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.

FDA May Discuss new Pet Food Labeling Requirements

Speak now or pay later

As of the time of this writing, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to issue an official Federal Register notice specifying the date and agenda of the public meeting to discuss the impact of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 on the promulgation of new federal petfood labeling requirements.

Many in the public and industry are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to hear FDA’s plans and/or comment on this matter. In the interim, however, FDA has recently published two notices in the Federal Register where it has requested public input regarding related matters: its Food Protection Plan (FPP) (Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0188); and third-party certification programs for foods and feeds (Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0183). These notices may be viewed at http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/E8-6833.pdf and http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/E8-6705.pdf, respectively.

Food Protection Plan
FDA’s plan for protecting the nation’s food supply was released in November of 2007 and can be viewed in full at http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/food/plan.html. Briefly, it is described as a comprehensive strategy to help protect the food supply from both unintentional contamination and deliberate attack. The three major components of the plan are to facilitate improvements in prevention, intervention and response.

For each component, the document details the steps needed to implement its objectives in improving food protection, including proposals for new legislation to provide FDA with greater authorities. For example, to aid FDA in responding to contamination incidents, it asks the US Congress for powers to issue mandatory recalls when necessary and to enhance access to company records during emergencies.

Obviously this applies to all sorts of food, but the affects on pet food safety cannot be overstated. While the document tends to discuss the issue in terms of the human food supply, it is clear to note that the FPP is also intended to apply to animal feeds. FDA understands that ensuring the safety of feeds for food-producing animals has a direct impact on the safety of the final food product derived from those animals, and hence must be an integral part of any viable plan.

This understanding is evidenced by the recent assignment of Dr. Stephen Sundlof as FDA’s Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (which oversees human food safety issues for the agency). As a veterinarian, a toxicologist and the long-time former Director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, Dr. Sundlof is uniquely qualified to help lead the agency in both food and feed safety matters. Petfoods are not forgotten in the FPP, either. Last year’s petfood recall due to contamination with melamine and related compounds is discussed several times within the document as an example of where oversight of the food supply needs fixing.

Third-party certification programs
In its efforts to ensure safety of foods and feeds, FDA inspection personnel simply cannot be everywhere, especially with regard to imported products. One of the proposals within the FPP, but discussed more thoroughly in the second notice, is the possibility for FDA to accredit (or recognize entities that accredit) third parties to conduct inspections and evaluate products and facilities to ensure compliance with FDA requirements. Such third parties could include other federal agencies, state and foreign governments and private companies.

See the rest of this article: Pet Food Labeling Requirements

Pet Food Safety and Alternative Pet Food Report Released

Product safety and alternative petfoods report released
The latest report released by Packaged Facts traces the government, industry and consumer responses to the petfood recall crisis

The latest report released by Packaged Facts, Product Safety and Alternative Pet Foods: North American Market Outlook, traces the government, industry and consumer responses to the pet food recall crisis, all the while keeping an eye on implications for North American sales of alternative petfoods. This report examines the impact of the petfood recall crisis of 2007 on the North American market in terms of consumer trust in pet food safety, production, marketing and new pet food trends.

As a particular focus, it explores the premise that the recall has positive implications for certain types of pet food that may be purchased or prepared as alternatives to traditional mass produced foods, and that the repercussions of the crisis—especially heightened food safety concerns among consumers—will affect the North American pet food market in ways advantageous to these alternative product types.

Based on information from various sources, Packaged Facts believes that billions of dollars in pet food brand sales are currently up for grabs as a result of the recall and its ongoing effects. Taking the percentages of petfood customers who said they were open to switching brands—which range from a low of 8% in a GfK survey to a high of 27% in a Pet Food Institute (PFI) survey—and applying those percentages evenly (i.e., not factoring in different price point foods) to 2006 North American petfood sales of US$16 billion suggests a shift in the pet food brands market worth US$1.3 billion to US$4.3 billion in petfood retail sales.

