There are thousands of ways to build a diet; the first ingredient tells about as much of the story as the first chapter in a novel.

Reading a label is an art, not a science. It is far less obvious than searching the ingredient list for a veterinarian-recommended buzzword. Despite what people think they know about the wording of the label, they typically understand very little about the food being fed to their animals. As marketers spin power words and fancy packaging to make their packages seem special, reading a pet food label only becomes more confusing. These marketers/manufacturers split ingredients in order to force a certain “quality” ingredient to the top of the label. Some consumers think that pictures of vegetables and fruits indicate a better food. Others may believe, based on manufacturer claims, that a lamb formula is always a hypoallergenic solution to skin irritation. Maybe a consumer is looking for a low-protein diet but can’t actually tell the difference between high- and low-protein based on the information contained on the bag. What else do any of us have to go by?

We’re all told to look for the first ingredient, because the first ingredient has the most influence on the diet, right? Unfortunately, nothing on these labels is nearly that accountable. There are thousands of ways to build a diet; the first ingredient tells about as much of the story as a first chapter in a novel.

Two questions need to be considered when discussing pet food labels: What information on the label is relevant? and What is the subtext? Or more specifically, what did the manufacturers choose to leave off the label that is more important that what they put on? When you are done reading this article, Total Pet believes you will agree that changes in the labeling laws are overdue. As a brief example, recent recalled foods contained a cheaper vegetable protein source that was deliberately mixed into the food to increase protein levels. That ingredient, not admitted by information anywhere on the bag, was rice gluten, the contaminated ingredient in the food that necessitated a sizable portion of the recall. In another case a manufacturer added rice gluten without the knowledge of the company that contracted the production. This, perhaps, was even more telling because the company that marketed and sold the food really couldn’t be sure of exactly what was put into “their” food because they didn’t produce it – they only labeled it.

HOW CAN ANY OF THIS BE POSSIBLE?

A company is permitted to refrain from posting a new ingredient on a bag for some period of time before it must be added to the label. You have to admit that this practice doesn’t sound particularly on-the-level, and you might go as far as to question why a manufacturer would need to take advantage of this latency period if there was nothing to hide. It doesn’t necessarily imply malfeasance, but it certainly means something. Many businesses these days are being run by investment bankers and bean counters, and these profit-focused occupations care increasingly less about reports from their nutritionists. Or perhaps nutritionists are just telling the bean counters what they want to hear to keep their jobs. Telling administration that they can make production more cost-effective by using cheaper ingredients without anyone noticing is Brahms to an investment banker’s ears. Many older pet food businesses were first established by people that controlled their own quality and destiny – and they were serious about animal husbandry. That kind of ideology is almost impossible in the current big-business climate where the customer is almost always told what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Lies told by omitting important information  are still lies.

WHAT IS THE BAG TELLING ME WHEN IT SAYS… ?

Complete and Balanced

As confusing as it may seem, a diet can be complete but not balanced. This phrase means much to consumers, yet few actually know what is complete or what is balanced. So much of the verbiage on a bag of food contains empty promises specifically meant to impress and mislead us. A diet can have all the ingredients needed to maintain a dog (complete), but “balance” is a completely different matter. For an example of balanced vs. complete, refer to our discussion of taurine later in this article. Unbalanced diets are slow and silent killers that impair the immune system and may result in illnesses and maladies such as cancer, organ and heart deterioration and mineral imbalances that can result in bladder stones.

All-Natural

Isn’t that a $64 question? It means that the ingredients in the bag do not consist of artificially synthesized ingredients. That is hard to conceptualize.  If you see a bag that says all-natural it only means that the ingredients are not synthesized, which covers just about everything. You should feel a little uneasy when you see signs touting messages like “contains REAL CHICKEN.” Have we ever had UNREAL CHICKEN in our pet food? Does “unreal chicken” taste like chicken, too? Many vitamins are not natural. Does “all-natural” mean that the necessary nutritional additives not included in grain fragments and limited varieties of proteins aren’t in the food? In reality this moniker offers very little value to you as a consumer. At a recent trade show for pet supplies, virtually every manufacturer had slapped the word “natural” on everything from “soup to nuts.” (Publisher’s note: I was so tired of listening to these hollow power words that I wanted to stop at each booth to challenge their understanding of what any of these words actually meant.)

