective tissue in relation to muscle tissue.

The meat definition doesn’t mention bone and like you I assumed that meant no bone. But the definition doesn’t specifically exclude bone either. I talked to 2 different manufacturers. One told me the “venison” they used had a mineral content of 25% ! This is reflected in the mineral content of the diet
T

[aimee]

Hi Mutt and Cats,

I’d consider your need to know % of protein from meat to be a feeding philosophy. We all hold philosophies that are important to us. For me I’m not so much concerned if the nutrients come from meat vs plant. I’m concerned that nutrients are available to the dog, come from well researched ingredient sources and are in the proper formulation.

FDA has IMO been very conservative and has never suggested or claimed grain free= DCM and putting my scientist hat on,that on the information just isn’t there. We do have a strong correlation between foods high in pulse ingredients and possible potato and DCM.

Personally, even way before the DCM alert I avoided OTC foods with legumes and potatoes because IMO they were not well researched ingredients. Now we have a situation in which companies whose product formulas were made with the now suspect ingredients were in a bind. We all witnessed the pet industry swiftly pivoting and the companies that vilified grain were now rushing to market grain inclusive diets. But apparently to still embrace their marketing strategy that grains like corn and wheat are detrimental to pets, marketed “ancient grains” But IMO these new products have the same fundamental problem as the original diets have, made from ingredients that have not been well researched.

Years ago, I asked a major company how their diets were formulated a what process bringing to market a new diet entailed. I was told a min. of 5 years from the concept of a new formulation to finalizing that formulation and they listed out for me all the different branches of nutritionists, food scientists, toxicologists etc they had on their formulation team. Compare that to how quickly companies flooded the market with new formulations after the FDA alert. IMO this was just jumping out of the pan into the fire.

Based on my experiences, “transparency” has become a red flag for me. I’ve found the most egregious errors, misrepresentations, outright lies and refusal to provide information from companies that shout out about how “transparent” they are.

[aimee]

Hi Mutts and Cats,

Meat is defined by AAFCO as striated muscle with attached connective tissues (skin ,fat, blood vessels, tendons etc). I asked my feed control official if anywhere in the AAFCO definition does it specify what % of “meat” has to be striate muscle or if tissue that is 99% non-muscle and 1% striate muscle can legally be called “meat”?

The answer I got was that AAFCO does not specify, and it would be up to each individual state feed control official to interpret. In other words, my theoretical mix with only 1% striate muscle could be considered “meat”

Knowing that, for me it is a moot point if a company claims X % of protein comes from “meat” because while we assume striate muscle when we hear the term meat, it seems, based on legal definitions, the protein may be from skin, tendons and other tissues of lower quality. Therefore, I personally see those types of claims as too easily subject to marketing department manipulation, it all goes back to how much do I trust the company?

I understand your surprise at my feeding choices. I suppose it really comes down to feeding philosophy. Every ingredient has pros and cons. I tend not to vilify ingredients. That isn’t to say I don’t look at ingredients on the label because i do but I may just be using that information differently than someone else.

[aimee]

Hi Mutts and Cats,

My experience with the nutritional information companies provide mirrors yours. It is concerning when a company purportedly producing a complete and balanced pet food appears to have no clue when it comes to very basic nutritional concepts.

I have seen companies change recipes/ingredients and yet there is no change in their posted nutritional analysis. I’ve seen companies whose nutritional analysis are identical across all formulations. ( The company told me that they actually only tested one formula and then just copied the results into each formula while changing a few numbers here and there.) I’ve come across companies who change their on line information based on what numbers I’ve told them it needs to be to meet AAFCO.. The list goes on and on. Like you they become companies I won’t buy from

I’m have more confidence in the larger companies: Purina, Iams/Eukanuba, Royal Canin and if someone wanted a raw/freeze dried option Natures Variety

[aimee]

Hi Mutts and Cats,

Thank you for posting Smallbatch’s reply to you. I recently contacted Smallbatch and asked for nutritional information. They were very prompt in sending it. However, based on what they sent, it appeared that not every formulation met the AAFCO profile for the labeled lifestage. As I recall, their explanation was that the analysis reflected an average taken over several years. I replied that I found that alarming since it appeared that for years their products may have been falling short of AAFCO and that the apparent problem appears to have not been addressed. I asked for further written explanation, yet after repeated inquiries I have not received any response.

I found it most interesting that just a few weeks later they replied to your inquiry by saying they do not have a sharable analysis.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by aimee.

[aimee]

It appears that you have made a decision not to transition based on factors that are important to you and that is fine. Everyone has their own feeding philosophy.

[aimee]

There is always risk associated with eating. It becomes confusing because marketing exploits risks to secure sales. All companies do it: ingredient A has problem X so buy food which uses ingredient B, left out is that ingredient B also contains X Applying to aflatoxin, it can be present in grains, aflatoxin producing molds can also affect ingredients commonly used in grain free diets, they are ubiquitous. Aflatoxins are in milk, eggs, meat, you name it they are there. The commodity most commonly affected is corn; peanuts are also commonly affected. I personally do not avoid corn or peanuts in my diet, nor do I avoid them in my dog’s diet. It comes down to company sourcing and quality control. Corn from company A no concern, Corn from company B, nope not buying it.
It could be that both company A and B tell me they are using food grades 1 and 2 corn, test all incoming batches and test post- production so why do I feel comfortable with company A and not B? I make a decision based on how they respond to my questions, statements they make on their websites, how they responded to recalls, FDA inspection reports, if I feel they show a vested interest in animal health through funding research and employment of veterinary nutritionist… etc. No company is perfect, they all have warts but if I see a pattern of misinformation they are off my list. Years ago, I found information about a company which I found alarming, so I eliminated them. More recently, as I recall it, the company described their meats using word like “kosher” and “human grade”, yet they were found to be apparently sourcing from a dead stock removal service.
To address “human grade” I’d say both Tuft’s and Thixton are correct. It isn’t that those things Thixton talks about can’t happen or never happen, but in terms of tonnage, there are just not very many diseased, died otherwise than by slaughter animals around to support the amount of product needed by the pet food industry. Large companies have leverage and contracts with slaughterhouse with integrated rendering and can specify their own terms such as no 4D meat. Smaller companies may not enjoy the same. But by far the vast majority of products available to the pet industry are from animals slaughtered for human consumption. Things like milk lines in livers that get them banned from human consumption are not dangerous just unsightly. The real concern is how are the products handled after harvest and this goes back to quality control and company standards. For me that is based on my own assessment of a company not a label claim which may or may not be true.
Do all Purina foods meet WSAVA. IMO Purina branded products do. Companies that Nestle-Purina owns, I honestly don’t know. They may be operating independently. Mars recently acquired or is the process of acquiring Champion. Does that mean that once the ink on the paper is dry Champion now meets WSAVA. Not in my book. Whether you continue with a legume and pea diet or not is your decision. I find the data linking diets high in peas and legumes to DCM compelling enough that I won’t feed them in any significant quantity. The added taurine is marketing, it doesn’t offset current DCM risk and I find it oft putting. If my dog needed a therapeutic diet that contained those ingredients, I’d screen for DCM every 6 months, especially after this most recent study was published. (To my untrained eye 2 of the 23 look to be in trouble in regard to contractability). But since the problem hasn’t been limited to pea and legume diets, until more is known, I’m sticking with diet types that have been shown to reverse the problem, Currently, the bulk of my dog’s diet is PPP. I have no problem with corn in the diet. If you considering switching and aflatoxin concerns you, consider using a formula without corn. Lots to choose from.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

Have to agree with you here. Very concerning that a company making dog food writes on their website in regard to taurine “Essential nutrient as dogs cannot synthesize themselves” (accessed on Stella and Chewy website 1/8/2023). Reminds me when the “nutritionist” (the person’s degree as I recall was in marketing), for a company told me not to be concerned that the declared Vit D levels in their diets were below Min because dogs can synthesize their own if given enough sunlight. I was instructed to open my curtains to provide a sunbeam for them to sit in. Unlike taurine Vit D is essential in dogs.

Once you start seeing these things you just can’t unsee them.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,
Taxonomically dogs are in the order carnivora. The taxonomic order is made up of carnivores, omnivores and herbivores. Dogs are classified as omnivores because of metabolic pathways like the one you mentioned, being able to synthesize taurine. But they have a carnivorous slant, they cannot synthesize Vit D.

Grain free, grain inclusive etc is all marketing to me. And while some ingredients are better sources of what dogs need than others, have better bioavailability etc. the bottom line is that dogs need specific nutrients not specific ingredients.

I can give you my thoughts based on the ingredient line up but cannot tell you if one diet is better than the other or if either diet is well formulated.

Diet one starts with” cage free chicken” why “cage free” chicken and not just “chicken” ?It puts me on alert that the company may be more of a marketing company and puts a bit more spin on their diets compared to another company. This to me is confirmed by all the list of” feel good” ingredients after salt. I tend to think of oatmeal and barley as high fiber carb sources but honestly, I’d have to look each up on a calorie basis to see if that is true and there can be a lot of variation depending on processing. Ditto for coconut flour.

Diet 2 Like diet 1, a lot of grain type ingredients that I don’t think have been as well researched in regard to dog food inclusion as more traditional grains. Cinnamon and Tumeric look to be fairy dust and the list of ingredients after natural flavor I suspect are also there more for consumer appeal

Bottom line. My impression is that both of these options appear to be diets made in response to the announcement of the possible association between diets high in legumes/potatoes and DCM. The concern I’d have is that these options seem to be formulated with ingredients whose dietary impact isn’t fully known

If the reason you are considering a move to grain inclusive is because of the association of certain diets with DCM I’d suggest that you move to a “traditional” diet known to reverse the condition. Consider options by Purina Royal Canin Hill’s Pet Food Iams/ Eukanuba.

[aimee]

You’re welcome! I was in a shop recently and they had a new form of beefcheek; very large
sheets. One size was about 8 inches square and the other was about 21×14 inches. I think I gasped a bit and the clerk asked what was wrong. I said nothing wrong but look how cool these are! They have eyelids! You could easily make out the lash follicles and wrinkles around the eye. The piece looked like a cow looking at me. The clerk said that isn’t an eyelid, those are muscle. I informed her that the manufacturer of the brand confirmed with me that they are full thickness skin from the head of a cow. The troubling thing is that I had previously passed that information on to the owner and also manager of the shop after learning they were telling potential customers that the chew was made of muscle. It seems that management is choosing to continue with the deception. One piece was so cool i bought it and I plan on framing and hanging it in my home.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

If Small batch ever addresses my concerns I’ll be sure to post it here. I suspect however that they will not; I have not gotten any type of reply to my last two inquiries.

[aimee]

Hi cray4cats,

I didn’t know SkeptVet even had a FB page! Just looked it up and “liked” it.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

You wrote “So the company should state TOO MUCH calcium if they give the why.” Yes If those diets are inappropriate for large breed growth it would be because they have too much Calcium for large breed puppies.

You wrote “Now in your calculations are dogs’ being fed their “all life stages” not getting ENOUGH calcium?”

I do not have a nutritional analysis for each of S and C’s diets that claims to be “all life stages” so I have not done any calculations. If the diets meet the AAFCO Ca min. for the growth/reproduction profile then their diets would have ENOUGH calcium for adult dogs, pregnant dogs, nursing dogs and the growth of small ,medium and large breed puppies. but some may have TOO MUCH calcium for the growth stage of large breed puppies, in which case the company must disclose this on their nutritional adequacy statement.

I have to qualify, because after getting a nutritional analysis I’ve found that though a diet claims to meet an AAFCO profile, based on the information the company sends, it appears not to meet it. For example, using the information provided by Smallbatch, it appears that one of their diets labeled as “all life stages” does not come close to meeting the min. calcium level required by the AAFCO profile for growth/reproduction. The company responded IMO very quickly to my initial inquiry for a nutritional analysis. But I have not received any response to my most recent inquiry asking them to explain the apparent discrepancy.