The main beneficiaries in the brand-switching trend, Packaged Facts predicts, will be higher quality premium pet foods chosen as alternatives to traditional brands—especially natural and organic pet foods, but also the often overlapping product segments of raw/frozen, refrigerated, homemade, 100% US sourced, locally grown and other smaller-batch petfoods. Supporting the reports from individual manufacturers and retailers of alternative petfoods claiming a double-digit spike in sales as a result of the recall, data backing up the shift to alternative petfoods are already beginning to emerge.

In an online survey of pet specialty retailers conducted by Pet Age from May 23 to May 30, 69% of respondents reported increases in sales of natural/organic petfoods, and over one-third said sales of fresh/raw foods were up. On the other hand, 21% of the pet specialty retailers surveyed said sales of traditional petfood were down, a finding that reflects a similar situation in mass market outlets. Even before the recall, the shift to premium petfoods was in full force, with two-thirds of the pet owners surveyed by GfK indicating that they bought premium brands at least sometimes and 40% saying they did so regularly. For the past few years this shift has, in fact, been the primary driver of petfood sales in the North American market, with virtually all of the dollar gains coming from value as opposed to volume sales increases.

Natural Balance Pet Foods Using New Pet Food Safety Program

Natural Balance Pet Foods last fall unveiled their new pet food safety program, the Consumer Buy With Confidence Program, during the 41st Annual Pet Industry Trade Show in October, which took place in Chicago, Illinois, USA. The program allows pet food consumers to see exact pet food safety testing results of every product the company offers. The simple online screening is accessible at http://naturalbalanceinc.net/PetFoodScreening.tpl. “Our customers can from their own homes easily see the full test results of every product, and rest assured that they are giving their pet the safest food possible,” says Dick Van Patten, founder of Natural Balance.

Automating Pet Food Safety

Automating petfood safety

Ensuring pet food safety has always been important, but now it is in the public spotlight. Given the recent rash of pet food recalls, many pet owners are considering safety before they purchase petfood. Following is a brief overview of automating process control to ensure pet food safety.

Key questions for managers
“If you can’t see it or measure it, then it is very difficult to improve it,” notes Ray Bachelor of Bachelor Controls Inc. (www.bachelorcontrols.com). He suggests operation managers ask themselves key questions, including: Can I prove that the products I’m shipping are safe? Can I efficiently track ingredients received through finished goods out? What HACCP alerts have occurred during a production shift? Is my plant performance consistent?

Rapid response
Traceability systems are recordkeeping procedures that show the path of a particular product or ingredient from supplier(s) through all the intermediate steps that process and combine pet food ingredients into products supplied to customers and ultimately to consumers. Says Julie Lenzer Kirk of Interstates Companies, “In the event of a product recall, manufacturers must have the ability to determine what foods are potentially contaminated and to rapidly respond to minimize the health, economic and other effects of such contamination.” The speed at which this can be accomplished and the amount of product impacted again depends on the traceability systems in place.

Traceability systems have been shown to be weak or absent during a number of recent human food safety incidents. They were proven to be slow or simply unable to assure consumers of food safety. There is a wide range of traceability systems in place today from paper-based to information technology (IT) enabled. “These systems are critically reliant on the accurate recording of information,” says Kirk. As a result, handwritten or printed labels are being replaced or supplemented by more effective systems that use machine-readable identification (e.g., bar codes and radio frequency tags).

Make it a true priority
Pet food manufacturers cannot afford to ignore the traceability issue, even if they have been lucky enough to avoid a high-profile contamination incident. Regardless of the regulations, since trust is the foundation for acquiring and keeping customers, making pet food safety and traceability a well-documented priority is an important way to increase and keep a loyal customer base.