Natural may not always be better. About twenty years ago most manufacturers used a food preservative called ethoxyquin that was connected to a wide range of health issues including itchy skin, lethargy, thyroid and kidney problems and even cancer. The scandal became a media frenzy, and soon nobody wanted foods containing ethoxyquin. Consumers were talked into natural preservatives by manufacturers looking for a new hook. The mantras of “chemical-free” and “natural preservatives” gained popularity in the wake of ethoxyquin’s fall from favor. The new preservative is called mixed tocopherals, better known as vitamin E. You will see it listed on most pet food bags. Whether this trend was a good thing for our pets is hard to tell. In a five year study of foods containing ethoxyquin, the FDA found “no pathological changes attributable” to the preservative. The sad result is that ethoxyquin was a better preservative than mixed tocopherols and, ironically, the mixed tocopherols are really no more natural than ethoxyquin. Similar anti-oxidants, like BHA and BHT also appear frequently in foods sold for human consumption. Long-term studies are needed to ultimately determine how our foods should best be preserved. The purpose of this discussion is that the term “natural” may ultimately prove to be totally superfluous.

Organic

The concept of “organic” food is based on natural standards of production, rather than modern techniques using inorganic fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, human waste or sewage sludge. Also no antibiotics or growth hormones are allowed. Put that way, organic sounds like a pretty good concept. Instead of the previously mentioned lot of unnatural ways to grow food, organic growers use waste from farm animals. Farm animal manure may actually be a better source of micronutrients than artificial fertilizer; but how many animals do we need to fertilize millions of acres of farm land? We have to look at the practical side as well. It would be wrong to write off certain practices that are not 100% organic that, in the end, could be an acceptable middle ground that balances the benefits of organic farming with the practicality necessitated by our natural and economic limitations.

The term “organic” should not be a seal of approval, but the organic concept is growing rapidly in both the human and pet food markets. In many ways, however, it is being used to add value through marketing rather than an actual difference between the organic and inorganic production methods. That is not to say that there isn’t a difference, but that the difference is often less than you might be led to believe. Labeling obstacles and loopholes make it burdensome for true producers of organic food to accurately label their product. The proponents of “organic” have also taken the concept another step by not permitting ionizing radiation for sterilization or allowing genetically engineered foods into the organic line of products. Restricting ionizing radiation may be the first mistake we make in trying to limit the pathogens in our diets. We may need radiation sterilization. Maybe not today, but the day will soon come when food contamination could have been avoided by putting a little more faith in science. Much of the push for “organic” infringes upon hypocrisy. Manufacturers use statements such as “all natural” and “organic” to increase cost without improving product. True 100% organic foods are rare and sometimes cost twice that of a comparable non-organic alternative. Are people that cannot afford the price of “organic” hurting their pets or children because they can’t afford the cost structure? You, your family, and your pets can eat well by making wise choices about the foods you eat. The premium for organic foods may be worth the peace of mind, or it may not – the choice is in the hands of the consumer.

As our population growth accelerates, we will have to adjust our concept of what is acceptable for food production. Most likely the overall quality of food will have to suffer. The loss of quality may not be about health considerations, but selection and taste. Cost will always be a consideration in food production, and priorities will be adjusted to protect us and our pets, but the masses will still need to be fed, and compromises will be made.

As production methods change to accommodate the increase in population, new technologies for preservation and production will be needed. Innovations, such as pressure sterilization are being used to bring raw cat foods to the market in a sterile form. We believe that Wild Kitty out of Kennebunkport, Maine is one of the first companies to use this technology to manufacture pet food.

Grain-Free

The great pet food recall of 2007 initially began with wheat gluten made with deliberately tainted food from China. A toxin called melamine artificially made this product appear higher in quality than it really was. Since the recall, there has been a public perception that all grains are bad. Since the word gluten is attached to corn, wheat or rice on many pet labels, the public doesn’t trust any of it. People can’t be blamed for their misgivings about using grains, but to eliminate all grain is a knee-jerk reaction that will only make pet care a lot more expensive without adding any real benefit.

The recall occurred because companies farmed out the processing of their foods to foreign companies without maintaining proper quality control. That’s it. That’s actually how most recalls happen. Food manufacturing requires a very long chain of custody. A breakdown in any one of the links in that chain can spell trouble. It is right to have reservations about the grain quantity in pet foods, and you really shouldn’t feed diets high in grain to your dogs or cats. But to not feed grain at all because of tainted wheat gluten isn’t being an informed consumer. Consumers are partially to blame for this recall as well. They want to believe there is no risk in buying cheap. There is nothing wrong with price shopping if you weigh the potential for just these sorts of dangers. Understanding where costs were cut is important to bargain hunting. If something costs less, there are reasons for it, be they costs cut in the marketing, production or inclusion of cheaper ingredients. Manufacturers find niches of cheapness and many times use marketing to cover up poor quality. It is a process that ultimately finds the bottom of the barrel.