[aimee]

To add to this thread, a study has just been published, which like the others, supports a link between diets with suspect ingredients and DCM.

Briefly and simplified, the researchers recruited dogs that had been eating the same kibble for over a year and had 90% of daily calories coming from that diet.

Diet types were divided into what they labeled as traditional (grain containing without any potato or legume ingredients in the first 10 ingredients) and nontraditional (contained pulses as main ingredient) All dogs were deemed healthy based on exam.

Each study participant had a heart ultrasound to evaluate size and function of the heart. What was found was that dogs eating nontraditional diets, as a group, had weaker contractions and larger ventricular blood volume than the dogs eating traditional diets.

This is yet another study that supports a link between diets with high legume content and the development of DCM.

Like all studies, it has its limitations. Sample size was limited to 23 dogs in each group, and I would have liked to see the diets named.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

AAFCO only makes 2 nutrient profiles: 1.an adult maintenance profile and 2. a growth/ reproduction profile. Every single diet formulated to meet the growth/reproduction prolife is an “all life stages diet” The manufactures may choose to market a diet that meets the growth/reproduction profile as an adult food, a puppy food, an all life stages food, a food for pregnant and nursing dogs, or even a senior food. Whereas a diet formulated to the AAFCO maintenance profile can be only be marketed as an adult diet or a senior diet

BUT and it is a big BUT if the “all life stages/puppy growth/reproduction diet” has more than 4.5 grams Ca/1000kcals it must be labeled that it is not appropriate for growth of large breed puppies because while small and medium breed puppies and adult dogs can tolerate large amounts of calcium in their foods, large breed puppies can not .

So in the case of Stella and Chewy’s kibbles, most do not say “puppy” on the front panel but since the company apparently formulates them to meet the AAFCO growth/reproduction table they are essentially all puppy/all life stages foods, BUT they apparently are puppy/all life stages foods that exceed AAFCO maximum for Ca for large breed puppies, so S and C has to disclose this by saying in their nutritional adequacy statements that large breed puppies are excluded.

My concern with their statement in the FAQ is that they are saying there is not enough Ca for large breed puppies in their diets that are not specifically marketed as puppy foods, when in fact, the only reason those diets could be ok for small and medium breed puppies, but not large breed puppies, would be if they had too much Ca in them for a large breed pup.

The maintenance profile for dogs requires a min of 1.25 grams Ca/1000kcals and the growth/reproduction profile, which is what is also called all life stages, requires a min of 3 grams of Ca/1000kcals Therefore every all life stage diet has over twice the min amount of Ca needed for an adult.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

If there is no notation near the “2019” I’d suspect the 2019 date on your bag is not related to date of manufacturer, but certainly, call for clarification.

It has been a while since I read the all research on growth and calcium requirements, so I do not recall the exact grams of calcium on a caloric basis used in the various research studies. For the sake of discussion and to illustrate the underlying principle I’m ballparking the following numbers.

On a caloric basis, during growth, large breed puppies do require a higher calcium level than small breed puppies. So, for example, small breeds grew normally when consuming say 1 gram of Ca/1000 kcals but feeding 1 gram Ca/1000 kcals to a growing large breed leads to skeletal problems. Large breeds needed a min. of 2 grams Ca/1000 kcals to grow normally.

At the other end of the spectrum, small breeds also grew normally when consuming say 8 grams of Ca /1000 kcals while 8 grams Ca /1000 kcals resulted in growth abnormalities in large breeds. So overall, small breeds grew normally when calcium levels were between 1-8 grams Ca /1000 kcals, whereas large breed puppies required a narrower range, say between 2-4.5 grams Ca/1000 kcals to grow normally.

AAFCO set the min. Ca for their profile for growth and reproduction at 3 grams Ca/1000 kcals, a level found to result in normal skeletal growth in BOTH small and large breeds. Then they stipulated a maximum of 4.5 grams Ca/1000 kcals for large breed growth.

A diet label for growth, without an exception for large breeds, must contain between 3 and 4.5 grams of Ca/1000kcals to meet AAFCO’s growth/reproduction profile. If a diet has a min. of 3 grams Ca/1000kcals but the Ca level exceeds 4.5 grams Ca/1000 kcals the company must label the food as appropriate for growth EXCEPT for large breeds which is what is found on Stella and Chewy’s non puppy kibble diets

The statement “(calcium and DHA levels aren’t enough for large breed puppies in non-puppy formulas)” makes no sense in light of the AAFCO nutritional profile that the company claims the diets are formulated to meet.

[aimee]

Hi CFC

Right now, since I know how many months out the expiration date is from production date, I use that to guide purchase. At the time when I looked into this, Purina gave me the code to their production stamp which was also on the label. As I recall it was a combination of letters and numbers and with it and I could tell what plant it was made in, what line in the plant it was produced on, and the exact date and time of production.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

When purchasing kibble for my own pets, I want something that is no longer than 6 months post production date. My 6 month rule isn’t written in stone and that number is based on absolutely nothing other than my own personal preference. Often times what I’m buying is ~2- 3months post production date but once the bag was a mere 10 days post production date!

Natural preservatives simply are not going to have the anti oxidant potential as synthetics and since consumer demand is for natural preservatives that is the way a lot of products are produced. Storge conditions in the manufacturer warehouse and distribution center and pet store can impact how well the preservatives “hold”. I suspect under adverse storage they may not hold up for full 12-18 months so I’m hedging my bet by using shorter cut off. But this is all conjecture on my part.

Interesting that Stella and Chewy’s states an expiration of 14-18 months post production in their FAQ and the bag is dated out 5 years. Have you contacted them for an explanation? You might want to inquire if they have held the food under adverse conditions such as high heat and humidity for 5 years and then tested it to ensure excessive oxidation did not occur

While in the FAQ section, the question on feeding large breed puppies caught my eye. Their answer makes no sense to me. They write:” Things are more limited with our kibble, as you would need to stick with the puppy-specific kibble recipe (calcium and DHA levels aren’t enough for large breed puppies in non-puppy formulas)”

It seems to me they are saying there is not enough calcium or DHA in their diets that are labeled as formulated for all life stages except the growth of large breed puppies. AAFCO’s min for Ca and DHA are the same for ALL puppies. AAFCO’s profile does not require more Ca for large breed growth. The AAFCO profile places a LIMIT on how much Ca can be in a diet for large breed puppies. Diets that are labeled for growth except large breeds can only mean that the calcium level in the food EXCEEDS the maximum NOT that there is not enough calcium in the food for a large breed puppy. I’d find it very disturbing if they didn’t understand this basic nutritional concept.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

Thanks for posting what the current label claim is for nutritional adequacy. Based on the nutritional information on the company website, in conjunction with how it is currently presented, it appears to me that not all products meet the AAFCO profile for which they are labeled or that when using their feeding recommendations nutritional goals would be met.

As I said, it isn’t uncommon that I find discrepancies, and IMO major errors from companies that heavily promote themselves as “honest” transparent” etc. I found one company, apparenlty started and co- owned at the time by a PhD anmal nutritionist, to be particularily disturbing.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I apologize that I presented the math in a way that wasn’t easy to understand. I often don’t relay my thought processes well. I certainly can try to explain further if you can help me to do so my asking me specific questions.

Hmm… well if the food is labeled as meeting AAFCO through a feeding trial then the food does not have to meet an AAFCO profile. For myself, I want to see that a food meets the profile in addition to passing a feeding trial and not that the use of a feeding trial appeared to be a way to get around the profile, if that makes sense.

Before posting, I did check labeling as found on Chewy and the label said it met AAFCO through formulation, which their online profile does not appear to do. What does the label of the food you have in hand state? Your question though prompts me to wonder, when doing a feeding trial, is the amount fed based on the feeding guidelines ?

Good customer service is something I try and evaluate because if I suspect an adverse event from a diet, I’d want prompt attention. However, it is also an area where, esp. now, when everyone is struggling with labor, is an area where I might give a little slack. But if you left three messages and no follow up from the company, I’d be giving that a bit of a sidesways glance. Just my opinion. Do they have a dedicated veterinary line? Some companies have a vet only customer service line where you can kinda “skip to the front” of the line by getting your vet involved. Then their vet can talk to their vet directly if they have one. I’ve found that companies that make therapeutic diets offer this.

People hold different feeding philosophies; I personally would choose something else but if you are making an informed choice and it meets your criteria than you may make a different decision.

Regarding Smallbatch, I found similar concerns regarding the appearance of not meeting AAFCO based on the nutrient profiles they sent to me. It has been over a week since I posed my concerns and they apparently have not acknowledged or followed up to my most recent inquiry which was made several days ago. They did offer a phone call early in the conversation, but I asked to please address by e mail because for me having it in writing would allow me to best process their answer.

When I first questioned one nutrient level, customer service reported the level met AAFCO main. and it did, but the concern was the diet was labeled for all life stages. Next, as I recall, they said that the profile they sent was an average from testing many batches over many years and there will be batch to batch variation. I think I replied something like I found that even more concerning since the average was so low and that it appears they have not corrected the problem over many years. For me i would choose something else but others many arrive do a different conclusion.

I haven’t looked a Natures Variety for years but at the time I did I didn’t find anything that would cause me to eliminate their products from what I’d consider.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I think you have stumbled upon a stunning example of what I mentioned in the previous comment “Also, I’ve found numerous companies whose feeding recommendations if followed would also result in deficiencies. In my experience this has been with smaller companies and expensive diets like freeze dried and fresh.”

Like you I calculated an average of 230 kcals for a 6 lb dog with a range of 118-354. I suspect the chance that their feeding recommendation of 70 kcals would meet nutrient needs is abysmal. But for laughs and giggles I’ll walk you through looking at a few nutrients using NRC recommended amounts on a metabolic body weight basis. Metabolic body weight is weight in kg to the .75 power, for a 6 lb dog it is 2.12kg MBW

The company has told us that each chicken patty is 73 kcal and that there are 4.33 kcals/gram of food which means each patty weight would be ~17 grams

Their nutrient analysis is on a dry matter basis and not as fed. If we corrected for moisture content, the amount fed on a dry matter basis may be closer to 16 grams but let’s give them the best case scenario and say the DM basis is 17 grams .

Looking at a few nutrients: Vit B1: NRC rec amount is .074mg/kg MBW x 2.12 = .157 mg
Vital Essentials chicken fed as directed 0.00235mg/gram X 17 grams= 0.04mg

Vit B2: NRC rec amount is .171mg/kgMBW X 2.12 = 0.362mg
VE chicken fed as directed 0.0055mg/grams X 17 grams =0.09mg

I could go on, but I think you get the picture When using their information and when fed as they directed, you’d meet about 25% of NRC recommended nutrient amount

Looking further, let’s compare the nutrient analysis they gave us to AAFCO for the same nutrients AAFCO requires 2.25mg/kg DM of B1 and 5.2mg/kg DM B2
VE reports their diet has 2.35mg/kg DM B1 and 5.5 Mg/kg DM B2 So that looks good right?

Well, we need to correct for energy density. AAFCO requires this be done for any diet exceeding 4000kcals/kg DM VE reports as fed kcals are 4330 /kg and they report moisture max as 8%. Let’s go with 5% moisture instead to give VE a buffer 4330/.95= 4558kcals/kg DM. To correct for energy density the correction factor is 4558/4000= 1.14

Applying the correction factor of 1.14 X 2.25mg/kg = 2.56mg/kg so their diet at 2.35mg/kg, based on the information they provided seems to fall short of AAFCO min. Even if we went with their as fed kcal of 4330 it still falls short.

Looking at B2 1.14 x 5.2mg/kg = 5.93mg/kg and they report 5.5 mg/kg, and like B1 even if we used the as fed caloric level of 4330 it still falls short.

So for me, when a company does not appear to understand something as simple as setting a feeding recommendation to meet nutrient and caloric needs or how to assess if their diet meets the AAFCO profile It is not a company I’d ever feed. Rightly or wrongly if a company apparently can’t seem to grasp such simple nutritional concepts, then how can I trust that they would understand the complexities of food formulation and quality control.

