6000 pet food recall claims, $24 million settlement

Almost 6,000 claims have been filed in a class-action settlement stemming from last year’s massive petfood recall.   If you need to file a claim:  Pet food recall claims

Menu Foods, other pet food makers and retailers in May agreed to set up a US$24 million cash fund to compensate pet owners whose cats and dogs became sick or died after eating food that had a contaminated ingredient from China. The filing period for claims began May 30, 2008 and will run until November 24, 2008.

Mars Petcare Recalls Dog Food

From Pet Food Industry:

Mars said it issued the recall after a component of the food that tested positive for Salmonella was inadvertently shipped.

Mars Petcare US, the company which also manufactures the recently scrutinized Nutro line of dog food, recalled 100 of its 20-pound bags of Pedigree Complete Nutrition Small Crunchy Bites. The recall is a result of a logistical error, according to the company. Mars said it issued the recall after a component of the food that tested positive for Salmonella was inadvertently shipped to its Tracy, California, USA-based plant.

More here: Mars Petcare Recalls Dog Food and here: Pedigree recalls bagged variety of pet food

FDA Discusses Pet Food Labeling and Safety

FDA discusses pet food labeling and safety

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held public meetings over two consecutive days in mid-May to discuss issues pertaining to pet foods. The first meeting invited comment on implementation of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), while in the second meeting the agency provided an update on its Animal Feed Safety System (AFSS).

Not much debate on FDAAA

Among the mandates imposed under the new law, FDA has until September 2009 to promulgate new regulations relating to labeling, nutrition and ingredient standards for pet foods.

To assist in the process, FDA provided a series of questions in a federal register notice on which it sought input. The questions were open ended; for example, “How can the feeding directions already present on the label be improved?” and “What kind of ingredient definitions would provide adequate information?”and touched on a wide array of pet food issues. It was hoped these questions would prompt considerable discussion at the meeting.

While reasonably well attended, the meeting did not spark much public debate. FDA purposefully had little to say (the meeting was to collect outside opinions, and assumedly the agency did not want to hinder that process by espousing any preconceived positions of its own).

Only three outside groups offered verbal comments:

• The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) made some brief remarks regarding implications new federal regulations would have on the current state regulatory oversight of petfoods;
• The American Veterinary Medical Association voiced support for mandatory calorie content statements on dog and cat foods and put forth a very interesting proposal to require a “not evaluated by FDA” disclaimer on petfoods bearing health-related claims; and
• Defend Our Pets, a consumer advocacy organization formed as a result of last year’s recalls, made the most extensive comments. The group presented a long list of suggestions, including some form of country of origin labeling (e.g., disclaimers when the product contains ingredients from countries that do not meet US standards) and “total elimination” of what it considers confusing and misleading labeling requirements (apparently from the AAFCO Model Pet Food Regulations). This organization also recommended actions beyond FDA’s authority to implement on its own (e.g., mandatory recall authority, approval of grants by petfood companies to veterinary schools).

Scheduled for a full day, the meeting lasted only a couple of hours, even with a long break in the middle. Because the due date for submission of written comments on this matter was a month later, most organizations with a stake in the matter decided to withhold verbal comment until they could evaluate the comments of others and react at a later time.

In fact, the written comments, posted on www.regulations.gov (re: Docket #FDA-2007-N-0442), are extensive and include input from many organizations, including the Pet Food Institute, the American Feed Industry Association and both the American College and Academy of Veterinary Nutrition.

Questions about AFSS

FDA has been working on AFSS for a number of years prior to passage of FDAAA in an effort to develop a comprehensive, risk-based approach to animal feed safety, including pet food safety. The agency has held a number of meetings on the subject over the past few years (see Petfood Industry Magazine, August 2007 and November 2006).

The May 2008 meeting was held to give an update on FDA’s progress as it further refines the AFSS. Compared to the previous day’s meeting on FDAAA, this meeting did last a much greater portion of the scheduled full day, primarily because FDA gave a number of presentations that prompted some questions from the attendees.

A key point of progress included a revised draft of the AFSS framework document. It identifies gaps FDA sees in the present oversight of feed safety and proposes means by which those gaps can be addressed.

For example, FDA considers lack of a comprehensive list of all ingredients allowed in animal feeds as a part of its own regulations to be a deficiency. However, the recently signed memorandum of understanding between FDA and AAFCO that allows the former greater oversight of the latter’s ingredient approval process, as well as plans to finalize and implement the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) notification rule, is proposed to help address this gap.

Much of the meeting focused on FDA’s continued efforts to rank the relative risk of chemical and microbiological feed contaminants for the purpose of establishing, in part, enforcement priorities and allocation of resources. This is accomplished by a process of assigning scores to rate the potential health consequences of and likelihood of exposure to various contaminants, which eventually results in a number that can be compared to those calculated for other contaminants. Unfortunately, the very detailed presentations at the May meeting on how to do the ranking do not appear to be posted on the agency’s website as of the time of this writing.

Separate pet foods from feed?

AFSS is intended to address pet food as well as livestock feed safety. To me, this makes sense, as it would allow for a more effective and efficient program to the benefit of all. Interestingly enough, Defend Our Pets is adamantly opposed to grouping petfood with feed in the system. Notwithstanding that AFSS has been in development since 2003, the consumer group believes AFSS would “dilute the intent and authority” of FDAAA.

In fact, while FDA is currently trying to extend and incorporate the FDAAA mandates into the system, Defend Our Pets apparently perceives an AFSS that includes petfood to be little more than a veiled effort to diffuse attention away from the petfood industry.

New Aflatoxin Test Released

See www.vicam.com:

VICAM has expanded their line of mycotoxin test kits to include AflaCheck: a qualitative, one step immunoassay method for the detection of aflatoxin. AflaCheck provides fast and accurate, yes or no results for the presence of aflatoxin at levels as low as 10 ppb, according to the company, with an alternative testing protocol for detecting levels in excess of 20 ppb and improving pet food safety. VICAM also states that this test is able to provide results in as little as 3 minutes, in the field or in the lab, and without the use of expensive equipment or reagent chemicals.

FDA Gives Pet Food a Loophole to By-Pass Law

From the American Chronicle

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) is a set of laws passed by Congress in 1938 giving authority to the FDA to oversee and take legal action to protect the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics – there have been many revisions over the years. According to FFDCA the definition of ´food´ is: “Food” means articles used for food or drink for man or other animals and components of such articles (section 201 (f)). That definition is very clear – FFDCA covers food for humans and animals; our pets would be considered ´animals´ under the law.

[...]

Our FDA friends have provided an official loophole to allow pet food to by-pass the law. Section 690.300 of the compliance manual states: “Pet food consisting of material from diseased animals or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter, which is in violation of 402 (a) (5) will not ordinarily be actionable, if it is not otherwise in violation of the law. It will be considered fit for animal consumption.” The law clearly states ´food´ means human and animal food, the law clearly prohibits use of diseased animals in food or animals which have died other than by slaughter in food; yet millions of U.S. pets every single day are eating a pet food that contains diseased euthanized animals. Thanks a lot for that FDA.

See the rest of the article: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/70261

Report Links 2006 Salmonella Infections to Dry Dog Food

Report links 2006 Salmonella infections to dry dog food

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have revealed a strong link of Salmonella infection in humans to contaminated dry dog food, the first time such a link has been uncovered, according to US officials. Furthermore, Salmonella infections from dry dog food may be an under-recognized source of illness in people, especially young children, officials from the CDC said. “This is the first time human illness has been linked to dry dog food,” said CDC epidemiologist Dr. Casey Barton Behravesh, who co-authored a report on the finding.

The CDC isn’t sure how the Salmonella bacteria got into the pet food. “There are a number of possible ways that that could happen, and that’s something we are still trying to figure out,” Dr. Barton Behravesh said, adding that there have been previous cases of people contracting Salmonella infection from contaminated pet treats. The incidents of people becoming infected with Salmonella from dry dog food occurred in 2006 and 2007.

An estimated 70 people, mostly in the Northeast region of the US, were infected by dog food produced by Mars Petcare at its Pennsylvania, USA plant. About 40% of those infections involved infants, according to the report, published in the May 16, 2008 issue of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Most of the cases occurred in Pennsylvania (29), New York (nine) and Ohio (seven). There were also reported cases in Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Carolina and Virginia. No deaths were reported, according to the report. No pets became ill. However, Salmonella was identified in feces samples from dogs that ate the dry food.

In addition, Salmonella was found in open bags of the petfood fed to the dogs and in unopened bags of dog food made in the Pennsylvania, USA plant, the CDC said. Mars Petcare voluntarily recalled some bags of the two pet food brands of food involved, but neither of the recalled brands was related to human illness.

Salmonella infection typically comes from undercooked eggs, poultry, or meat, but can also result from direct contact with farm animals, reptiles and pets. To prevent infection, the CDC recommends consumers wash their hands immediately after handling the food, including dry dog food. “The most important thing is to wash your hands right after you handle any dry dog food, any other petfood, pet treats, even supplements or vitamins,” Barton Behravesh said. “In addition, keep infants and other young children away from petfood, because kids tend to want to see what their dogs are eating and grab at it and play with it or even put it in their mouth.”

AVMA Urges Pet Food Makers to List Calories on Packaging

AVMA urges pet food makers to list calories

Future pet food labels that indicate the number of calories per serving could help obese pets shed extra pounds, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has recommended to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “Pet owners do not always know how much to feed. They may not realize the high number of calories associated with some of the petfood,” said John Branam, testifying on behalf of the AVMA.

The FDA held the hearing last week as part of legislation last year requiring the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) to establish pet food labeling standards in two years. According to the AVMA, 54 million pets in the US are obese, an “epidemic” that the association says is growing at an alarming rate.

But Nancy Cook, vice president of the Pet Food Institute’s technical and regulatory affairs, said calorie labels are unnecessary and won’t prevent obesity in pets. Many petfood labels already contain serving sizes based on a pet’s size. Calorie information can be obtained from food manufacturers, Cook also said.

But the AVMA said it’s not the jobs of consumers and veterinarians to track down pet food manufacturers for that information. A standard nutritional label that lists the number of calories per weight of food and per household items such as a can or a cup would prevent owners from overfeeding their pets, the AVMA said. The information also would help consumers and veterinarians compare and choose the best food product, Branam said. For example, two cups of one product could have the same calories as one cup of another product.

Pet Food Settlement Reached, Gets Initial Approval

Pet food settlement reached, gets initial approval

A Camden, New Jersey, USA judge granted initial approval late last week to the settlement in which companies that manufactured or sold contaminated pet food would compensate pet owners for all costs related to the death or illness of their dogs and cats. Under the deal, granted initial approval by U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman, pet owners in the United States and Canada would be notified of the settlement by June 16, 2008 and would have until early December to submit claims. A final hearing on the US$24 million settlement is scheduled for October 14, 2008, according to the Associated Press. The US$24 million sum is in addition to the US$8 million already paid to some pet owners.

The settlement doesn’t pay pet owners for pain and suffering from injuries to their pets.The settlement allows pet owners to apply for expenses associated with deaths and illnesses, including the costs of veterinarians, time missed from work to care for sick animals, replacement pets, burial expenses and even property damaged because animals got sick. The companies, including Menu Foods, will create a fund allowing consumers to recover up to 100% of their money damages, if they can document their claim, lawyers representing both sides said. Pet owners can request up to US$900 for undocumented claims in case they didn’t save all their receipts. Owners can also be reimbursed if they had their dogs screened for contaminated food – even if they turned out to be healthy. Plaintiffs lawyers are seeking US$6 million of the settlement in fees. Money left over after all claims are paid is to go to animal-welfare charities.

Pet Food Ingredients Under the Microscope

Ingredients under the microscope

Laboratories discuss ingredient testing worldwide

With the recent recall of pet foods fresh on the mind of the industry, pet food safety testing is a topic of interest to just about everyone involved in petfood production. Petfood Industry asked several analytical laboratories their opinion on the top safety issues today inpet food production. We also asked them to give us some insight into the most current testing technologies available.

According to Lars Reimann, chief scientific officer for Eurofins Scientific Inc., three main groups of top ingredient safety issues face petfood manufacturers today. These issues are:

Adulteration/mislabeling (GMOs, diluting more expensive products with less expensive products, natural/organic versus regular products);

Known toxic residues (allergens, heavy metals, pesticides, drug residues, dioxins, microbial contamination); and

Unknown residues (melamine, acetaminophen, bioterrorism toxins, unknown toxic by-products formed during the manufacturing process such as heat-generated toxins like acrylamide, benzene, furans and 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol).

Global sourcing expands the issues

Reimann notes that the challenge to the industry is to ensure that the ingredients/products it buys at a good price are sufficiently safe for their intended use. Global sourcing has expanded the issues that need to be considered, as well as reduced the responsibility/trust factor between buyer and seller. However, technologies have also evolved that allow regulators and others to test for an ever-increasing number of residues present with increasingly lower detection limits. The real challenge is to educate the consumer, regulators and the industry itself on what constitutes “real” hazards versus “perceived” hazards, he says.

Reimann believes there are improvements continuously being made on the analytics front. “However, the scope of compounds of concern seems to grow as fast (or faster) than the improvements in analytical instrumentation and processes,” he says.