Hypoallergenic

Anything with a protein content that is consumed as food (grains, beans, meats, vegetables, etc.), inhaled (pollen), or rubbed onto the skin (grass) can cause allergies. Allergies are the immune system’s reactions to foreign proteins that that find a way into the bloodstream because they are incorrectly handled by your pet’s physiological systems. Any of these types of proteins can cause an over-active immune system that leads to skin irritations, vomiting and/or diarrhea. However, at the same time, do not assume that these symptoms (particularly skin conditions) are always indications of allergies. Malnutrition can also cause a variety of different skin conditions. Malnutrition in this country is usually not the result of too-few calories, sometimes it is caused by dietary imbalances or digestive or intestinal problems. Only a qualified veterinarian or skilled nutritionist with good instincts and diagnostic skills will be able to determine the source of the problem.

As one example, too many cheap biscuits can drastically alter a pet’s diet to the point where it is no longer adequate. Malnutrition can set in, even though the animal consumes more calories than it needs. We can begin to eliminate potential causes of these irritations by following two simple steps. First pick a quality food with protein sources with which your pet has had no contact. Next, add quality essential oils like Nature’s Logic or Iceland Pure to the diet to be sure that those ingredients are not in short supply. Essential oil deficiency is a common problem that can lead to numerous skin irritations. Also, sometimes mineral deficiencies and a shortage of biotin can result in inflammation. Correcting any deficiency can take in excess of 60 days, so be patient while waiting for results.

Professionals dealing with nutritional deficiencies caused by pet foods have found that the proper balance of essential fats is important to your pet’s long term health. Still, they are not considered a requirement by AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officals) because we don’t have a handle on which ones are truly deficient and how much we need of each. One of the obvious signs of poor omega-balance or deficiency is an inflamed skin condition. The first line of treatment prescribed by many health professionals is an increase of essential oil content, and many times this works. Oils do not cause allergic reactions.  People often blame skin conditions on allergies. Resist the temptation! Hopefully the time of using cortisone as the primary treatment for skin conditions has passed. We can’t just treat symptoms without attempting to treat the cause of the condition. Finding and then treating the cause is the only way to permanently eliminate the problem. And in order to plan an attack, understanding your pet food label is absolutely necessary.

Veterinarian or Doctor Recommended

The crème de la crème of bologna. We have asked Dr. Edward Bennett, a widely respected Pittsburgh-based veterinarian to offer us his opinion about the Veterinarian Approved or Recommended label. He believes that a veterinarian with questionable nutritional credentials approving a product is whoring out the profession. It lessens the trust of the pet owner in exceptional vets that might say they don’t know or won’t take money for an endorsement, making it harder for them to do their job. A first step toward legitimacy of the terms Veterinarian Approved would be the creation of standards for testing by a veterinarian council qualified to pass judgment on a product. Until then this catchphrase is just one more tool for use in crafty marketing schemes.

The Ingredient Panel

It is time to look at the ingredient panel that appears on every bag of food and put our sliver of newfound knowledge to some use. The part of the label that details the minimum amounts of protein and fat content is called the proximate analysis. It does not in most situations, however, tell us the calories. Shown are three examples of labels that might be found in pet specialty stores. Each has some important points to consider.

Label #1

A very high quality dry food.

Label #2

A canned food with some carbohydrate supplemented with a vitamin and mineral pack.

Label #3

A canned supplemental food that is 95% meat and only meant to be one component of a total diet.

The first food states that it contains 24% protein. You can see that the food also contains 13% fat, 4% fiber, and 10% moisture. From this we can determine that the diet contains somewhere around 45-50% digestible carbohydrate (the method for deduction will be revealed later). The recent public discussions regarding glycemic indexes in human nutrition, are enough to help us understand why the too-high carbohydrate content found in most dry foods is detrimental to the health of our pets.

The various and differing opinions of veterinarians, manufacturers and nutritionists on what constitutes quality food would fill many Michener novels.

