Pet Supply Verified Weblog

Apparently the FDA has not found any contaminants in the jerky treats that were under investigation for a possible link to illness in some pet dogs. It is still possible that something may be found, but not highly probable. It may be that there is nothing to find or could be that we don’t know what to look for. The good news is that the Bravo! recall of jerky treats is the (knock on wood) last pet related recall that is on the FDA website.

We are in a new era of food safety and really safety in general. The food that we feed to our pets is not exempt from the same risks and concerns that our foods are subject to. The pet food manufacturers are just as aware and concerned about these issues as you and I. The additional screenings, new quality programs (like Pet Supply Verified), and extreme vigilance on the part of pet owners and veterinarians will help quickly identify any future issues that may arise.

Thank you to David Primrose for this guest contribution to the PSV blog. David is a graduate food technologist based in the UK. He has 30 years of experience in the pet food industry both working for large manufacturers and in his own consulting business, Synergy Food Ingredients. David’s expertise is centered on critical areas of materials quality especially raw material risk assessment, development and factory implementation of new raw materials and supplier quality assurance. He also has global experience of developing, implementing, running supplier quality assurance programs and carrying out supplier audits in Europe and Asia.

For some people the desire to make money by any means is very powerful and motivates them to such an extent that they push up to and beyond the boundaries of acceptability on food safety and legality.

Many column inches have been devoted to the Chinese wheat gluten scandal in Spring 2007 but they graphically illustrate what happens when the boundaries of acceptability are pushed too far.

The assignable causes are the subject of on-going investigations by the US and Chinese authorities and are likely to involve many different factors. A key factor is the effect of protein content on the market price of commodities like wheat gluten, rice gluten and corn gluten. In simple terms, as protein level increases, the market price also increases.

This opens the door for unscrupulous individuals to find fraudulent and unethical opportunities to pump up the protein content and make a fast buck. In the case of the current scandal, this was achieved by the addition of nitrogen-rich melamine and subsequently cheaper melamine scrap to wheat gluten to artificially pump up the protein content.

There have been dire effects in the wake of the Chinese wheat gluten scandal from the farmer’s field to the feeding bowl. Ingredient manufacturers, Chinese authorities, traders, pet food manufacturers, retailers, through to the pets and their owners have all been affected.

Wide ranging knock-on effects include the execution of a senior Chinese food safety regulatory official, litigation against companies in the supply chain, the needless death of pets and loss of sales. The loss of revenue in the pet food industry alone currently runs to tens of millions of dollars.

The impact on China’s exports will be even greater and long term, as incidents like the wheat gluten scandal and others like the use of lead paint on toys, toxic diethylene glycol in toothpaste and cough syrup, illegal levels of antibiotics in shrimp etc have left many around the globe questioning safety associated with the “Made in China” declaration.

Arguably the greatest cost to the pet food industry, of the Chinese wheat gluten scandal, is the loss of confidence in the supply chain stretching all the way from farmers’ field to feeding bowl. The onus is now on the pet food industry to rebuild customers’ faith and confidence in the quality and food safety of the pet food they feed their cats and dogs. However, this process doesn’t start and end at the pet food manufacturer factory gates, it is essential that focus is throughout the supply chain.

As part of the Chinese and US authorities’ investigations into the assignable causes of the scandal, the supplier quality assurance process is under the microscope.

Supplier quality assurance (SQA) or vendor assurance (VA) provides pet food producers with evidence that the supplier is controlling both the quality (functionality) and food safety of the ingredients being supplied. There are many approaches to this, one of the most important being supplier audits, a process that has been around the pet food industry for over 25 years. Whilst it can’t protect against fraudulent procedures, it provides “due diligence defence” should you be called to court to explain how you make sure your pet food is “safe”.

The latest issue of “Petfood Industry” (September 2007) reports that melamine adulteration of Chinese wheat gluten has allegedly been on-going for many years and previously been undetected. In light of this and the fact that “formalised” supplier auditing (written supplier audit documents and reports) is over 25 years old, it is now time for the industry to look at how it carries out SQA and to update the approach to meet customers’ needs today.

Pet Supply Verified offers a range of customer focused solutions for building confidence in the pet food industry designed to meet the needs of the 21st century.

In terms of supplier quality assurance, one solution is the development of supplier audit systems based on the well established USDA verification platform used in the human food sector. Audits are then carried out at ingredient suppliers by independent, impartial auditors. Depending on customer needs, the audit system can be based on their own audit system or designed with the customer and Pet Supplied Verified independent Technical Advisory Team of industry experts and veterinarians.

Whilst it may take time for confidence to be fully restored, Pet Supply Verified provides tools to help rebuild faith in the quality and safety of pet food at all stages of the supply chain from ingredients suppliers to the feeding bowl.

I read an interesting article the other day about the recall and pet food safety. If you will recall, when the recall was first announced in the early spring 2007, it was initially not known what the toxin was that had gotten into the pet foods that were causing illness and death. It took a significant amount of effort by various laboratories and organizations to eventually discover the melamine in the pet food samples. Once the melamine was found, veterinary experts were still baffled. Melamine is thought to be a relatively non-toxic substance, so why was it causing so much trouble?

One theory that exists currently is that the Chinese manufacturers that had been using the melamine in the grain protein ingredients to boost the protein content and their profit margin decided to go one step further. They began buying “melamine scrap” instead of pure melamine. Melamine scrap is the solid waste product that comes from the manufacture of plastic using melamine. There is a significant amount of waste water that is produced in the melamine industry and this polluted water must be disposed of properly. The easiest way to dispose of it is to turn it into a solid, 70% melamine and 30% other chemicals. This solid scrap was bought up by the Chinese manufacturers and blended in with ordinary wheat flour to raise the protein to a level that is acceptable for wheat gluten.

Unfortunately, one of the chemicals that made up the 30% balance in the scrap was cyanuric acid. This acid binds to melamine and forms crystals in the kidneys of dogs and cats. These crystals caused the renal failure that was so devastating to pets in the United States and elsewhere.

I suppose someone may have gotten rich from this short-lived scheme, but more likely than not they are paying the price. If these tainted ingredients had been sold only to Chinese pet food manufacturers, it is possible that we never would have heard of this problem. The fact that they tainted pet foods here in the U.S. led to a relatively rapid (depending on your perspective on this) recall and investigation.

Apparently the issue with jerky treats for dogs is ongoing. Earlier news reported that Wal-mart pulled 2 varieties of jerky treats for dogs from their shelves because of customer complaints of pet illness. Both varieties were imported from China. Now the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) and the FDA are all discussing and investigating numerous dog illnesses, possibly associated with chicken jerky treats imported from China. While the FDA does not have a lot to say about the investigation as it is still pending, they have announced that they did not detect melamine (the chemical responsible for the massive recalls of the spring 2007) and that to date they have not detected any contaminants that could be responsible for the illnesses.

The dogs that have been ill have shown lethargy, vomiting, anorexia and/or diarrhea. These symptoms do not indicate a particular condition, but can be symptoms of many different diseases. Laboratory testing shows that blood electrolytes, particularly potassium, are at abnormal levels. These dogs require potassium supplementation, potentially even after the dog goes home from the hospital. The diagnosis of a kidney disease, called Fanconi syndrome, seems to go along with these illnesses. The Fanconi syndrome results from some toxic insult to the part of the kidneys called the tubules. A urinalysis should be run to look for sugar, which is present in the urine even though it is not elevated in the blood. A history of eating jerky treats several weeks prior to the onset of the illness, along with low potassium levels in the blood and a low blood pH (acidosis) and positive urinalysis results, supports the diagnosis of a food related issue.

As the FDA investigates, it will be interesting to see if a toxin turns up in the analysis of the treats. If one does not, it is impossible to know if there is truly something in these treats that has caused the illness in these dogs. One might question whether someone is deliberately adding something to treats or foods and then observing to see what the results are. Whether this was intended to reach the shelves or not will likely never be known. This is certainly a time for heightened awareness to the things that we feed our pets, but also to the things that we eat ourselves and offer to our families to eat. I find myself wondering more and more about what will happen next. A food safety revolution is on the horizon and things must change in order for us to be confident that we have a safe food supply. Who is responsible for ensuring the food is safe? The FDA, the manufacturer, the ingredient supplier? Manufacturers and importers of human foodstuffs and pet food ingredients or products need to get programs in place to ensure to their utmost ability that the foods they are delivering to the shelves are safe and free of known contaminants.