France and Germany: similar/different issues

Outside the US, perception of the top pet food safety issues facing manufacturers differs slightly. Michele Lees of Eurofins in France notes that the most pressing issues include adulteration of pet food ingredients; external contaminants; accidental contamination from dioxins, etc.; naturally occurring contaminants (or contaminants formed from nontoxic ingredients); mycotoxins; and toxic chemicals formed by reaction of nontoxic ingredients (benzene, furan).

According to Werner Nader of Eurofins in Germany, ingredient scandals in the feed industry over the past decade have shadowed the petfood industry in that country. Genetically modified ingredients (a politically charged issue in Europe) in petfood are also quite commonly seen due to cross-contamination at the supplier. Because of the common supply chain for ingredients for feed and petfood, strict controls on the supply side have to be maintained, he says.

Mycotoxins still play a role

Dr. John Richard, a consultant for Romer Labs, sees mycotoxins as a major concern for most pet food manufacturers across the country and internationally. He notes that most petfood companies test for aflatoxins; however, most of them test every ingredient, and that is not necessary as aflatoxins do not occur in all ingredients. “Therefore, many companies are wasting money testing for these mycotoxins,” he says.

Knowing what tolerance levels exist is important, and guidance is available from the US Food and Drug Administration for the major mycotoxins relative to levels of concern in petfood. “Regarding mycotoxin testing, I encourage companies to put some on the suppliers of the ingredients to test and certify that the ingredient contains no detectable, or at least acceptable (at or below the tolerance levels), levels of specified mycotoxins,” he notes.

Richard indicates that there are many studies ongoing at present to reduce the levels of mycotoxin contamination in the field. These are most specifically pointed at reducing the levels of aflatoxins in commodities through genetic means (biocontrol and breeding). There are some very rapid, accurate and reliable tests on the market today that allow for testing of a number of mycotoxins within a few minutes, he says.

There are new tests being developed all the time by test kit manufacturers and the effort is to make them as fast as possible but not lose accuracy and reliability, according to Richard. The most recent developments in tests for mycotoxins include lateral flow tests. These tests are rapid and most are semi-quantitative, whereby a cutoff value is associated with the test and running the test on a sample will tell you if it is above or below that cutoff level, he notes.

Monitoring quality is an ongoing process

Patricia Jackson, business development manager, diagnostics for VICAM, realizes that in today’s global marketplace, ingredient suppliers face the challenge of providing a consistent and traceable supply of ingredients that will meet the standards of a diverse market. She says that petfood manufacturers do a “fantastic job of monitoring the quality of their ingredients and finished products,” so the most likely source of safety issues could be from unexpected or unintended components added to an ingredient prior to its delivery.

New technologies and new applications for existing technologies are rising to meet the need for more comprehensive screening of raw ingredients, according to Jackson. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR), the electronic nose and high-performance liquid chromatography (with mass spectrometry for increased sensitivity and specificity) are just a few she mentions. Each of these technologies offers advantages in detecting undesirable or foreign components in a feed ingredient. In addition, rapid technologies make it possible to screen ingredients as they arrive at the plant.

Audit programs are key

Dr. Scott Brooks, chief operating officer for Food Safety Net Services, recognizes that robust quality assurance programs to verify the quality and safety of ingredients are of critical importance in the safety of petfoods. According to Brooks, these programs, if executed with skill, address ingredient safety issues systematically rather than attempting to tackle individual issues (e.g., melamine). “Petfood companies need to ensure microbial, chemical and physical specifications are set for all ingredients and establish a program to monitor incoming ingredient quality. The programs should include requirements for certificates of analysis with incoming shipments and, importantly, a sampling and testing program to verify critical specification parameters,” he says.

Analytical companies continue to improve turnaround times for results for both chemical and microbial contaminants, according to Brooks. Gene-based assays for microbes are speeding results and will improve with development of DNA microarrays and benefit from growth of nanotechnology applications. In addition to advanced instrumentation capabilities, lateral flow tests will continue to be developed to provide practical, rapid screening for chemical and microbial contaminants, he notes.

Unleashing Seasonal Pet Foods

Unleashing Seasonal Pet Foods

Industry veteran Roman Versch thinks pets and pet owners are ready for winter and summer formulas

Versch says he has kibble in his veins. He first joined the pet industry in 1971 when he began working for a pet retailer in Los Angeles.