If we understand the contents of the label, we can make educated decisions about the food we feed based on the specific needs of our animals; however, the rub is that the average consumer, without some type of background in nutrition, won’t be able to decipher the information. There’s no Captain Midnight decoder ring for this type of thing. And you shouldn’t feel bad about being unable to read the label on your pet’s food – most professionals can’t either. Without an understanding of how to this knowledge the consumer is totally dependant upon marketing for information about their pet food of choice. One company claims that their “special” diet (sold in grocery stores) will keep your dog alive 1.8 years longer. Longer than what? And what happens when we feed a food produced by the same company, and sold in pet specialty stores at a higher price? Do we then add another 1.8 years? Are these cumulative totals? How about if we feed both? Does it average out at 2.7 years? Or is this wonder dog going to live an extra 5.4 years? There’s no scale to measure these claims. Our logic is no less absurd than the claim itself.  In reality, this advertising scheme was a giant spin on a long term experiment that actually used the same food but at different levels of feeding. The winners of the study were the dogs fed 25% less than the control. The quality of the food had nothing to do with the longevity of the study animals – the longevity, however, had everything to do with controlled caloric intake.

Companies generally reserve their heaviest muscle for peddling their grocery diets but spend little money and energy marketing their higher-end brands. Why? The people that shop based on price and grocery-store convenience are not willing to spend more for food; therefore, marketing companies go head to head, launching competing power words and platitudes to reinforce the low-end consumer’s feelings that they are still doing right by both their pets and their pocketbooks. The goal of these marketing campaigns is to perpetuate the idea that there’s never anything wrong with bargain hunting. And there isn’t anything wrong with getting a good deal, but marketing spin shouldn’t be a primary source of information. Being informed is the only way to get an honest “bargain.” There’s only so much quality to find in a food that costs so little.

Some years ago a popular grocery brand promised a revamped product with a cat food bag that read “New and Improved Original Formula.” They just never bothered to mention anywhere on the bag what, exactly, had been improved. For all we know they asked two-hundred people to select their favorite shape and altered their kibble accordingly. These big manufacturers, bolstered by marketing magicians, are masters of the slight of hand. In the first instance, the company had altered the diet, shall we say, to make production more cost-effective. But since they knew their customers do not tolerate change (primarily because these brands had already conditioned them to believe that variety is evil), they advertised the change as “new and improved,” but still claimed the formula to be “original.” This tactic completely sidestepped the potential turmoil and lost business that would have resulted from speaking the truth. Still, the truth was there – you just had to know where to look.

In the label above, you might think that tuna and beef are the main ingredients, but that is not necessarily true. The key word here is “with.” Only 3% of the total diet needs to be comprised of an ingredient in order for a product to be labeled “with.” How are we supposed to understand what we’re feeding our pets if there’s little to no substance behind the verbiage on the product? Like the above example of “New and Improved Original Formula,” most language on a bag is just meant to sway our thinking without informing.

So who is protecting us from all this empty language? Those in the position to act as your front line of protection against nutritional spin have actually been willing conspirators. In order to run a veterinary clinic, a license to practice veterinary medicine is required. In the U.S., these licenses are issued by the Veterinarians’ Association,. In other words, the licenses are issued by a professional trade union that has no obligation to act in the public interest rather, the VA’s only obligation is to protect the financial interests of their members. Any individual viewpoints that risk the financial interests of the profession may be silenced through the threat of a revoked license. Troubling though it may be, vets only make money if a pet is sick. Veterinarians treating healthy patients have few products to “sell” other than vaccines and heartworm medications, the sales of which do not offset the  substantial costs of running a clinic. Vets are left with insufficient income to run a profitable practice. Many vets must rely on the trust of their patients’ owners and the commercial pet food peddled through their office to these trusting owners. Some manufacturers even offer commission and cash bonuses as sales incentive. The Veterinarians Association itself is a major shareholder in a major commercial grocery brand. In some instances, the sale of pet food can account for as much as 20% of a veterinarian’s income. This is not to say that all vets are shills; however, the pet food manufacturers have cast a dark cloud of doubt over even the honest and knowledgeable veterinarian clinics, making it even more difficult to perform their jobs in an already thankless industry. We’ll leave this topic with one final thought to ponder. While you trust your vet to recommend a single diet for your pet, the typical veterinary program offers only one course in animal nutrition during four years of study and this course must cover all animals the student could eventually treat in practice – dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, birds, ferrets, rats, reptiles, and livestock. Not to mention that even within the canine world, different breeds of dogs require different diets, different drugs, and different handling. The task is daunting. Any claim that veterinarians know everything about canine or feline nutrition should appear disingenuous until proven otherwise.

