|
 |
The following are current pet food claims used by a variety of manufacturers and marketers. They are followed by critiques using the best scientific and logical information we can find and with the assumption that health is the number one objective in pet feeding.
A person could easily conclude--if the arguments in the critiques are correct-- that at best such claims demonstrate incompetence. At worst, they are a deliberate attempt to deceive consumers. The consequences for those who fall prey is to be misled from the important understandings of health and how to achieve it.
Pet health and feeding is not a matter of finding the one magic commercial food--particularly one with misleading claims--and feeding it continuously. Health is best achieved by following the natural-scientific-logical principles in the Optimal Health Program.
|
|
|
|
| . |
|
| |
 “Allergen Free” |
 No natural food is allergen free. All foods contain proteins and other organic molecules that can elicit an allergic response. The trick to reducing allergic reactions is to feed natural foods in variety, not seek a silver bullet “allergen free” food that itself can cause allergic reactions if fed continuously. |
| . |
|
|
| |
| “Cold-Processed Canned Food” (rc) |
The following is an exchange of emails between a pet owner (O) and a pet food company (PFC) claiming to be producing cold-processed canned foods. The letters were sent to Wysong asking assistance in evaluating the claims.
O: “I noticed your canned dinners are cold processed? What does this mean for our dogs?”
PFC: “That means that the protein is cooked at the lowest temperature possible for the shortest amount of time to kill any bacteria yet without killing the enzymes. It helps the dogs actually simulate the protein instead of passing it.”
O: “I am thinking of recommending your canned food to some of our customers. But before I do, if your patience still persists with me, I still need to understand your explanation of the protein being cooked at the lowest possible temperature to kill the bacteria … Please tell me what that temperature is that does not destroy enzymes yet makes it safe to eat canned food without the bacteria. It is still not clear.”
PFC: “The food goes through an emulsifier where the product reaches a temp of 180 for 3 minutes which kills all of the bad bacteria and stimulates the good stuff. The product then goes into the can where it is cold processed at 90 degrees.”
Several errors are made by PFC—
- The lowest temperature to kill bacteria is in the hundreds of degrees. Enzymes are destroyed above 118 degrees F.
- Dogs do not “simulate” one cooked protein any more than another (rather than pass it.) If the food is heated sufficiently to kill bacteria, then it is the same as any other retorted (cooked) canned food.
- An emulsifier does not cook the food. It is an intense mixer, not a cooker. It also does not “stimulate the good stuff.”
- Going into a can to be cooled after cooking is not “cold processing,” it is cooling the product after cooking.
It is true that cold-processing is the ideal technique in processing food.
Heat processing of enzymes, vitamins, minerals, amino acids and other nutrients that naturally occur in raw foods causes them to be lost, unavailable, or converted to toxins.
As the health benefits of raw, organic, and whole foods are recognized by consumers, some pet food companies are advertising cold-processed pet products, but buyer beware: it is not possible to cold process a canned food that is safe and has any shelf life.
Canning requires high pressure and heat at temperatures of 240-250 degrees Fahrenheit. Such processing conditions are necessary for meats, seafood, poultry, dairy products, and most vegetables. The only foods that may be safely canned in a boiling water bath without high pressure are highly acidic foods with a pH below 4.6, such as fruits, pickled vegetables, or other foods to which acid has been added.
Despite the constraints that canning and heat-processing in general place on the retention of nutrients and enzymes in foods, and despite the fact that it absolutely eliminates the feasibility of delivering a cold-processed food in those cans, some pet food manufacturers (as noted above) have laid claim to producing a cold-processed canned food. This reflects either a gross misunderstanding of food processing or a deliberate attempt to deceive.
As part of the Optimal Health Program it is acceptable to feed pet companions a canned food as long as it is given in rotation with fresh, natural foods and other properly designed processed foods and supplements. See the: How to Apologize to Your Pet Brochure PDF. |
| . |
|
|
| |
| “Developed by animal nutritionists, veterinarians, kennels, breeders, groomers, pet food experts, etc.” (virtually all brands) |
All in the above list, with the exception of nutritionists (if they are indeed degreed in the field), have little or no scientific knowledge of nutrition. Veterinarians, at most, usually have only one course in nutrition during their schooling. This is not to say a person cannot be self-taught, but then their expertise should be evidenced by written materials and actual experience in the nutrition field.
Even “nutritionists” are no guarantee of competence. Nutritionists are responsible for the feeding of instant potatoes, Jello, canned meat, and diet pop to people in hospital beds. They are also behind the myth of 100% complete pet foods that have caused immeasurable death and suffering in animals. 100% complete PDF
It is a simple matter for any producer to talk with professionals in some field, or pay them a fee, and then say the product is “developed by” them. The proof of competence lies in the product itself and the competence of the producer as evidenced by their written materials. This series of critiques and the rest of the educational Wysong site will help you discern if there is true rational and scientific competence, or just marketing buzz.