“Seasons change and so should your pet’s food,” says Roman Versch, owner of the Pet Depot chain of pet stores. Why? “In the summer, dogs need higher levels of lineolic acids and omega oils in a lower protein and fat formula,” says Versch. “In the winter, dogs need higher levels of protein and fat.” As evidence he points to Chapter 11 of the 2006 NRC publication Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats. Versch will soon find out if pet owners are going to buy the concept.

“Shedding is a profound and obvious effect that seasonal changes have on dogs and cats,” notes Versch, “but it is by no means the only one.” He points out that the seasons are a powerful force in our lives. They affect the activities we do, the foods we crave, the clothes we wear and often, the moods we are in. “Our animals are also affected by seasonal changes,” he says.
A patent and licensing

Working with nutritionists, Versch developed pet foods to address seasonal changes. In October 2006, the US Patent Office awarded him a patent entitled “Selected Climate Change Control of Petfood Formulation and Distribution.” Following up on his patent, Versch founded Seasons Pet Food Co. with the idea of selectively licensing his formulas to companies capable of global and multi channel petfood distribution. He plans to unleash the concept one way or another by August 2008.

Cool Weather Blend is formulated with extra protein and fat to ensure that pets get all the energy they need to fuel their higher energy requirements during cold climatic conditions. It will be sold November through April.

A new path
Superior pet nutrition is a well-worn path in the US, notes Versch. “Customers must have a powerful reason to switch from pet food brands they are satisfied with and current petfood leaders in the US will not willingly give away market share.”

He strongly believes Seasons Pet Food Co. is the right company to create a new path based on seasonal formulas. “A survey done by the company shows that the seasons concept is one that 78.6% of consumers are willing to try,” says Versch, “because it makes sense.” When he’s told no one is asking for seasonal formulations, he responds that no one was asking for iPods or jet skis, but millions of people are buying them now.

Versch sees an analogy between seasonal pet foods and hairball control petfoods. “Hill’s Science Diet introduced its hairball formula in 1996 and changed the market overnight,” he says. “Consumers eagerly converted to Hill’s feline hairball formulas with the advantage of natural hairball disposal through food.” Hill’s improved retailer support and created excitement for specialty retailers because the product was not available through mass merchant locations.

Summer Blend contains higher lineolic acids and omega 3 and 6 oils blended in a lower protein formulation. It will be sold May through October.

Kibble in his veins
“I’ve got kibble in my veins,” comments Versch. He first joined the pet industry in 1971 when he began working for a pet retailer in Los Angeles. There he learned to position and sell petfood products including the original Nutro Pet Food and Science Diet when it was packaged in brown bags and “Acme Buttermilk” kibble from Breeder’s Choice. “As petfood varieties increased,” he says, “consumers became more selective in their petfood purchases. Gradually, the industry shifted to natural, holistic trends and breed specific products found on shelves today.”

When working in retail, Versch and others on the staff noticed a pattern every summer: Customers came in desperately seeking advice for helping their pets suffering from dry, itchy coats and hot spots. “We always asked what they were feeding and a pattern of high-protein, corn-based diets emerged,” says Versch. “We further discovered that these customers were often adding canned diets high in protein on top of the high-protein kibble. We recommended lower protein kibble and a skin and coat supplement and many customers came back happy with the results.”

Visible benefits
The seasons are a powerful force in our lives. They affect the activities we do, the foods we crave, the clothes we wear and often, the moods we are in. Pets are also affected by seasonal changes.

Versch is confident that pet owners feeding Seasons Pet Food will “have a pet with a great coat and better body condition.” He says one reason why so many pets are overweight is that they receive calories at a steady rate all year, even when they don’t need as many calories in the summer. “Our formulas increase fat when pets actually need it: on the lower end of the thermo-neutral and critical cold zone,” says Versch. “Fat is decreased when pets least need it during the upper end of ambient temperatures. We also increase very absorbable essential fatty acids which support a healthy coat.” Seasons Summer Blend will be sold May through October. The Seasons Cool Weather Blend will be sold November through April.

These questions remain
For everything there is a season. The seasonal petfood concept is appealing, but are pet owners ready for winter and summer formulas? Do seasons really affect indoor pets that much? Will inventory/stocking be a problem? What benefits will pet owners actually see? Time will tell.

New to the NRC requirements
Entirely new to the 2006 NRC publication Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats is a report on the effects of physical activity and the environment on nutrient requirements (Chapter 11). Starting with dogs as athletes, effects of sprinting and endurance activities on nutrient requirements are explored. The effects of temperature, high and low, are examined for energy requirements. Nutrient requirements as a function of amount of exercise and ambient temperatures are discussed for water, protein, fats, carbohydrates, minerals and vitamins.