[aimee]

Dr. Mike,

I’m in complete agreement with you that the label should not be ignored. I certainly never intended for my post to be interpreted to mean it should. I too look at the label, including the ingredient declaration when making a food choice. I’m afraid though, that over time, I’ve become quite cynical, and I likely prioritize label information differently than others, and that for me is OK.

The label is a legal document, but as you pointed out, it is one that it easily manipulated and used for the purposes of marketing. Reporting nutrients in Min. and Max. means the diets with very different nutrient profiles can have the same guaranteed analysis and IMO, there is for all practical purposes, no verification of the information a label contains.

I suspect that you, like me, have “caught” companies providing false information and know of diets that appeared stellar based on the ingredient list and other labeling information yet that when fed, resulted in death. There is always risk whenever we eat and I for one am grateful for the exhaustive catalog of foods on this site and the database of information that you have built. I use it regularly.

[aimee]

Hi Dr. Mike,
Here are some of my thoughts.

While the jury is still out on the mechanism of non-taurine diet related DCM, its existence is established. As you know, in science, conclusions are made on available data and as new data comes in previous conclusions may need to be modified or even abandoned. I’ve found that this process can appear confusing to people.

As I understand it, the first recognized cases, in retrospect, likely had two contributing factors to their disease: taurine and non-taurine. At the time those cases first surfaced, it made sense to tap taurine as the first place to look. However, as more cases came to light it was recognized that this go round would not have a simple explanation and so a pivot occurred.

The acronym BEG was coined early based on patterns observed. I think that while labels can help, they also can harm by limiting focus. FDA identified ingredient patterns, but diets without those ingredients have resulted in cases too. Market share data revealed that companies with very little market share had a very large percentage of cases, while companies who hold a large market share did not have cases despite offering grain free options. It begs the question why?

IMO pet food politics complicates the situation. In the article you linked I would have liked to have seen the authors report what percent of sales of the big three are grain free, and what percent of the grain free market share they hold. I say this because it seems there is an ongoing mistrust of the research done by veterinary cardiologists and nutritionists because the big three have sponsored conferences they have spoken at or foundations they received grants from etc. This to me never made much sense since those companies make, I suspect, a significant portion of the grain free market. It would be shooting themselves in the foot! As outlined in the article, the pea industry however has IMO directly influenced the FDA leading to them going silent.

Like you I’ve come across folks who are fretting over the mere presence of peas/legumes/potatoes in pet food, and I think it is not warranted. I’ve found that veterinarians are giving guidelines such as the one from UC Davis to limit to no more than 2 legume ingredients in a grain inclusive diet whose inclusions are below all meat and grain ingredients. I find that reasonable.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

European countries do have confirmed cases of non- taurine dietary DCM as does Australia and others. I don’t know if there are central reporting agencies in those countries nor what the distribution nor availability of veterinary cardiologists is to confirm and track cases. Apparently, some are reporting to the FDA and to the “citizen science group who has confirmed them.

Additionally, this is a multi-faceted problem so IMO regional variations could exist.

I think your point is a very good one! I think one of the major faults of AAFCO is that they define nutrients by energy but do not define or publish guidelines on what energy intake is needed to meet metabolic needs.

I would consider most pets to have lower energy intake needs and using AAFCO I’ve found even that my own “easy keeper” may not hit targeted levels. Also, I’ve found numerous companies whose feeding recommendations if followed would also result in deficiencies. In my experience this has been with smaller companies and expensive diets like freeze dried and fresh. Going back near 20 years ago I had a major company share with me that all their diets were formulated at levels 25% above AAFCO min to account for “easy keepers”

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I’m assuming you meant to ask why Purina owns Alpo. It seems that you are saying by selling ALPO they are not standing by nutrition across the board. It is a sentiment I do not share.

I think there are many paths to nutritional soundness and for me the ingredient list plays a minor role in my overall assessment of a food. I didn’t used to be this way , I used to be an avid label reader but after many hours of self study using resources like the Nutritional Requirements of Dogs and Cats put out by the NRC and spending many hours on Pub Med getting familiar with nutritional research it is where I landed.

I see Purina as a company that makes food at a variety of price points to fit the various budgets and philosophies of a wide segment of the pet owning population. Foods at a lower price point I suspect are going to be more plant based and will likely have larger stool volume compared to the higher price point options but IMO they both reach nutritional goals.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

In regard to your second comment, I ‘m hoping you can clarify for me.

You are correct WSAVA does not approve foods so I’m unsure why you are asking if certain foods should be removed from the WSAVA recommended list since you seem to recognize that there is no such list. Perhaps you an clarify that point for me.

I’m also usure of what criteria you have suggested (perhaps I can find them on a different thread?) and personally, I think if you eliminate involving anyone with any potential for a financial gain or research funding gain from serving in WSAVA or any other organized foundation there would be no one left to serve! Connections can always be made and no matter how far removed or remote they may be someone will always come along and call foul if they do not like the committee’s findings.

Personally, in regard to sponsors of WSAVA, there are so many pet food companies, how come only three have stepped up to promote the advancement of animal welfare and health?

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I’ll address your first question first because it is a good one. IMO the engagement specialist from Purina really dropped the ball. She gave a canned answer instead of a providing the research studies that support the claims. Maybe Purina needs to revisit the training of their customer service agents?

IMO Purina does some awesome research, yet as a company I feel they really fall short in making it known. IMO it should be cited whenever a claim based on that research is made.

The concern I have with this blog, is that IMO as it is written, the blog seems to leave the reader with the impression that Purina may not have any research to support the label claims. I think the point that the blogger should have made is Purina does a lot of research and publishes it regularly to the scientific community but that they need to do a better job in relaying that information to the general public.

Here are some supporting studies I found after a 3 min(?) search. There certainly may be others

Interventions in the Longevity and Maintenance of Long-Term Health in Agine Cats Cupp et al 2008 From the abstract “Cats eating the diet containing the nutritional blend lived significantly longer and showed significantly slower deterioration in a number of clinical health parameters compared to cats fed a standard adult maintenance control diet”

Effect of Nutritional Interventions on the Longevity of Senior Cats Cupp et al 2007 From the abstract “After 5 years cats fed the diet with the antioxidants Vit E and Beta-carotene, dried chicory root and a blend of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids lived significantly longer than cats fed the control diet.”

Cognitive Enhancement in Middle aged and old cat with dietary supplementation with a nutrient blend containing fish oil, B vitamins, antioxidants and arginine. Pan et al 2013
From the abstract: “The cats fed the test diet shoed significantly better performance on three of four test protocols..”

[aimee]

Hi bob D,

Congratulations on the twins LOL. Honestly there is not a single freeze dried raw I can suggest for growth of, I’m assuming, a large breed puppy.

If a freeze dried raw is your only option to feed and the expected adult weight would be say no more than 30 lbs you could consider Natures Variety.

My thought is that you have one chance to grow this pup. Personally, I’d stick to a company with a solid nutritional background in puppy growth. With my last pup I interviewed numerous companies and settled on Purina Pro Plan.

[aimee]

I suspect that unless people stop buying it, it will continue to be sold.

[aimee]

Hi Crazy4cats,

This is welcome new thanks for posting the article link! AAFO moves about as slow as molasses in an ice storm! Like the author I’d lie to see nutrients reported on a caloric basis AND I’m so happy they are closing the loophole for large breed puppy diets!

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

Personally, I think there is very little that pet owners can do to keep manufacturers honest. I think until regulatory starts holding them accountable and heavily fines the “bad actors” it will continue.

IMO there is so very little oversight that manufactures know there is little chance they will suffer financial harm so “bad actors” will continue to put products into the market that are not as claimed.

Personally, I think that most people doing their own research do not have the background to interpret the information and often fall into rabbit holes of misinformation and I think that the overall results of consumers calling manufactures out is that the “bad actors” learn how to better deceive consumers.

I guess I’m in a cynical mood after wading through ~ 250 pages of a FOIA request from over 4 years ago. : )

If ever I can be of assistance in ferreting out information for you, I’ll be happy to do so. I understand the time it takes to care for a loved one with dementia. Happy Holidays to you too!

[aimee]

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.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

As you stated AAFCO does not approve foods AAFCO writes model food law which individual states may or may not adopt and they set means of how a food can claim nutritional adequacy. They do not test or regulate food. That is the job of your state feed control official in conjunction with the FDA.

But regulation oversite is sparse, and companies are free to claim things that are not true, like that their food meets an AAFCO nutrient profile when it does not, or that their food passed a feeding trial when they never conducted one, or that their food doesn’t contain X when it is made from X or that they only use free range humanely raised meats but source from conventional factory farms. Sometimes they get caught, like when Purina sued Blue Buffalo. but it wasn’t regulatory, more and more it is consumer driven class action suits trying to hold manufacturers accountable. The chance of oversite is virtually none.

I never judge a food by its ingredient list or claims of human grade, responsibly sourced blah blah blah. I look to see if I think the company IMO has a minimal basic level of honesty and integrity as best as I can judge those qualities, and I don’t set the bar very high because I haven’t found a company yet that doesn’t fall short.

Circling back to DCM, certain diets have been linked nutritional DCM, is the company “owning it” or are the making crap up to defend their profit? When megaesophagus was linked to a particular diet the company immediately pulled the food. That is what I want to see. If a company is putting out blatant misinformation and pseudoscience nonsense on their website and marketing materials than I don’t care what the label says, I won’t feed it

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

In regard to AAFCO .. is it perfect? Heck No!

The AAFCO profile is based on NRC nutrient recommendations which were established through research. In general, an AAFCO profile requires higher nutrient amounts than NRC to account for variable bioavailability. NRC cautions, when using their tables, if vitamins in the diet are coming from food ingredients and not a premix the numbers must be modified “because the natural forms of some vitamins have low bioavailabilites” In my mind it is a good thing that AAFCO is not identical to NRC.

My concern when a company reports that their diet meets AAFCO, and it does not, based on the information they provide, is not so much that the diet will cause immediate nutritional harm. The concern I have is with the company’s honesty, integrity, overall nutritional knowledge and understanding of food production.

I’ve seen this so many times with so many companies and how they respond can be a deal breaker for me. I don’t expect every batch of food to hit every level every time. There will be variability in ingredients, processing errors etc. BUT when a company sends me an analysis and appears to state that every number in that analysis, they sent to me meets or exceeds AAFCO min and it clearly does not, that to me is a BIG problem. Rightly or wrongly, I think if a company cannot see that the number 2 is less than the number 3 how can I expect them to understand the more complex intricacies of food production… I can’t!

In my experience, this is typically how these conversations go. I thank them for sending the information and ask them to clarify because it appears to me that what they sent does not meet AAFCO. The company often then replies that all of their nutrient levels meet AAFCO min. I may then ask if this is the most accurate up to date information they have or if anything needs updating or could they check the value for nutrient X to make sure there is not a “typo”. And they say everything is accurate and up to date. Then I may say I’m looking at your reported nutrient level for X , you report A, which you verified with me is not a typo and is the most updated and accurate nutritional information you have. The number given is below AAFCO min. which is B. Please explain. Then the company often replies they are in the middle of updating and the information sent doesn’t reflect their current analysis or some such variation of the above. In some cases, within minutes, the company changes the nutritional information on their website to reflect the number I just gave them, or they take down the webpage or remove the sentence I question. If I didn’t take screenshots you wouldn’t believe it. Sometimes the error is obvious, the number reported is less than AAFCO number, other times it is a matter of the company apparently not understanding that they have to correct their diet for energy density before comparing to the AAFCO profile.

Purina did a 14 year long life study using a food that contains garlic oil. I have no concern with the amount of garlic oil in the Purina products I use, I’ve had concerns with the amounts other companies seem to use. I once purchased a product because I wanted their illegal label. I opened it to dump the food and the garlic smell was overwhelming! At min, you could ask if the company put their food through a feeding trial and if so were there any changes in the blood parameters. It is a small number of dogs but something….

