"How pet food is killing your dog" - Daily Mail article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546512/How-pet-food-killing-dog-feeding-parsnips-yoghurt.html

There's also a tv programme on thursday.

I might watch it. Sounds like it could be interesting!

i have it on record! will give it ago but expect it to be very biased

Probably. It'd be nice if this is one of the exceptions though.

The Pet Food Manufacturer's Association are somewhat up in arms about the programme (are we surprised?) - here's what they say (thanks to Dog World Newspaper)...

PMFA offended by dog food documentary

THE PET Food Manufacturers’ Association (PFMA) has called Channel 5’s recent programme The Truth About Your Dog’s Food, ‘sensational’ and in parts ‘extremely offensive’.
The programme explored various types of canine diet including processed, vegan, raw feeding and vegetarian, and revealed that £2 billion is spent on dog food each year..
Contributors included Daniel L Chan, a Royal Veterinary College nutritionist who said food affected a dog’s lifespan, and admitted there was a problem with nutritional education for vets as it was brand-led, and suggested that the consumer would benefit from multiple views from independent sources.
The raw food diet, as first formally constructed by Australian vet Ian Billinghurst in the 1990s, has seen a steady increase in followers. The programme stated that the biggest criticism of it was the lack of scientific evidence to support it as opposed to manufactured foods, the makers of which invest millions of pounds into research.
The programme also investigated dog food packaging, and David Jackson, founder of www.whichdogfood.co.uk, was keen to dispel some of the mysteries surrounding labelling of ingredients.
Afterwards a PFMA spokesman said: "The programme attacked not only the pet food industry but also challenged the veterinary profession for being ‘in league’ with the pet food companies.
"It also implied some culpability for rehoming centres by blaming the food given to dogs for many of the behavioural issues they might face.
"To suggest that pet food companies are deliberately harming pets for their own commercial benefit is not only completely untrue it also flies in the face of all evidence which shows dogs leading longer and healthier lives, a lot of it down to better nutrition provided by prepared pet food.


‘Conspiracy theory’

"To also implicate the veterinary profession in this smacks of conspiracy theory and needs to be rebutted in the strongest terms. Furthermore it should be noted that many of the opponents of pet food in the programme have a strong commercial interest in making the statements they do and this needs to be considered.”
The PFMA has published a list of questions and answers which can be found at www.pfma.org.uk/news/press-releases/prepared-pet-foods.cfm
The British Veterinary Association responded by giving advice on several of the topics raised.
On different types of diet for dogs:
"All pets should be fed a nutritionally balanced diet and kept to their normal body weight, and other aspects of health – such as dental health – should be taken into account. We would always recommend that dog owners talk to their vets about different diet options.
"There is a large choice available and there will be many considerations for owners, including budget and convenience as well as quality and nutrition. Good prepared dog foods are nutritionally balanced.
"As with human food there are trends towards alternative diets and again this should be discussed with a vet. Raw food and home cooked diets are increasingly popular but it can be time-consuming to prepare them as well as difficult to ensure that they are nutritionally balanced and safe, and that all risks are addressed.”
On the sale of pet food in veterinary practices:
"Many practices sell a range of items for pets from toys and beds to leads and food. Margins on the sale of dog food are relatively small – probably in line with other retailers – and these sales can help cover overheads to keep the costs of other veterinary services down.
"By stocking a particular brand of dog food vets are not suggesting that it is the only dog food that should be used; simply that it is a trusted brand. Some vets will also stock dog foods that have been specially formulated to help dogs with particular illnesses.


Health problems

"Vets are always happy to discuss different diet options with clients.”
On nutrition teaching in veterinary schools:
"The veterinary curriculum does include lectures on pet nutrition delivered by the veterinary schools and in addition some pet food companies provide additional lectures and learning materials.
"In our experience veterinary students are intellectually sceptical individuals undertaking scientific training that teaches them to investigate what they are being told. It is highly unlikely that lectures and information provided by individual companies will have an undue influence on them.”
On food-related health problems in dogs:
"The programme and article claim that nine out of ten visits to the vet are caused by dogs being fed by the wrong diet but we have not seen any evidence to support this assertion.
"We do hear anecdotally from behaviourists that diet can have an impact on behaviour but by far and away the biggest concern among vets in practice is over feeding leading to obesity. This is primarily a problem of human behaviour and a mismatch between amount of food and amount of exercise.
"Some dog foods are produced to address specific health problems, such as kidney (renal) disease, and vets may recommend these in appropriate cases.
"It is also fairly common practice for vets to recommend a strict exclusion diet to clients to help identify if a particular food is the cause of a health problem.”
On the quality of ingredients in prepared dog foods:
"The programme and article make inaccurate claims about the provenance of the ingredients used in commercial dog foods, describing it as ‘condemned meat’. It is essential to underline the fact that the meat used in dog food is from carcases deemed fit for human consumption.
"The pet food industry uses the off-cuts of these carcases that are no longer popular among consumers for their own food. This is a constructive way to make use of meat cuts that would otherwise become food waste to create nutritious food for pets.”

One word - Bakers.

Interesting - thank you Caryll.

Forgive me if I repeat myself, but in my working life I was heavily involved in pharmaceutical processing and packaging, and to a slightly lesser extent in food processing and packaging.  

I can only remember one incidence where I was involved for a short time in dog food, and I wish I could remember the manufacturer!  I was always led to believe (from where I don't know) that all ingredients, specifically the meat content, were by law obliged to be fit for human consumption.  The list of meat ingredients to be handled included some things that personally I would not like to consume - I remember in particular udders, testicles, lights and viscera   but that is not to say they are bad for dogs, only that I wouldn't like to eat them.  But presumably if I did, I wouldn't come to harm because they came from carcasses that weren't condemned.  Let's face it, there are a lot of bits of cattle, pigs and sheep left over after the rest of the carcass has been used for human consumption.  Not to mention the huge turnover of racehorses, which undoubtedly contribute a great deal of lean meat to our dogs' food.

An engineer who visited the site did say that the place stank, but that's not surprising given the animal content.  I have visited sites that process coleslaw and margarine, for example, and remember the pong to this day!

I think for most people it's the 'additives' that are the most cause for concern. No, I wouldn't want to eat some of the things that go into pet food, even if I still ate meat, but although they are not harmful they are not good quality ingredients.

I'm sure that most of the manufactureres process the food in hygenic surroundings - I just don't like the ingredients!  

Hmm - additives. My personal opinion is that no food processer/manufacturer is going to chuck good money away on additives that are not necessary for one reason or another - preservative or nutritionally enhancing. The two exceptions I would make are flavourings and colourings, and I would agree that the latter have no place in animal foods.

At least programmes and articles like this are keeping food manufacturers in their toes!

LyndaW wrote: The two exceptions I would make are flavourings and colourings, and I would agree that the latter have no place in animal foods.

Sorry, that's actually what I meant - I wasn't clear enough!  

All dog feed has vitamins & minerals etc added, but colouring/flavouring etc are a huge no-no for me!

And there we agree Caryll - High Fives!