The various and differing opinions of veterinarians, manufacturers and nutritionists on what constitutes quality food would fill many Michener novels. Simplify the process yourself. Begin your search for quality foods with manufacturers that use quality ingredients. Use price as a factor, but make sure you’re comparing apples to apples when searching for a good bargain because foods have varying costs for a myriad of reasons. For example, canned and frozen foods are more costly to ship, but often use better ingredients that are more digestible than dry foods from the same manufacturer.

Some vets are convinced that raw food is the best. Others fear e-coli and salmonella. Some vets think excessive protein causes kidney disease. (We here at Total Pet aren’t really sure what that “excessive protein” means when feeding a carnivore and would really enjoy reading the study that proves this theory.) On a related note, some think we have to limit the protein intake of large dogs to prevent too-rapid growth while others claim that large breed dogs should have high protein, low fat diets (count Total Pet’s vote here) for at least 18 months to keep them very lean, especially in their early years. More conclusive clinical trials need to be undertaken to conclusively answer the questions we all have about pet nutrition, but nobody seems willing or able to do that. Like humans, dogs respond differently to various diet regimens. For the time being, consumers must take it upon themselves to be more informed. It is also the job of the true professionals selling quality pet food to cut through the marketing spin and empty industry promises to guide the consumer toward better feeding techniques and brand options.

Back to the food panels…

“Google” essential fats and you’ll find thousands of hits, but little concrete information.   We will see, however, the the bag labels extolling the levels of essential fats in their foods.  Everybody is selling something, but the significance of the exercise is to show that people are talking about essential fats as a vital dietary inclusion. Unfortunately, the ratio between the omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids and the total amount in the diet, two necessary pieces of information, are not clearly indicated on the label in all cases. Like our Internet search, the listing of these ingredients on a food label is mostly smoke and mirrors, but it also means that both consumer and manufacturers have taken the first step – realizing their importance. If consumers can see beyond the slight of hand, manufacturers will have to take the next step: producing food with a beneficial omega balance and better labeling, but the consumer has to demand it first.

On a typical food panel, like the one shown below, the linoleic acid content is listed. Linoleic acid is an unsaturated omega-6 fatty acid. Omega-6 acids are generally plentiful; however, when not in balance with omega-3s, they can be detrimental to the formula. Most dry foods are not well balanced with regards to essential fats. Down the list you’ll see a conspicuous ingredient called DHA or docosahexaenoic acid. In Volume 2, Issue 3 of Total Pet Magazine, we discussed that this oil, along with another called EPA (Eicosapentaenoic acid), is an important part of the essential fats in the omega-3 class. The problem is in finding out how important they are for dogs and cats. We know that a lot of animals are helped with the essential fat supplements. The question is then, why?

It is important to remember that due to the intense heat required for most extrusion processes, very few of the quality fatty acids remain in the diet. What this means is that the manufacturers may have added some omega-3s in order to put the ingredient on the bag and make the consumer feel good. But was the food processed correctly to keep it there? This also means that if you feed mainly dry food, you should consider adding a quality wild salmon oil to create a more balanced diet for your pet. As it is, many consumers buy food thinking it contains essential oils, and when their pet develops a skin condition, they deduce that a lack of oils cannot possibly be the problem. But it may be precisely the problem.

On the previously pictured Label 1 look at the star to the right of the line with Docosahexaenoic acid. That star usually indicates that the ingredient isn’t required by AAFCO. AAFCO doesn’t actually recognize any omega-3 or -6 fatty acids as necessary. Anyone with any knowledge of carnivore nutrition will disagree with AAFCO on this point. The questions that need to be answered are that of the appropriate ratios and balance. Some might still contest that if AAFCO doesn’t deem an ingredient necessary, it’s just not needed. Consider this the next time you plan to use AAFCO as a source of information: AAFCO has no enforcement authority, does not perform any analytical testing on pet food, and does not determine permissible sources of required ingredients – meaning that protein is protein no matter the source.  We know there are differences in quality created by the protein source and manufacturing procedures. All we have to do is look at the recall to know that AAFCO standards do not ensure a quality food. These standards only a guideline based on incomplete information.

Read Part Two of this article here.