The most important credentials are those of the person(s) who are in charge of the company and who make the final decisions as to how the products are made. Anything else is just name-dropping. http://www.wysong.net/petfoodlist.shtml |
| . |
|
|
| |
| “No grains” (yn, ai) |
A little history. When Wysong foods were first formulated in the early 1980s, special attention was paid to ingredients, not just—as was the common practice at that time—percentages of protein and the like. Then Wysong introduced the idea of archetypal feeding. That means diets for pets should be predominantly meat, meals should be varied, and raw foods should be at least rotated into the diet. These concepts remain critical for pet owners to understand if health is their objective. Some manufacturers, looking for an edge in the market, are attempting to capitalize on these concepts.
Doing so is one thing. Not doing so and leading the public to believe you are, is quite another.
The “no grains” claim on a pet food is made to lead people to believe there is either something wrong with grains or that the food is predominantly meat. The claim also implies that a “no-grain” food is better or safer than all the products that have grains.
Grains are added to dry extruded pet food kibble because the starch they contain permits the kibble to form in processing—similar to popcorn popping. If grains are not used, then some other form of starch must be used, such as potato or tapioca. The starch in grain is essentially the same as starch from anything else. Starch is starch and there is no reason to believe the starch in grains is somehow uniquely inferior or dangerous compared to other starches. In fact, the nutritional value of grains is superior, particularly to tapioca. Healthier Grains PDF
Although it is true that starch is not a natural component of a carnivore’s diet, simply substituting one starch for another does not solve the problem. Pet foods that contain starch and have the “no grain” claim is like saying you are on a “no water” diet because some sources of water are polluted, but then drinking water anyway.
Companies who attempt to demonize grains (corn, wheat, etc.) and soy omit the fact that the meats they use come from animals fed primarily corn and soy. Even organic chickens are fed this diet. Since an animal cannot be something better than the food it eats, it is misleading to claim the demerits of soy, corn, etc. and then use meat products raised on them. It's like buying goods that one knows are stolen, but then claiming to have great honesty and being outraged by theft.
Feeding in variety and using true all meat foods is the solution. (Archetype PDF, How to apologize to your pets) ‘Hiding’ the starch in the formula by using potato or tapioca does not make a food more meatier than a grain based pet food. |
| . |
|
|
| |
| “Precise balance” (en) |
For a producer to claim they are precisely balancing a food would require that that they have precise knowledge of nutrition and health. The fact is, nobody on planet Earth possesses such precise knowledge, let alone the heads of most pet food companies who have no nutritional or health expertise whatsoever. Claiming precise ratios, balances and the like is the language of the 100% complete claim—and that is a specious claim at best. 100% complete PDF
The only precise balance is that which nature provides. Follow the Optimal Health Program to achieve that. Optimal Health Program |
| . |
|
|
| |
| “Real Chicken” (en) |
“Real chicken” is contrasted with chicken or poultry by-products to lead consumers to believe there is a difference with regard to nutritional value and health. No definition of “real chicken” is made. If it is chicken meat, as implied, it is far inferior to the meals. Nutrient Analysis Chart PDF |
| . |
|
|
|
| “Tapioca” (yn) |
Tapioca is used as the starch source in some “no grain” pet foods. Tapioca (cassava root, manioc) is first and foremost a source of carbohydrates, but very little else. It is actually a nutritionally poor substitute for grains. Healthier Grains PDF Due to its poor nutritional quality, special attention must be given to formulations to compensate for this problem. Tapioca contains very little protein, and the small quantity that is naturally present is of inferior quality to grains. This necessitates the addition of ingredients to supply the amino acids methionine and lysine. Meat naturally contains these amino acids, but formulating with tapioca rather than grains and legumes effectively robs the meat of these essential amino acids. This creates a net deficiency of them as compared to the same formulations if they were to contain grains.
In pet food kibbles, the “no grains” claim is almost assuredly made to imply that the grains have been replaced by a superior ingredient. However, the idea that ridding the food of grains creates a superior product is not supported by the facts. [see “No Grains” article Rawdeception.shtml and Tapioca/Grain comparison chart Healthier Grains PDF]. The truth is, tapioca poses some unique and very serious health risks.
The high carbohydrate concentration in tapioca results in high doses of sugar—which is what starch converts to when digested. In terms of sugar concentration, tapioca is second only to sugar cane. In carnivores, high levels of sugar are toxic over time and lead to a host of chronic diseases including dental deterioration.
Tapioca is often chemically modified before formulation in food products and as such, presents a threat to health by binding essential minerals that play key roles in many critical enzyme systems, and also producing the disease, parakeratosis. http://www.wysong.net/health/hl_984.shtml
Furthermore, natural tapioca contains cyanogenic glycosides (specifically linamarin and lotaustralin) which yield hydrocyanic acid upon hydrolysis (as occurs in the stomach). Hydrocyanic acid (hydrogen cyanide) is highly toxic to humans and animals. In fact, hydrogen cyanide is a chemical warfare agent and was used in Germany’s gas chambers and is used for execution today in the U.S. The toxicity is dose dependent and therefore animals or humans fed a steady diet of any food that yields hydrogen cyanide are at risk.
