Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Dog Food Question

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    605

    Default Dog Food Question

    Hi everyone,

    I am just after some answers as to what dog food brands DO NOT TEST ON ANIMALS. I am on a fixed income so it cant be to expensive. I did a search on Google but couldn't really find anything... So any answers you have would be great.
    No one loves you like your dog does.

  2. #2

    Default

    'Kelpielover' - not really sure nor understand what you mean here !

    Most dog food is tested on dogs to see what sort of reaction and reactivity the dogs have to this 'new you beaut dog food' !

    With the new VIP's Natures Goodness - testing took some time - years - before the product was available for sale.

    Companies spend a hell of a lot of money in research and development and marketing to get a product to the marketplace.

    If they are not testing with dogs to see if the dogs would even like the product - then why would they bother to even try to bring a new product out ?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    605

    Default

    I mean inappropriate unnecessary testing.
    No one loves you like your dog does.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    Well, dog food is not eye makeup, pretty sure dog food is only tested on dogs in the normal way - ie they get to eat it.

    Pretty sure Australia has different rules about what goes into pet food than other countries too, and very different rules about labels on food - ie you can't put something on a label that isn't true. I clicked on some dog food horror story link on facebook recently and it made a bunch of promises it didn't keep - starting with the promise that it would be quick. Nope - I think I closed the link when it got to some horror story about using dead dogs in pet food. Not in Australia. Seriously - dogs are not commercially farmed for meat - there wouldn't be enough dead dogs to make doing that worth it - not to mention how bad the PR would be if anyone found out. It would kill that business entirely. So I put that down to five wasted minutes of my life.

    I buy human grade ingredients to make my dog casserole. And one bloke I described the recipe to - said he'd eat that. It's not unlike meatloaf in desperate need of some extra flavour like a gallon of tomato sauce. I also feed black hawk holistic. The first pack I got was sold to me by someone who has agility dogs and she goes and picks the stuff up directly from the factory. So she would see first hand what was going in (lamb skeletons probably). I doubt they'd do any kind of testing besides a nutritional analysis and feeding it to dogs.

    I can't imagine why any of them would do more than that - so long as all their ingredients are already accepted as suitable for dogs to eat. It's not like they're making new chemicals to put in. Though there is a whole industry based on making stuff like that for fast food chains eg "scent of freshly made hamburger". I don't think they bother putting that in most dog food.

  5. #5

    Default

    Regarding testing, I have researched AAFCO information, and this is quoting, some quotes I used a while back in one of my articles:
    "A paper delivered by David Dzanis of the FDA says “There are two means of substantiating the nutritional adequacy of a pet food. The first method requires the product to be formulated so that essential nutrient levels fall with the ranges as set in the AAFCO Nutrient Profiles. The second method requires a pet food manufacturer to conduct animal feeding trials in accordance with AAFCO protocols. Pet foods that successfully pass the feeding trials are exempt from the requirement to meet the profiles.” Ref 6 This suggests that a manufacturer could essentially feed a dog candy, and as long as it eats it (passes the feeding trials), the ‘pet food’ passes the trial!

    “Unequivocal proof of a product's nutritional adequacy for all animals under all conditions can never be achieved. However, with the changes in both the nutrient profiles and feeding trial protocols, assurances of nutritional adequacy to the consumer have been improved. Substantiation of the nutritional adequacy of a pet food based on the nutrient profiles may be less reliable than the results of feeding trials.” Ref 6. So up front, this author admits that the feeding trials may be inadequate, but they are better than their trial and error guesses at the nutritional profiles.

    A critic of the AAFCO goes further … he considers that the AAFCO vitamin profile “assumes 100% bioavailability. However, if a dog is fed as an omnivore, there are good amounts of nutrients unavailable to it that is contained in the indigestible plant matter. Phytates in particular (contained in abundance in grains and soy products—which kibbles often contain in substantial amounts) are well-known for interfering with valuable nutrients like iron, zinc, and calcium.” "

    While a lot of pet food companies do a lot of research and analysis, the also spend a lot on lobbying, on making the AAFCO rules (that australia mostly follows) and ensuring that a bag made mainly of wheat can be fed to your dog. The reason you may have guessed is that its hard for them to get into the raw meat business.

    If you are really interested in the story of what rules they have to meet, please do your own research on AAFCO and TVP's for instance.
    Bruce is a "dog walker in inner west Melbourne" & sells "Healthy Dog treats." My dog Archie approves of these things.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    what is AAFCO?

    FDA is a bit of a joke. It's plainly obvious to me that food labelling for human food - is more for the benefit of the company that packages it than for the consumer. Otherwise they would not be allowed to use ingredients like "fruit juice" (which fruit FFS), "spices", "natural flavour" (not a product description, this is on the ingredient list), and vegetable oil (olive oil is good, palm oil is bad, cottonseed is mostly GM etc).

    And there are heaps of medical drugs that get put on the market prematurely. I know I got prescribed one and my GP was taking it too - and then they found out in the general population it had a few nasty side effects like heart attacks and liver deaths. I stopped taking it because it didn't actually help reduce my joint pain at all. So product didn't even deliver on its promised purpose.

  7. #7

    Default

    The Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)

    This is the american body (that a lot of dog food manufacturers sit on, that decides what they will allow to be called "complete and balanced"

    You will find that Australian industry essentially follows the AAFCO tables, because its easier to do it that way, and because their are only 2 or 3 major dog food companies in the world, so they will mostly use the same brands and formulations here.

    You will find that "what dog food brands DO NOT TEST ON ANIMALS" Are the ones that just use ingredients that satisfy the table nutrition guidelines for AAFCO - assuming they want the "complete and balanced" badge. However feeding trials are more important than tables, because the dog physiology means that it doesn't always go well any old dog food ingredients. The quality of the ingredients and the processing of the ingredients make a major difference between brands.

    The feeding trials are said to be quite flawed in what constitutes passing these tests. A small number of dogs, and some dogs can be excluded if they fail the test.
    Bruce is a "dog walker in inner west Melbourne" & sells "Healthy Dog treats." My dog Archie approves of these things.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •