euthanized pets in pet food

[gfunkusarelius]

in the light of the current pet food scare, my wife has informed me that euthanized pets are a common ingredient in pet food. i was skeptical that this was anything other than either an urban legend or a very rare occurrence, but she pointed me to one souce that says otherwise.

http://www.newstarget.com/012647.html

is this true? it seems like a practice that has a lot more negatives than positives, so i have a hard time imagining it is widespread.

and, hey, my wife is the one preparing the dog's meals from scratch now, so it isn't really any skin off my back, but hey, i am naturally curious and skeptical.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Although I can not comment directly as to the accuracy of that particular issue; it is not unlike the use of cattle remnants in cattle feed (which helped to compound the BSE problems a few years ago). Snopes made no mention of euthanized pets and pet food.

 

[Beady]

Would there be anything inherently objectionable, in principle, about such a practice? I mean, most common pets (cats, dogs, etc) would be eating each other in the wild. Granted, it's not pleasant to think about, but it was pretty common before we started taking them into our homes.

 

[casebro]

No where in the link does it say they do that any more. It says the only processor using pet carcasses stopped SIX years ago. Ancient history.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Where did the source information come from? Some competitor, or a maker of organic pet food?

The "organic" pet food makers are salivating like crazy over the pet food poisoning scandal. They are like "see, our locally made pet food won't kill your pets, and doesn't have nasty chemicals in it".

They do have a point, but if all we buy is organic and locally made, will there be enough to feed all the pets in the world? How do you make your own and ensure it meets your pet's dietary needs? You don't want your doggie or kittie all malnourished because somebody left out key ingredients.

So, who do you trust? Anyone have any sound advice?

If anything, I hope pet food makers start making sure their suppliers aren't idiots. It seems nobody quality checked their sources.

As for putting euthanized pets in food, again I ask for where this supposed information came from, and what their evidence is. I think Roadtoad said it was possible, but I'm not sure anymore. Roadtoad used to scrape dead animals, pets and random wild ones, off the road. If there are dead things in pet food, it won't be just lost squashed pets, but all kinds of animals.

As casebro already posted, this practice was stopped. I checked the "news source", and it seems to be promoting certain products. I say the source is biased, and is dragging up old news to scare you into buying those products instead of "commercial" products.

 

[Fnord]

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

PEOPLE ARE SOYLENT GREEN!​

 

[Kaylee]

No where in the link does it say they do that any more. It says the only processor using pet carcasses stopped SIX years ago. Ancient history.

I see where the link said one company stopped doing this in 2001, but that still means that other companies could be doing this. I don't see where the link said that the company that did this until 2001 was the only company that engaged in this process.

Would there be anything inherently objectionable, in principle, about such a practice? I mean, most common pets (cats, dogs, etc) would be eating each other in the wild. Granted, it's not pleasant to think about, but it was pretty common before we started taking them into our homes.

I’m not sure about that. I think they normally would only eat fresh kill. From what I've heard I think carrion tends to be eaten by vultures, eagles, hyenas and certain types of bugs (e,gg., carrion beetles). ETA: And I don't think they would normally hunt each other, but go hunt other species.

Regardless, if it has no adverse health affects on the pets I wouldn't be adverse to the practice. I imagine the number of pets, abandoned animals and zoo animals that die every year must be extremely high and it certainly seems to be a pragmatic solution.

But it appears that this practice may have adverse health affects:

Chemical dangers lurk in commercial pet food

Rendering practices aren't just gross; they're also dangerous for your pets. The chemicals used to euthanize zoo animals, dogs and cats can survive the cooking process, which means these chemicals end up in pet food, and ultimately, in your pet. Martin writes, "Euthanized cats and dogs often end up in rendering vats along with other questionable material to make meat meal, and meat and bone meal. This can be problematic because sodium pentobarbital can withstand the heat from rendering. For years, some veterinarians and animal advocates have known about the potential danger of sodium pentobarbital residue in commercial pet food, yet the danger has not been alleviated." In short, that means the poisons designed to kill pets are the same ones being fed to them.

...