I feed a variety of kibble, canned and home cook prepared foods using Balance it. Since DCM, I primarily feed Purina Pro Plan as kibble base. I used to sometimes use a bit of Wellness Core or Annemaet or Iams/ Eukanuba kibble. For moist foods I’ve been using Purina, Hill’s, Eukanuba/Iams and Fresh Pet morsels as a C and B training “treat”. To this I add whatever fresh veggies or a bit of meat, sweet potato pasta/rice etc we have from our dinner.

I have noted coat changes when I rotated off Purina , increased shedding and flakes which she never had before and resolved when I returned to Pro Plan. No stool problems except for when I fed Honest Kitchen and had voluminous stools. I posted pics on that thread that showed the ingredients coming out appearing to me to be the same way as they went in.

Whenever someone says their dog has newfound energy after eating a raw diet what comes to mind was a dog’s thyroid level was something like 5 times normal after being on raw diet. The raw food company swore they were not using any neck trim, but the levels returned to normal after taking the dog off of the raw diet.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

You are spot on in your understanding that yeast infections in dogs are secondary to a primary problem. I suppose if dog had an allergy to the type of yeast used in selenium yeast, then exposure to that ingredient could contribute to a yeast overgrowth on the skin. The same would apply to any ingredient in any dog food.

If you go to the Natures Logic thread, you can read about my interactions with that company. I would not feel comfortable using any of the products they make.

I do not agree with Small Batch Company’s philosophy as I understand it to be and based on the current scientific literature, I believe statements made on their website are in error. Additionally, using the nutritional information they provided, it appears that there are either multiple errors in what they reported, or not all products meet the AFFCO min for the life stage they are labeled for, or some combination of those two scenarios. Either way, it does not give me confidence in this company.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I have no concerns with sodium selenite being used as a source of selenium.

You asked “..why Open Farm and Rawbbles use Selenium yeast if causes allergies”
The key word is “if”. Does Selenium yeast cause allergies? Is it a ” high allergy trigger”?

There is nothing in the literature to suggest this, nor is there support for the statement that “yeast in any form can be a high allergy trigger for many pets”

IMO this is marketing nonsense used for the purpose of a gaining sale. I think it could be that the company is ignorant of the role yeast (Malassezia) plays in allergic skin disease or they know and choose to use that information to spin a false narrative that may increase their sales. Personally, neither for me is a good look.

And if the company has a commitment to avoid including any common allergy triggers in the food they make, it IMO begs the question why they make so many diets with beef, which is reported to be the most frequent allergen in dogs?

In regard to garlic, it is my understanding that the FDA has given it GRAS status when used as a flavoring agent. You can aways ask the company what testing they have done to verify that the level in their food causes no harm.

Personally, after looking at Small Batch’s website, it is a company whose products I wouldn’t choose.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I too have gotten “the list” through the donations I’ve made, however I do not ever use it to guide what products I choose. I think her efforts are admirable, but after looking at nutritional analysis from products that have been on the list, directly interacting with the companies or reading FDA inspection reports from companies on “the list”, I find myself vehemently disagreeing with her choices. As I said, I think her personal beliefs cloud her judgement.

While the mechanism is still a mystery, the link between certain types of diet and DCM is very well supported. To the best of my knowledge there is no breed susceptibility that has been identified to this specific form of DCM.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I’m familiar with Susan Thixton and am a financial supporter. I appreciate her passion for shedding light on issues within the pet industry and for posting original documents acquired through FOIA.

However, while I support her core mission, I do find myself frequently disagreeing with her conclusions, for example her handling of DCM. I think her passion and beliefs cloud her judgement.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I assure you the information did not ome from a “kibble company which is losing money to non kibble raw brands” It is a closed group of independent shop owners and service providers. The threads there are some of the most interesting behind the scenes looks at the pet industry: moldy products, products that are frequently infested with the red legged ham beetle (apparently, it is routine for shop owners to freeze their dry natural chews upon arrival to try and kill them) products that come in with very offensive odors,

I have no reason not to believe this individual who is a staunch supporter of feeding raw foods, which IMO is why the information was posted, to inform other shop owners of this practice.

I have no desire to feed freeze dried food, just “not my jam” I do feed a wide variety of commercial foods and food types, along with home cooked. It isn’t uncommon for my dog to have products from 3 -4 different manufactures every day.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

I’m familiar with the HPP process but thank you for posting that information for others. I think that HPP is probably the most common method currently in use as a kill step, if a company is using a kill step.

I personally have had communication with three separate companies of freeze-dried products who reported that they heat the product after the freeze drying process. One company reported that they heated the product to 170 degrees and held it at that temperature for 1 hour.

I will not name the companies because their processes may or may not have changed since I talked to them, but at the time of conversation they reported that is what they did.

Microwaving was discussed in an industry forum, and it was disclosed who apparently was using this method as a kill step after the freeze-drying process. I’d consider the individual reporting on it fairly well known in the industry. They stated that they verified the claim.

I do agree kibble is a convenience food, just as are any of the commercially prepared diets, be they freeze dried, commercial raw, or canned.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia.

By writing “I agree that kibble should always have synthetic vitamins/minerals since Pet food manufacturers know their food is devoid of nutrition … so they add synthetic premixes. And pet owners know kibble isn’t as good as real food, so they add supplements.” in the post following my post, it makes it appear that you are agreeing with me.

I just want to clarify that I absolutely do not agree with the above statement. As I said, I believe such statements to be marketing spin.

It may interest you to know that in talking with multiple companies of freeze-dried products, I’ve found that some, including some of the companies you mentioned, have reported that after freeze drying the food, they heat and hold it at temps high enough to kill pathogens. Some companies shared they used conventional heat and others apparently by microwave. Yet they still market the food as “raw” which to me is odd since the times and temps they subject the food to are those used to cook food.

