New Pet Treat Offerings

Not exactly pet food safety related, but a little jaunt around the blogosphere landed me at this blog on nowpublic, which was discussing some fascinating new types of pet treats coming out on the market.

They run the gamut from functional (helping pets with everything from cancer to gas), to frilly (bottled water for pets). Either way, it is something to keep our eyes on…who knows what sort of safety issues could pop up when these start hitting the market in force!

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.

Menu Foods On the Rebound

Menu Foods Income Fund says its business is on the way to recovering from the impact of last year’s pet food recalls, although on a smaller scale. The pet food maker said it lost it lost an estimated US$2.2 million or 10.8 cents per unit for the three months ended March 31, 2008 compared with a loss of US$17.5 million or 91.8 cents per unit a year ago. Quarterly revenue was US$55.6 million, down from US$64.5 million.

Investors cheered the news. “We have made considerable progress and our prospects look better today than at any other time during this past year,” president and chief executive Paul Henderson said in a statement. “As we move the business forward, we do so focusing on our core competency – the manufacture of high quality wet pet food. We will continue to work to solidify our customer base and further adjust our cost structure in line with our ongoing business.”

In April 2008, Menu Foods reached a “comprehensive cross-border agreement in principle” on litigation arising from its tainted petfood scandal. The mediated settlement of the case, which combined an array of class-action suits filed in the United States, came just over a year after the recalls. Dozens of cases against Menu Foods and many of the companies that own the private label pet foods were consolidated in a federal court in Camden, New Jersey, USA. The definitive terms of the deal, together with a motion for preliminary approval thereof, are scheduled to be filed with the US District Court on May 20, 2008, with a hearing scheduled on May 30, 2008. The scheduling for Canadian court is expected to occur at roughly the same time.

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

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 Supplement Makers Want Their Own Regulatory Category

Some pet food industry sources say pet supplements are low on the FDA’s priority list.

With a new director of FDA’s veterinary medicine center and heightened concerns about pet food safety, makers of dietary supplements for pets are renewing an effort to get FDA to create a separate regulatory category for their products. Some industry sources say pet supplements are low on the FDA’s priority list. The National Animal Supplement Council (NASC) recently submitted to FDA ingredients and accompanying claims that could be part of a regulatory scheme.

Currently there is no separate regulatory category for animal dietary supplements so they are considered either food or drugs, and those considered drugs are technically illegal because they have not been approved. The animal drug industry also wants FDA to crack down on companies that make unsubstantiated health claims, an industry source says.

Pet dietary supplement makers need to be legitimized to get investors to back expanding businesses.

NASC met with FDA officials January 10, 2008. The group submitted to FDA a list of about 1,000 ingredients commonly used in pet health products and statements NASC requires its members use if they include such ingredients. Also among the ingredients are some NASC thinks should not be used in petfood or animal health products.

The Best Pet Food Classifieds

PetFoodIndustry.com, a leader in the petfood magazine category, now has a great classified section online.

No matter what sort of company you are looking to buy from, you will most likely find it in this section. They have ads from pet food equipment dealers, ingredient makers, packaging companies and more, making it a veritable one-stop-shop for your pet industry needs!

You can find it here: Pet Food Industry Classifieds

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.