As I discuss elsewhere, euthanized cats and dogs often end up in rendering vats along with other questionable material to make meat meal, and meat and bone meal. This can be problematic because sodium pentobarbital can withstand the heat from rendering. For years, some veterinarians and animal advocates have known about the potential danger of sodium pentobarbital residue in commercial pet food, yet the danger has not been alleviated. The "Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia," states, "In euthanasia of animals intended for human or animal food, chemical agents that result in tissue residue cannot be used."
Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 57

Note that the author, Martin, is backing up her claim with a reference to a report by the AVMA. If this was an issue for me (see two paragraphs down why it's not) I would try to find out if the AVMA is a credible organization and I would look for the original report to make sure the quote was not being taken out of context. I would also try to find out if the author Martin had a good reputation among scientists. Lastly, I would try to see if any of her claims could be backed up in the PubMed database.

I also think a question worth asking is if the animals that are euthanized and then later sent on to a rendering plant have been painlessly killed by methods that don't leave a chemical residue? Is that possible and is that what is commonly being done?

I got two cats last fall. I tried a lot of different pet food before settling on a few brands. What surprised me is that basically they can only tolerate pet food that uses mostly turkey and/or chicken with some fish. Pet food with meat makes them a little sick although one cat will enthusiastically eat any raw meat I give her while cooking with no problems. (The other cat is an older rescue and will only eat kibble and wet food -- he doesn't trust anything else. Too exciting of a past life I guess.)

I always found that puzzling, but if the meat in pet food is in fact loaded with chemicals than I guess their reaction makes sense.

I say the source is biased, and is dragging up old news to scare you into buying those products instead of "commercial" products.

I'm very interested in knowing whether or not newstarget.com is a creditable source. It's true that they have ads, but they appear to be mostly for books on related topics and most media gets most of their revenue from ads also. I had done some research last fall about sugar and MSG and as a result have tried to cut back on sugar and, to the best of my ability, eliminate MSG from my diet. Newstarget.com was one of the places where I got the information, but I was able to verify it at PubMed and don't recall any inconsistencies between the two web sites. Of course this was just two topics, I don't know how reliable they are on most of the topics they write about.

 

[gerdbonk]

Note that the author, Martin, is backing up her claim with a reference to a report by the AVMA. If this was an issue for me (see two paragraphs down why it's not) I would try to find out if the AVMA is a credible organization and I would look for the original report to make sure the quote was not being taken out of context. I would also try to find out if the author Martin had a good reputation among scientists. Lastly, I would try to see if any of her claims could be backed up in the PubMed database.

Here's the original report:

AVMA report of the panel on euthanasia

Note message on first page of report:

Before referring to the 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia, please contact the AVMA to ensure the association's position is stated correctly.

The report appears comprehensive. The full paragraph Martin pulled her quote from:

Animals intended for human or animal food

In euthanasia of animals intended for human or animal food, chemical agents that result in tissue residues cannot be used, unless they are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Carbon dioxide is the only chemical currently used for euthanasia of food animals (primarily swine) that does not result in tissue residues. Physical techniques are commonly used for this reason. Carcasses of animals euthanatized by barbituric acid derivatives or other chemical agents may contain potentially harmful residues. These carcasses should be disposed of in a manner that will prevent them from being consumed by human beings or animals.

 

[gerdbonk]

As for NewsTarget.com, consider their "community" links to

DangerousMedicine.com ("real stories about the harm caused by conventional medicine")

WaterCureInsider.com ("real stories about water as medicine" including structured water, homeopathy and "the great" Dr. Batmanghelidj)

FoodFactor.com ("the community speaks on the healing power of natural foods").

Do you think NewsTarget.com may have a bias?

 

[joobz]

I would be curious to know why you would go through the trouble of getting pet carcasses for food. This would have to come from a rather significant source to be worthwhile/cost effective means. This would rule out local vets. Leaving only large scale breeders, national pet store chains (who sell animals) or the Humane society. If this is an ethical concern, shouldn't we be looking for the supplier? Is the shipping and hauling really a logical money maker for any of these groups?

Although, it does remind me of Roger and Me, "Pets or meat!"

 

[Fnord]

Although, it does remind me of Roger and Me, "Pets or meat!"

It reminds me of what my dad used to say, "An animal should either protect me, entertain me, or feed me in some way. If it attacks me, bores me, or gets in my way, it's dead."

A harsh and bitter man, my father was...

 

[Tief]

I noticed several quotes from 'Nature's Miracle Cures' in the article. Doesn't sound like a good non-biased source. Not that I throw the whole article out the window, but I think it has it's biases, like not telling us that euthanised animals used for food is not supposed to contain any sodium pentabarbitol.

Many animal preserves feed road kill to their meat-eating wards (tigers,etc.). If that's good enough for them, I have no problems with it.

Cannibalism has nothing to do with the quality of food. Obviously, we do not want people killing other people as a food source, but there is nothing wrong with feeding an animal some of its own kind.

 

[articulett]

I would be curious to know why you would go through the trouble of getting pet carcasses for food. This would have to come from a rather significant source to be worthwhile/cost effective means. This would rule out local vets. Leaving only large scale breeders, national pet store chains (who sell animals) or the Humane society. If this is an ethical concern, shouldn't we be looking for the supplier? Is the shipping and hauling really a logical money maker for any of these groups?

Although, it does remind me of Roger and Me, "Pets or meat!"

I am sure that there are enough pet euthanizing going on that this could be a cost effective way for animal shelters to deal with bodies rather than incinerating them. But it hardly seems healthy...though they would be forced to eat whatever meat sources they could get in the wild or feral condition--so I guess that might be a way of negating fears about prion diseases, or viruses that can pass by a species consuming it's own--

I suspect you could get dead animals rather easily on a small scale for dissecting and the like from animal shelters. It sounds terribly gross--soylent greenish...but cats are total carnivores...they need to eat dead animals to survive whether it's dead cows or dead mice or dead birds or dead cats. Dogs are omnivorous--and can make food from most any garbage dump...they are rat-like when it comes to adapting foods into nutrients-- and though I think it's eco-friendly when an organisms death helps other live (as in organ donation), if there are pets in pet food, that would really disgust me. I mean, I know there is fish in fish food...but dogs in dog food? In my head it sounds like having babies in baby food. It would be better to feed dogs dead dogs than to let them starve, but I can't quiet my emotional reaction regarding this prospect.

The pets won't care, but if this turns out to be true, the people who own pets sure will.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I posted this a short time ago on Skepchick after reading that a few members had tasted the kibbles. Yes it is true. Just about anything that was once alive can be in some pet food brands.

Don't taste it, don't let the baby eat it, but more importantly, find a good source of pet food for your animals. Not all brands include the remains processed in the rendering plants.

And it isn't the viruses you need to worry about, artic, it's the remaining euthanizing drugs not destroyed in the processing. As for prions, that's a disease that hasn't passed into the pet population that we know of. Since we don't generally eat pets, the first few dying from a new variant would likely go unnoticed. But until it shows up somewhere, you can bet the profitable practice of throwing euthanized pets into the pet food chain isn't likely to be slowing down any time soon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where did the source information come from? Some competitor, or a maker of organic pet food?

The "organic" pet food makers are salivating like crazy over the pet food poisoning scandal. They are like "see, our locally made pet food won't kill your pets, and doesn't have nasty chemicals in it".

They do have a point, but if all we buy is organic and locally made, will there be enough to feed all the pets in the world? How do you make your own and ensure it meets your pet's dietary needs? You don't want your doggie or kittie all malnourished because somebody left out key ingredients.

So, who do you trust? Anyone have any sound advice?

If anything, I hope pet food makers start making sure their suppliers aren't idiots. It seems nobody quality checked their sources.

As for putting euthanized pets in food, again I ask for where this supposed information came from, and what their evidence is. I think Roadtoad said it was possible, but I'm not sure anymore. Roadtoad used to scrape dead animals, pets and random wild ones, off the road. If there are dead things in pet food, it won't be just lost squashed pets, but all kinds of animals.