I do agree that the more you read the more confusing it can become. It is interesting to me to read publications put out by the pet industry. For example, food rotation is primarily recommended to guard against “out of stocks ” Shop keepers want to condition their customers to feel comfortable switching products so that if they are out of product A, they can sell you product B and keep the sale in house vs you going elsewhere for product A. Which brands they carry has to do with profit margin, availability and exclusivity. If /when a product enters new markets, making it easy for you to get it at other venues, shops will drop the line. Shops want you to have to return to them for purchase. Ditto for why some push frozen raw as “best”(it isn’t easily available online or in most larger stores). If someone else has exclusivity rights to a brand, a line within the brand or for brands that are widely available, shop owners may try to come up with reasons that sound plausible as to why they do not carry that product in an effort to try to switch you to a brand they can get. Shops offer sales contests, brands sponsor same. Get X number of people to switch to brand C (higher profit margin) and win a prize.
So yeah, it is confusing!

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

It is understandable why anyone would be confused.

What is known is that a form of DCM, a malady which is usually progressive and fatal, has been found to be reversible with diet change. Its development is associated with diets with pea and potato ingredients high in the ingredient list but has been seen in a variety of diets including raw.

On one hand we have veterinary cardiologists and nutritionists doing research and reporting findings in an effort to prevent further cases and deaths. On the other hand, is the pet industry and legume industry who IMO are distributing information/misinformation an effort to retain sales.

Some companies with small market share have a large percentage of cases, and other companies with large market share, for all practical purposes haven’t had confirmed cases even though they sell diets high in suspect ingredients.

I don’t think I can say that all grain free diets or diets using suspect ingredients are bad, some are likely very good, but how do we identify them? IMO it isn’t necessarily the presence of an ingredient but the overall formulation of the diet. Some companies apparently do use and have used these ingredients successfully. Hill’s Pet Nutrition to the best of my knowledge has not had any reported cases in the diet you mentioned or their therapeutic diets which appear to be high in potato. Tha said until more is known I choose not to feed diets high in suspect ingredients until more is known.

In the face of incomplete information, veterinarians, who have pet’s health as their primary interest, are making recommendations. Vets often make health recommendations with incomplete information. IMO they are a conservative bunch putting health first, figure out the cause later. don’t gamble. 1. Avoid diets with suspect ingredients high on the ingredient list 2. Feed products with large market share that do not have case reports. To take it one step further feed diets from companies that have proven themselves by making diets that reverse this condition. If a dog needs to be on a diet with suspect ingredients, screen every 6 months for DCM by echocardiology.

Aflatoxin is a concern with both grains and non-grain ingredients but more so with grains. Diligent screening of ingredients prevents this toxicity in pet foods just as it does in human foods. Company matters

I’m suspect of any diet that does not use added vitamins/minerals. According to NRC natural source are often not bioavailable and the levels were based on bioavailable sources. Personally, I think this statement “Synthetic vitamin packs are always added to highly processed dog food because nutrients are cooked out due to the high heat.” has a strong element of marketing spin.

I think this is how we all feel “I can only HOPE I’m making an educated choice” The criteria I use i know are not what others use. Everyone has their own philosophy. I tend to avoid small companies.

If I was going to look for a freeze dried, I’d probably start with Natures Variety. Other companies making freeze dried and raw foods have failed to meet my criteria.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

To be clear then, are you saying that you asked, “Why is Science Diet still selling grain free food with peas’ as second ingredient?” when you have no direct knowledge that Science Diet actually is selling a diet with peas as the second ingredient? That’s seems odd to me.

Unfortunately, the myths and facts you posted appears to have been written for the purpose of confusing the consumer. This is evident by its use of the “straw man’s argument” which is a logic fallacy.

I suspect it was written by someone in the pet industry with a vested interest in selling suspect diets.

[aimee]

My understanding is that there are reports of non taurine DCM in cats eating suspect diets who have had longer survival times if diet after diet change. So it appears that there could be an association. Case numbers appear to be fairly rare compared to cases in dogs. Here is a survey you might find interesting.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34963075/

Personally, I think that since apparently there are no dietary DCM cases reported in dogs on the therapeutic diets with suspect ingredients and so few reports overall in cats I would think the risk very very low but not zero.

For cats who do not have a medical for need a diet high in suspect ingredients I would avoid them.

For cats who need a diet high in a suspect ingredient due to another medical condition I think it is an issue best discussed with your veterinarian.

[aimee]

Personally, I think regulatory really dropped the ball for consumers. I’m not aware of any follow-up testing after declaring their initial tests inconclusive. I suspect perhaps they ran out of funds to devote to the issue.

It is rather disheartening that the case is progressing so slowly. Apparently, a third-party expert has done a site visit and the case is still active. Earth Animal, to the best of my knowledge has not issued any formal updates after this visit took place.

Personally, I’d encourage anyone interested in the issue to soak both a No Hide and labeled rawhide in non- iodized salt water until well hydrated, let it partially dry and then apply a tanning process to each product and decide for themselves.

[aimee]

Hi Patricia,

Which formula you are referring to?

From my understanding, currently, there have not been documented cases of dietary DCM when using therapeutic veterinary diets from Hill’s, Purina and Royal Canin containing suspect ingredients. ( There is a documented taurine case from U/D)

I think it is possible to make a well formulated diet using suspect ingredients, but personally, I avoid diets with suspect ingredients high up in the ingredient list no matter who makes them. If I needed to feed such a diet, I’d screen for DCM every 6 months via echocardiogram by a boarded cardiologist.

[aimee]

Something to keep in mind are legal ramifications. Apparently, some companies making suspect diets are investing heavily in legal services, sending cease and desist letters and calling individuals to threaten them with litigation. Veterinarians, breeders and people with a social media influence who have provided diet advice based on current science have all been targeted.

IMO there is a strong disinformation campaign coming from industry, not unlike that which occurred after cancer was first linked to smoking. It appears that there is heavy funding by the legume industry and manufacturers of suspect diets.

To keep up with current research on this issue visit https://www.alltradesdvm.com/topics/diet-associated-dcm/dcm-research-list?fbclid=IwAR1DCX5vNToay8o_t3oDSgc51mkz78Zyb1BOYtcMCJF7gH66ZJSUdWedRJw

[Author]

Posts