Adopting strict standards and ensuring that enterprise and supply chain systems support the full range of food safety and traceability requirements will protect companies from a potential disaster or additional cost incurred by non-compliance with new regulations. Automating traceability is just one step in this process. It requires that quality control and lot traceability be integrated into processing and warehousing systems. These capabilities are an integral and intuitive part of operations and should be reflected as such in the systems that support operations.

Code power
Traceability is greatly enhanced through the use of bar codes for automated data collection. When supplier lot numbers are associated with a product bar code as that product is received and then scanned as it is introduced into the manufacturing process, the information can be easily traced when needed. Likewise, capturing the lot number of bulk products at receipt and usage, although prone to more uncertainty based on products mixing in a bin, helps quickly pinpoint what lots may have gone into which finished products. In the race against time in a pet food recall or a regulator’s request for information, automated systems beat a spreadsheet every time.

Send a positive message
“Traceability is not a threat,” notes Kirk, “but an opportunity: a challenge to send out a positive message.” Safety and traceability are integral parts of petfood quality, but they are also subject to a consumer’s perception, just as quality is.

Critical control points
CCPs are defined as process steps that are controllable and where pet food safety hazards may be prevented, eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. Loss of control of a CCP likely leads to the high food safety risk of an unacceptable health hazard. Conversely, loss of control of a non-critical control point indicates a low food safety risk.

Although these points might be controlled for quality reasons, they are not mandated as part of a hazard analysis CCP plan (HACCP). The bottom line: If there is a food safety hazard that is reasonably likely to occur, it must be analyzed and the point at which that hazard could be introduced must be monitored and controlled.

Pet Food Safety Concerns Lead to Regulatory Changes

Recent US activity focuses on ingredient and manufacturing safety

From late 2007 and into this year, several regulatory changes are addressing pet food safety in manufacturing. The events surrounding the contamination of petfoods and subsequent animal deaths in spring 2007 have focused public attention on how these products are regulated in the US. Clearly, the bulk of the regulatory activity in 2007 focused on manufacturing and ingredient safety rather than labeling matters, a pattern likely to be continued this year. While most of these projects were in the works prior to the massive recall, they are timely in regard to the situation as pet food safety has become a large concern of most customers.

FDA addresses gap
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been working for the past five years on its Animal Feed Safety System (AFSS), described as a comprehensive, risked-based approach to helping ensure the safety of animal feeds and petfoods to protect animal and public health.

In its AFSS draft framework document, FDA has identified a number of gaps in protection under current feed safety programs. Recently, a major step has been taken to address at least one of these gaps: namely, the inability of FDA to formally recognize a list of acceptable feed ingredients beyond its relatively short compilation of codified food additives and GRAS (generally recognized as safe) substances.

A memorandum of understanding between FDA and the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) gives FDA more direct control of the AAFCO Feed Ingredient Definition process. This means FDA has the final say on most animal feed and issues regarding pet food ingredients, which reportedly will allow the agency to formally recognize the AAFCO list and take enforcement actions against products containing non-compliant ingredients on that basis.

Response to recalls
In response to last year’s pet food safety recalls, the US Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Only a small part of the act deals with petfood issues, and the bulk of that pertains to safety.

The new law requires FDA to improve its capabilities in dealing with a contamination incident, including how it cooperates with state regulators and how it communicates details of the incident to the public. The petfood industry also bears increased responsibility: Under the new law, companies will have to be part of a reportable food registry, in which they must rapidly investigate and report to FDA on contamination incidents stemming from their facilities.

FDAAA also requires FDA to consult with AAFCO and other stakeholders to develop new ingredient, processing and labeling standards to promote increased pet food safety. Historically, federal regulations have covered only basic pet food labeling requirements, with many aspects (nutritional adequacy, nutrient content) left to AAFCO and state regulatory agencies. This may change, but it will take some time (FDA has until September 2009 to comply with the law).