Cyanide is an irreversible enzyme inhibitor in cellular respiration pathways. Cyanide ions bind to the iron atom of the enzyme cytochrome c oxidase (also known as aa3) in the fourth complex in mitochondrial membranes. This denatures the enzyme, and the final transport of electrons from cytochrome c oxidase to oxygen cannot be completed. As a result, the electron transport chain is disrupted, meaning that the cell can no longer aerobically produce ATP for energy. In effect, it stops the body from “breathing.”
Tissues that mainly depend on aerobic respiration, such as the central nervous system and the heart, are particularly affected. Acute poisoning with high concentrations of cyanide causes coma with seizures, apnea and cardiac arrest, with death following in a matter of minutes.
At lower doses, loss of consciousness may be preceded by general weakness, giddiness, headaches, vertigo, confusion, and perceived difficulty in breathing. At the first stages of unconsciousness, breathing is often sufficient or even rapid. But then the victim progresses towards a deep coma, sometimes accompanied by pulmonary edema, and finally cardiac arrest. Skin color goes pink from high blood oxygen saturation.
At doses insufficient to cause loss of consciousness, the symptoms can also include faintness, drowsiness, anxiety, and excitement. Dizziness, nausea, vomiting and sweating are also common. The situation is complicated by the non-specific nature of the symptoms.
Exposure to lower levels of cyanide over a long period of intake, as occurs in people in tropical Africa, and could occur in pets fed “complete and balanced grain-free” extruded foods, results in increased blood cyanide levels. This may lead to weakness of the digits, difficulty walking, dimness of vision, deafness, decreased thyroid gland function, and Tropical Ataxic Neuropathy (TAN). TAN is characterized by lesions of the skin, mucous membranes, optic, auditory, spinal, and peripheral nerves resulting in myelopathy, bilateral optic atrophy, bilateral hearing loss, and polyneuropathy. Stomato-glossitis, motor-neurone disease, psychosis, and dementia are diseases prevalent in humans who regularly consume tapioca (cassava) products. Although many of these maladies have thus far only been described in humans, this is likely because only humans have been consuming large quantities of tapioca in lieu of grains. That could certainly change if pets are converted from grain-based to tapioca-based pet foods.
Birth defects were seen in rats that ate diets of cassava roots. Effects on the reproductive system were also observed. Moreover, when tapioca is ground into flour with milling, the powder has been reported to produce ulcerogenic effects in the gastric mucosa. Personnel working in pet food plants compounding tapioca based pet foods could experience skin irritation and sores from exposure to tapioca dust.
When cassava (tapioca) chips are sun-dried on the floor to reduce the hydrocyanic acid, they can be infected by microorganisms. This can predispose to aflatoxicosis, a potentially lethal mycotoxin disease.
The problem with microbial infestation can be avoided by using fresh cassava root. However, cassava root, either fresh or parboiled, has resulted in deaths due to the high degree of cyanide toxicity found in the fresh root.
As it stands, appropriate measures have not been taken to produce tapioca products of guaranteed quality that will meet the nutritional requirements of pets. A pet owner is well advised to ask any producer of tapioca-based pet foods for answers to the following:
Nutrient levels: energy, protein, fiber, and mineral levels
The exact amount of tapioca used in the formula
Levels of anti-nutritional factors: hydrocyanic acid, phytates, and oxalates
Microbial counts: levels of Aspergillus and Eschericia species
Levels of other contaminants: those introduced during the drying process
Moisture content
The levels that could be reached in a “no grain” tapioca-based pet food could certainly reach dangerous levels. Levels of hydrogen cyanide above 100 parts per million (ppm) in a finished food are considered unacceptable. In a “no grain” formulated pet food, depending upon the type and amount of tapioca used, levels in a typical formula could reach over 1026.3 mg/kg, or 718.85 ppm! The minimal lethal dosage in humans is about 50-60mg. A 60 lb. dog eating an average amount of a “no-grain” tapioca-based pet food could be ingesting 17.6 mg of hydrogen cyanide per day. Considering that this dog is about one third the weight of an average human, on a per weight basis it would be receiving 52.8 mg (3 X 17.6 mg) of hydrogen cyanide—which is within the lethal dose (50-60 mg) range. Even if this calculation is on the high side, lower hydrogen cyanide levels would at the least put the animal at risk of chronic toxicity.
The above is not to say that moderate levels of tapioca cannot be consumed by animals and humans without ill effect. However, eating it as a mainstay, or as a substitute for grains that have been proven safe and nutritionally beneficial for thousands of years, is not only unwarranted, but potentially dangerous. |
| |
|
|
|
|