As casebro already posted, this practice was stopped. I checked the "news source", and it seems to be promoting certain products. I say the source is biased, and is dragging up old news to scare you into buying those products instead of "commercial" products.

I know our anecdotes are not to be trusted, especially when it is a story about, "my friend". But my friend in Bellingham WA really did come back from a school field trip he took his class on to the dog pound there. He was quite distressed that they told the class the euthanized pets went to the rendering plant to make pet food from. It was in the late 70s.

When I got my two dogs 3 years ago, I looked into it and it was still occurring then. See my link above.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would be curious to know why you would go through the trouble of getting pet carcasses for food. This would have to come from a rather significant source to be worthwhile/cost effective means. This would rule out local vets. Leaving only large scale breeders, national pet store chains (who sell animals) or the Humane society. If this is an ethical concern, shouldn't we be looking for the supplier? Is the shipping and hauling really a logical money maker for any of these groups?

Although, it does remind me of Roger and Me, "Pets or meat!"

From The Humane Society

Every year, between six and eight million dogs and cats enter U.S. shelters; some three to four million of these animals are euthanized.

That's a lot of rendering product.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I noticed several quotes from 'Nature's Miracle Cures' in the article. Doesn't sound like a good non-biased source. Not that I throw the whole article out the window, but I think it has it's biases, like not telling us that euthanised animals used for food is not supposed to contain any sodium pentabarbitol.

Many animal preserves feed road kill to their meat-eating wards (tigers,etc.). If that's good enough for them, I have no problems with it.

Cannibalism has nothing to do with the quality of food. Obviously, we do not want people killing other people as a food source, but there is nothing wrong with feeding an animal some of its own kind.

In Colorado where I lived, a freshly 'killed by a vehicle' deer or elk might get donated to someone who could use it, but no one picked up the ones which had maggots in them to feed to anything, to my knowledge. Hit a deer or elk with your car and you are likely to have the police and/or fire responding because it does a lot of damage. That's how they end up recovering the animal. People are on the scene just after the accident.

 

[articulett]

Thanks for the info. Skepticgirl. I was afraid to know, but I guess I'm glad I did. I knew the numbers euthanized were very high--though the humane society does not Euthanize unless a pet is elderly or ill where I live. They give them foster homes, shelter them, and fix them. I was actively involved with being a foster family for years--still have some of the "unadoptables" in my menagerie.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the original report:

AVMA report of the panel on euthanasia

The report appears comprehensive. The full paragraph Martin pulled her quote from:

Quote:
Animals intended for human or animal food

In euthanasia of animals intended for human or animal food, chemical agents that result in tissue residues cannot be used, unless they are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Carbon dioxide is the only chemical currently used for euthanasia of food animals (primarily swine) that does not result in tissue residues. Physical techniques are commonly used for this reason. Carcasses of animals euthanatized by barbituric acid derivatives or other chemical agents may contain potentially harmful residues. These carcasses should be disposed of in a manner that will prevent them from being consumed by human beings or animals.

I believe this. I think I recall reading an article about the chemicals which implied the problem had been detected so was going to be corrected. I imagine it went on a long time before being noticed though. I couldn't find all the articles I had read when I got my dogs so I don't have a source.

I notice though it says "should" meaning there may be lo legal enforcement.

 

[delphi_ote]

If this were true, I think it would be a very bad idea. Mad cow has already been mentioned. That's an obvious example of why we should not to feed a population to itself. Add to that danger the fact that these animals were put down intentionally, meaning there was something wrong with them that warranted ending their lives early. I can just imagine a cycle of pets getting sick, put down, and made into food that got more pets sick, which are then put down and made into food...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The source I cited on the Skepchick thread has this bibliography:

References

Association of American Feed Control Officials Incorporated. Official Publication 2007. Atlanta: AAFCO, 2007.

Case LP, Carey DP, Hirakawa DA. Canine and Feline Nutrition: A Resource for Companion Animal Professionals. St. Louis: Mosby, 1995.

FDA Enforcement Reports, 1998-2007. www.fda.gov.