Under the new FDAAA, the petfood industry also bears increased responsibility.
With respect to pet food ingredient standards, perhaps the memorandum of understanding between FDA and AAFCO regarding the Feed Ingredient Definition process will be sufficient. Regarding pet food processing standards, establishment of federal good manufacturing practices for all feeds and petfoods, not just medicated feeds and low-acid canned foodsmay be on the horizon.

AAFCO weighs in
Within AAFCO, most of the activity concerning petfood takes place within the Pet Food Committee. Perhaps the most controversial labeling issue currently before the committee is the proposed changes to PF9, which would require, among other things, mandatory calorie content statements on all dog and cat food labels.

At press time, the committee is awaiting a consensus recommendation from the Calorie Statement Working Group (comprised of three regulators and three non-voting advisors) before taking further action.

Other items of consequence before the Pet Food Committee deal with labeling education rather than changes to the labeling regulations themselves. The committee has recently drafted an update to its AAFCO Pet Food and Specialty Pet Food Labeling Guide, which should be released soon. This publication, sold separately from the AAFCO Official Publication, helps explain and interpret the Model Pet Food and Specialty Pet Food Regulations for both regulators and the industry. The committee is also planning a Pet Food Regulatory Workshop to be held in conjunction with the AAFCO annual meeting this August.

Finally, the Pet Food Committee has charged an expert panel with revising the AAFCO Dog and Cat Food Nutrient Profiles and feeding trial protocols to reflect new information, particularly from the National Research Council’s 2006 publication Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats. While the panel has not announced any significant progress to date, hopefully it will make some recommendations this year.

Other committees have also addressed petfood matters
After many years of discussion with the Pet Food Committee, the Model Bill & Regulations Committee (MBRC) has finally approved and forwarded Policy Statement 29. This would allow for educational label statements on the nutrient content of pet food ingredients without prompting the need for supporting guarantees. It will soon be voted on by the AAFCO board of directors and membership.

The MBRC has also recently revised the net quantity statement regulations to better reflect the requirements under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

The MBRC’s primary focus of late has been on safety issues, such as drafting of the Non-Commercial Model Billand “housecleaning” matters, such as gender neutralization of the Model Bill.

The Feed Labeling Committee is making progress on allowing for carbohydrate-related label claims, including acceptance of new definitions for certain listed ingredients: starch, sugars and fructans. This action should eventually allow for claims such as “less ” and “low.” It is the goal of the Committee to increase overall pet food safety by focusing on the ingredients themselves. More accurate label claims and nutrient lists will only increase the overall health and safety of the product.

The Feed Manufacturing Committee has finished its work on the AAFCO Model Good Manufacturing Regulations for Feed and Feed Ingredients. It now goes to the MBRC for further deliberation. If passed, this initiative will allow regulators increased ability to look at process control in determining potential adulteration versus just looking at the final product for evidence of adulteration.

Redefining wheat gluten and rice protein?
A new agreement with AAFCO means FDA has the final say on most animal feed and pet food ingredients. Finally, the Ingredient Definitions Committee will be discussing common petfood ingredients such as wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate. Neither is presently defined by AAFCO, but rather derived from a combination of a common or usual name and AAFCO-defined feed terms. Since both ingredients were implicated in last year’s recalls, the prudence of allowing this type of constructed name is being questioned.

More scrutiny from and for state officials?
It appears a number of state feed control officials are reviewing current pet food labeling standards with renewed enthusiasm and rigor. In particular, ingredient declarations that do not wholly conform to AAFCO terminology seem to be called into question with increased regularity. Apparently this is at least in part due to the 2007 pet food recalls.

Personal communications with some feed control officials reveal that they are themselves under heightened scrutiny from the public. As designated protectors of consumers and their animals, the regulators do not want to appear overly permissive to industry.

Recent objections from states have included issues resolved by implicit consensus years agofor example, “no by-products” claims as well as, grouping of vitamins and minerals in ingredient lists. The result is that it may prove more difficult to register products in some states this year than has been the case in recent history.