What’s the truth about pet food, then?
Detail:
That esteemed broadsheet, The New York Times, this week ran an article, “The Truth About Cat and Dog Food”, written by health columnist Jane Brody. My first reaction was to cringe, thinking this was going to be another petfood-bashing article, which papers like the Daily Mail seem so fond of. But then I took a step back and thought to myself sternly, stop being so negative! This is The New York Times, after all.
It started out promising enough with the introduction: “A visit to a local supply store for pets has convinced me that many people’s pets eat better than their two-legged companions, or their companion’s children.
“Whatever you think your pet needs, there is a product ready to meet it: vegetarian, organic, holistic, natural, raw, kosher, all-meat, gluten free, high fibre, high protein, grain free, low fat, ‘lite’ and anti-allergy. There are products for young and old pets and those with sensitive skin, sensitive stomachs and sensitive skin and stomachs, as well as foods enriched with supplements like antioxidants, omega-3 fatty acids, glucosamine and chondroitin, the value of which has yet to be established for people, let alone pets.”
And then she asks the 64,000-dollar question: “I wonder whether people who invest in high-end pet foods are getting their money’s worth. Are their pets really healthier and happier? Do they live longer? And are these foods any better than the generic versions sold in supermarkets and big-box stores?”
She then turns to a book released in mid-May, Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat, written by two scientists who had examined the American pet food industry and the evidence for the value of its products and the claims made for them. The two are Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, and Malden C. Nesheim, emeritus professor of nutrition at Cornell University.
The book looks at, among other things, the origins of commercial pet foods; the ingredients used in wet and dry food; an analysis of the American pet food marketplace; special diets; treats; and supplements and alternatives, including home-cooked food.
They note that premium pet foods cost three to four times more than supermarket brands, and within the premium brands, there is a wide price range, yet the ingredients are strikingly similar since all have to meet certain nutritional standards. The scientists compared 10 premium chicken food for dogs: all started with chicken or chicken broth, followed by grains and vegetables. Non-premium brands used more grains and poultry, meat and fish byproducts.
Their conclusion was that consumers should look for products labelled complete and balanced, as these would meet the nutritional requirements of cats and dogs.
Dr Nestle told Jane: “All pet foods are made from the byproducts of human food production. No matter what the package says, your dog is not getting whole chicken breasts, but what remains after the breasts have been removed for human food.”
The authors said that in seeking evidence for the added value to health and longevity of commercial pet foods, they found almost none with any validity. No agency requires proof of pet food health claims, and no pet food company is willing to invest in decades of research to determine whether its products keep animals healthier and extend their lives, they write.
They went on to state that pet food companies say they do research, but it is rarely done in a scientific fashion, with comparable control and experimental groups.
They did, however, agree that pets were more likely to get all the nutrients they needed from commercial products rather than if owners cooked for their pets themselves. And that the pet food industry serves an important ecological function by using up food that would otherwise be thrown out – if everyone cooked for the 472 million dogs and cats in America, said Dr. Nestle, it would be like feeding an additional 42 million people.
It will be interesting to see whether this book hits the headlines in this country. Currently available via on-line retailer Amazon, it might only be a matter of time. However, I question how important it is that manufacturers address the issue of longevity of a pet. I don’t know of any human food product that says, eating this will extend your life by five years, and whose claim is based on scientific fact and research.
Another concern is that the sample size is remarkably small, especially when you consider the hundreds of products out there. It also seems remarkably simplistic to place both non-premium foods and premium on the same level playing field. The counter arguments against some of these conclusions can run into a major thesis, and this is really not the place for them.
However, when everyone goes on and on about the humanisation of pets, it really was only a matter of time before two human nutritionists interested in food politics wrote a book about pet food.
Ultimately, purchasing decisions are down to the individual consumer and their beliefs, whether these beliefs are influenced by new research and information, or an age-old values. At least books like this provide (excuse the pun) food for thought!
It started out promising enough with the introduction: “A visit to a local supply store for pets has convinced me that many people’s pets eat better than their two-legged companions, or their companion’s children.
“Whatever you think your pet needs, there is a product ready to meet it: vegetarian, organic, holistic, natural, raw, kosher, all-meat, gluten free, high fibre, high protein, grain free, low fat, ‘lite’ and anti-allergy. There are products for young and old pets and those with sensitive skin, sensitive stomachs and sensitive skin and stomachs, as well as foods enriched with supplements like antioxidants, omega-3 fatty acids, glucosamine and chondroitin, the value of which has yet to be established for people, let alone pets.”
And then she asks the 64,000-dollar question: “I wonder whether people who invest in high-end pet foods are getting their money’s worth. Are their pets really healthier and happier? Do they live longer? And are these foods any better than the generic versions sold in supermarkets and big-box stores?”
She then turns to a book released in mid-May, Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat, written by two scientists who had examined the American pet food industry and the evidence for the value of its products and the claims made for them. The two are Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, and Malden C. Nesheim, emeritus professor of nutrition at Cornell University.
The book looks at, among other things, the origins of commercial pet foods; the ingredients used in wet and dry food; an analysis of the American pet food marketplace; special diets; treats; and supplements and alternatives, including home-cooked food.
They note that premium pet foods cost three to four times more than supermarket brands, and within the premium brands, there is a wide price range, yet the ingredients are strikingly similar since all have to meet certain nutritional standards. The scientists compared 10 premium chicken food for dogs: all started with chicken or chicken broth, followed by grains and vegetables. Non-premium brands used more grains and poultry, meat and fish byproducts.
Their conclusion was that consumers should look for products labelled complete and balanced, as these would meet the nutritional requirements of cats and dogs.
Dr Nestle told Jane: “All pet foods are made from the byproducts of human food production. No matter what the package says, your dog is not getting whole chicken breasts, but what remains after the breasts have been removed for human food.”
The authors said that in seeking evidence for the added value to health and longevity of commercial pet foods, they found almost none with any validity. No agency requires proof of pet food health claims, and no pet food company is willing to invest in decades of research to determine whether its products keep animals healthier and extend their lives, they write.
They went on to state that pet food companies say they do research, but it is rarely done in a scientific fashion, with comparable control and experimental groups.
They did, however, agree that pets were more likely to get all the nutrients they needed from commercial products rather than if owners cooked for their pets themselves. And that the pet food industry serves an important ecological function by using up food that would otherwise be thrown out – if everyone cooked for the 472 million dogs and cats in America, said Dr. Nestle, it would be like feeding an additional 42 million people.
It will be interesting to see whether this book hits the headlines in this country. Currently available via on-line retailer Amazon, it might only be a matter of time. However, I question how important it is that manufacturers address the issue of longevity of a pet. I don’t know of any human food product that says, eating this will extend your life by five years, and whose claim is based on scientific fact and research.
Another concern is that the sample size is remarkably small, especially when you consider the hundreds of products out there. It also seems remarkably simplistic to place both non-premium foods and premium on the same level playing field. The counter arguments against some of these conclusions can run into a major thesis, and this is really not the place for them.
However, when everyone goes on and on about the humanisation of pets, it really was only a matter of time before two human nutritionists interested in food politics wrote a book about pet food.
Ultimately, purchasing decisions are down to the individual consumer and their beliefs, whether these beliefs are influenced by new research and information, or an age-old values. At least books like this provide (excuse the pun) food for thought!
By:
Sandra
Date/time :
03/06/2010
Replies to this topic...