We can’t stop relying on foreign markets to provide us with the things we need, but we can certainly add protocols to ensure the safety of those things.

The FDA announced yet another pet food recall this week. This time a raw, frozen diet for dogs and cats under the brand name Bravo! was recalled for bacterial contamination with Salmonella and Listeria. This follows the investigation announced last week of various jerky treats manufactured in China that seem to be causing unusual kidney disease in dogs and there is yet to be a determination of what is in the treats that is causing the problem.

In the May edition of Pet Age magazine, a survey of 319 pet specialty retailers revealed some interesting information. A full 69% of the retailers surveyed reported that they have experienced an increase in the sales of natural and organic pet foods. Even more interesting, 35.4% of the respondents reported an increase in the sales of fresh and raw pet foods. Maybe this increase has caught the attention of the FDA who are now being more diligent in their random testing of raw diets – thus finding these bacterial contaminations that have prompted several additional recalls in the recent past.

The good news is that Salmonella and Listeria, while they do cause illness, often do not cause serious illness except in immuno-compromised individuals. It is important to understand though, that children are considered immuno-compromised because their immune systems are not fully developed. If there are young children in the house, it would be wise to seriously consider the ramifications of a Salmonella outbreak because of the raw diet that is being fed to the pets in the house.

While many key players in the pet food industry feel that things have stabilized, it seems to me that we are in for a long-term roller coaster ride. Pet Supply Verified is offering solutions to manufacturers and ingredient suppliers to help ensure the safety of the products that are on the shelves and being fed to our pets.

Interesting, huh? A recent article on CNNMoney’s website announced that the United States imported more goods from China than any other nation. This was based on July’s figures. We have had almost daily breaking news since March regarding the questionable safety of various items coming into this country, particularly from China. And we continue to bring in more goods from that country than anywhere else. Why?

Well, price is a tremendous factor. We do have to wonder now whether the low cost of goods is worth it, with scares about melamine in pet food, chemicals in toothpaste, lead in toys and unidentified toxins in pet treats. However, companies have chosen to keep prices low and use less expensive parts, ingredients, or actual goods imported from abroad. This is business and it is certainly not evil, but our US businesses now need to be more mindful of the old adage “too good to be true”. When wheat gluten can be purchased for a fraction of its usual price, maybe we should not just blindly purchase, but question whether or not we are truly getting what we think we are paying for.

Availability is another factor that is a real issue. We do have to be aware that some pet food ingredients are just not available in adequate supply to meet the needs of all the pet food manufacturers. These include certain amino acids, such as taurine. As most people know, taurine is a required nutrient without which cats would develop heart failure and blindness. We can’t stop using certain ingredients in pet food so we will have to scrutinize these imports more closely. Pet Supply Verified offers programs to help manufacturers and ingredient suppliers to do just that. Companies are going to have to rely on third parties to help them verify the quality and safety of their ingredients. It is just too big a job and too important a job to leave it to internal groups who are charged with guarding profit margins, after all this is business.

AAFCO, or the Association of American Feed Control Officials publishes a manual every year that lists all approved food ingredients and their allowed amounts and purpose within a formula. Individual state Departments of Agriculture review pet food packaging to ensure that manufacturers are following the rules. There is a specific process for approval of new pet food ingredients, involving AAFCO and the FDA. This process of a new ingredient obtaining approval is quite lengthy so sometimes manufacturers ignore the fact that an ingredient is not on the list of approved ingredients. One such example is the use of glucosamine and chondroitin in pet foods. These two ingredients have been studied extensively and veterinarians agree that they are safe and effective. Many pet food manufacturers also agree that these ingredients are beneficial for pets and have decided to include them, despite the fact that they are not approved. Most states will turn a blind eye to the use of these ingredients as long as they do not exceed specific levels set by the state of Texas and as long as they are in dog foods, not cat foods.

So, how do manufacturers choose which ingredients to use in their recipes? Certainly the nutritional content of the individual ingredients plays a large role in the combination that ends up in the bag. Cat foods typically have higher levels of protein than dog foods, so high protein ingredients must be selected. These include dry protein sources such as chicken meal or chicken by-product meal. Consumer pressure to use certain ingredients will guide the selection, but not always for the benefit of the animals eating the food. Such an example is the use of various protein meals. Chicken by-product meal is not widely accepted as a quality pet food ingredient. Chicken meal is viewed by the pet food consumer as a much better ingredient. Unfortunately, chicken meal is typically much higher in ash content than chicken by-product meal. Ash is the mineral content of the ingredient and is responsible for contributing calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium to the recipe. High levels of these minerals can be harmful to the overall health of the pet eating the food, especially if the pet has existing kidney disease or urinary tract disease.

Some pet food companies have resisted the push by consumers to eliminate certain ingredients, continuing to consider the health of the pet as THE purpose for their food. Balancing “acceptable” ingredients with the ideal healthy choices is a challenge for pet food manufacturers moving forward. An additional challenge that has arisen is the safety of pet food ingredients from previously unknown contaminants. This issue is the motivating force behind Pet Supply Verified, a program being offered to the pet food industry to help ensure the safety of the ingredients that are being used in their foods.

Procter & Gamble, manufacturers of Iams and Eukanuba pet foods, reported a decline in the pet food sector of their business. It seems that the impact on the pet food industry of the recalls last spring may have just taken some time to be realized.

“Unfortunately, even though these wet and semi-moist products are a small, less than 10% of our product line, we frankly got hit pretty hard,” stated A.G. Lafley, P&G CEO and chairman. Even though P&G’s larger dry food business was unaffected by the recall, many have speculated, due to dropping sales and shares, that P&G may sell their Iams and Eukanuba brands. From Pet Food Industry

Pet Food Institute, an organization representing the pet food industry, reported the results of a survey shortly after the recall that said 70% of the individuals surveyed had not lost confidence in the industry and were continuing to feed their regular pet food diet.

I’m not sure when the survey was taken or who the respondents were, but it seems that the impact on the industry has been  greater than would be felt with only 30% of the respondents admitting that they were making a change.

So, MSNBC reported today (from the AP wire) that back in July, Wal-Mart pulled two different brands of dog jerky treats from the shelves. Testing is ongoing, but the treats were pulled because of an unspecified number of consumer complaints of pet illness associated with the consumption of the treats. The treats not only were pulled from the shelves, but the cash registers were programmed so that the packages could not be purchased (so if a package got put in the wrong aisle and a customer happened across it after wondering why they weren’t on the shelf, thinking how lucky they are to have the very last package, they could not leave the store with it). To me, this sounds like a pretty serious action over a few customer complaints.

I wonder how many complaints there were, or what they were, or why this was not reported to the FDA? Wal-mart chose to handle the investigation and action at the retail level on its own, or at least this is how the news report makes it sound.

If I were a pet food or pet treat manufacturer, this would make me very worried. Typically the manufacturer is responsible for investigating and handling complaints. These treats were imported from China, so maybe this was not a possibility, but what if it was a name brand dog food or dog treat made right here in the US? It seems the pet food recall has put enough pressure on retailers, or at least on this specific retailer, that they have decided to take matters into their own hands.

This points out the need for a centralized reporting system for pet food and pet treat problems or suspected problems. Although this sounds overwhelming, with the large number of treats and foods out there, it would greatly improve the ability of all parties involved to determine if there really is a problem and when the problem occurred (or what lot number it was associated with).

What do you think about this? Should retailers handle consumer complaints on their own, or should they forward them to the manufacturer or to some other source? How should they determine whether the complaints are valid? An example would be a complaint of diarrhea or vomiting – if the real story of the puppy eating a whole bag of treats or having a brand new kind of food without a transition were to come out, we would have a very simple medical explanation for the digestive upset and quickly can determine that absolutely nothing is wrong with the treat or food.