Home Dog Food

Our miniature schnauzer died at 10 years old and we have heard It is normal for schnauzers to live from 14 to 20 years.  Actually, we saw a dog at a regional Schnauzer Walk this summer, which got the oldest Schnauzer award being 24 years old!  Our dog Cinder died of pancreatic cancer, common with miniature schnauzers.  His early passing was not only traumatic and heart wrenching, but puzzling.

Since we were feeding Cinder Premium dry dog food and he never had any other illnesses (unless fleas can be dubbed an illness), it was alarming to find out he had cancer.  Maybe the cancer was genetic with the breed of dog but I believe it is more likely that the chemical laden dog food was the source of cancer. I felt I had been deceived by slick dog food advertising and misleading or false information about the ingredients of the product.  It was then I resolved to learn more about canine nutrition and how to reduce the risk of getting cancer, for our new puppy Molly. Shortly thereafter, HomeDogFood was born.

Our targeted readership is dog parents who are less than trusting of dog food manufacturing conglomerates and who are looking for alternative, higher confidence feeding solutions for their dog.  Our mission is to make feeding home dog food as easy and convenient as possible, provide veterinarian based knowledge of canine nutritional requirements, tasty food profiles and simple recipes using high quality, low cost ingredients.

When I started to do a little dog food research, it was not surprising to light upon the fact that virtually all dry dog foods that are packed in a bag and shipped by truck to the distribution channels, have additives to retain flavor, preserve color and prevent spoilage.  And with this thought, my professional risk management training kicked in!

Shelf life is a primary driving factor for dog food manufacturers when formulating their product. To reduce risk, they want to make sure it will appear fresh and fit for an extended time, even up to 6 months. If the product spoils or looses flavor before it gets to the consumer or before the dog has an opportunity to eat the food, the manufacturer could loose a lot of money.  Food spoilage or customer rejected product is a high risk factor for any food manufacturer.

Rejected Food Products

If we break down this risk factor and look at a rejected product event, here is what we might find.  Typically, in the dog food distribution channels, after a product has shipped from the factory and the store or the end customer finds unacceptable or spoiled product , the store notifies the dog food distributor of returning (rejected) dog food.  The store gives the distributor specific UPC codes from the product to be returned and the store is credited for that product.  The distributor picks up the rejected product from the store and returns it to the manufacturer.

When dog food is returned, the manufacturer not only looses sales revenue from the product already sold and being returned, but he may also have to “eat” direct costs associated with all the unacceptable dog food made in a given lot.  This includes; the cost of all product that hasn’t been sold yet and may be anywhere in the distribution channels; shipping costs associated with the spoiled product, not only to return the product but also costs already incurred to initially ship the product to the field; indirect administrative costs to deal with the problem internally, as well as working with all the distributors to identify and resolve any issues they might have with the defective product.

If the word of bad dog food gets out, we quickly loose confidence in the brand, the brand takes a hit and sales take a nose dive. Bad food is a very high risk and potentially a huge cost for dog food manufacturers.  A public recall of a well known dog food brand can cost a large company millions of dollars and of course, devalue the brand, the company stock and stockholders equity.  For a small company, a recall may cause financial ruin.

So isn’t it likely that dry dog food manufacturers, as a result of risk management decisions or profit motives, use preservatives in their formula that may be dangerous for dogs, to ensure the product will have a sufficiently long shelf life?

If we look at the potential cost to a food manufacturer, for rejected product, it may easily be orders of magnitude higher than the potential cost associated with the alternative, making sure the dog food has a long shelf life. One possible scenario, when a company chooses the long shelf life option might be, an affront on the brand from a few customers, for using potentially harmful substances in the dog food.  If a small percentage of customers forsake the brand for such a reason, the cost to the company, including lost sales could be relatively low.

One example of a potentially harmful ingredient that is used as a preservative, is commonly found in dog food and in human food, is BHA or BHT, classified as antioxidants.  Although controversial, whether or not these additives are safe, an article by Kate Murphy in Business Week, May,1996 states: “Repeated studies have shown that BHA and BHT increase the risk of cancer as well as accumulate in body tissue, cause liver enlargement, and retard the rate of DNA synthesis and thus, cell development.”

Tipping the Scale with Harmful Ingredients

Besides reading labels and avoiding potentially harmful additives, what other ways can we gain confidence that our dog food doesn’t tip the scale on harmful ingredients used to extend shelf life? How about AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) or the USDA, are they a factor in controlling preservative concentrations in dog food?

The site Dog Food Scoop, has some telling statements about regulations for dog food manufacturers:

1. AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials) is not a government agency and they have no regulatory authority to enforce their standards.  Compliance by the dog food manufacturer is completely voluntary.   Actually, AAFCO regulations prohibit any reference to quality or grade of ingredients on the pet food label and further, they do not analyze the source nor safety of the ingredients listed on dog food labels.
2. The FDA – CVM (Center for Veterinary Medicine) is a branch of the Federal Government who regulates dog food ingredients and requires that they be truthfully labeled.   The CVM or FDA does not regularly test to make sure the dog food is safe and healthy.
3. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) is involved with regulations concerning pet food labeling and identification and the approval of pet food ingredients.
4. The PFI (Pet Food Institute) represent pet food manufacturers and play a major role in setting AAFCO’s standards.

The USDA, FDA and CVM conduct investigations of widespread deaths in animals, especially as related to imported food ingredients.

So what level of trust should we give the pet food industry regulatory agencies in being able to ensure the food we buy for our dog is not harmful?

Can we trust the dog food manufacturers to be totally truthful about what goes into the dog food in terms of ingredients, preservatives and labeling and do they really care if some dog’s life may be shortened by 5 or more years?  What do you think?  Please give us your thoughts.