Hand MS, Thatcher CD, Remillard RL, et al., eds. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, 4th Edition. 2002. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute.

Logan, et al., Dental Disease, in: Hand et al., ibid.

Mahmoud AL. Toxigenic fungi and mycotoxin content in poultry feedstuff ingredients. J Basic Microbiol, 1993; 33(2): 101–4.

Morris JG, and Rogers QR. Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle. Journal of Nutrition, 1994; 124: 2520S–2533S.

Mottram DS, Wedzicha BL, Dodson AT. Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction. Nature, 2002 Oct 3; 419(6906): 448–9.

Pet Food Institute. Fact Sheet 1994. Washington: Pet Food Institute, 1994.

Phillips T. Rendered Products Guide. Petfood Industry, January/February 1994, 12–17, 21.

Roudebush P. Pet food additives. J Amer Vet Med Assoc, 203 (1993): 1667–1670.

Seefelt SL, Chapman TE. Body water content and turnover in cats fed dry and canned rations. Am J Vet Res, 1979 Feb; 40(2): 183–5.

Strombeck, DR. Home-Prepared Dog and Cat Foods: The Healthful Alternative. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1999.

Tareke E, Rydberg P, Karlsson P, et al. Analysis of acrylamide, a carcinogen formed in heated foodstuffs. J Agric Food Chem, 2002 Aug 14; 50(17): 4998–5006.

Zoran D. The carnivore connection to nutrition in cats. J Amer Vet Med Assoc, 2002 Dec 1; 221(11): 1559–67.

Notes

1. Pet Food Institute. Fact Sheet 1994. Washington: Pet Food Institute, 1994.
2. Association of American Feed Control Officials. Official Publication, 2007. Regulation PE3, 120–121.
3. Morris, James G., and Quinton R. Rogers. Assessment of the Nutritional Adequacy of Pet Foods Through the Life Cycle. Journal of Nutrition, 124 (1994): 2520S–2533S.
4. Tareke E, Rydberg P, Karlsson P, et al. Analysis of acrylamide, a carcinogen formed in heated foodstuffs. J Agric Food Chem, 2002 Aug 14; 50(17): 4998–5006.
5. Mottram DS, Wedzicha BL, Dodson AT. Acrylamide is formed in the Maillard reaction. Nature, 2002 Oct 3; 419(6906): 448–9.
6. Hand MS, Thatcher CD, Remillard RL, et al., eds. Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, 4th Edition. 2002. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute.
7. Seefelt SL, Chapman TE. Body water content and turnover in cats fed dry and canned rations. Am J Vet Res, 1979 Feb; 40(2): 183–5.
8. Logan, et al., Dental Disease, in: Hand et al., eds., Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, Fourth Edition. Topeka, KS: Mark Morris Institute, 2000.

and recommends these books:

For Further Reading about Animal Nutrition

The Animal Protection Institute recommends the following books (listed in alphabetical order by author), many of which include recipes for home-prepared diets:

* Michelle Bernard. 2003. Raising Cats Naturally — How to Care for Your Cat the Way Nature Intended. Available at www.raisingcatsnaturally.com.
* Chiclet T. Dog and Jan Rasmusen. 2006. Scared Poopless: The Straight Scoop on Dog Care. Available at www.dogs4dogs.com. ISBN-10: 0977126501, ISBN-13: 978-0977126507.
* Rudi Edalati. 2001. Barker’s Grub: Easy, Wholesome Home-Cooking for Dogs. ISBN-10: 0609804421, ISBN-13: 978-0609804421.
* Jean Hofve, DVM. 2007. What Cats Should Eat. Available at www.littlebigcat.com.
* Richard H. Pitcairn, DVM, and Susan Hubble Pitcairn. 2005. Dr. Pitcairn’s New Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats. Rodale Press, Inc. ISBN-10: 157954973X, ISBN-13: 978-1579549732. Note: The recipes for cats were not revised in this new edition and date back to 2000; they may contain too much grain, according to recent research.
* Kate Solisti. 2004. The Holistic Animal Handbook: A Guidebook to Nutrition, Health, and Communication. Council Oaks Books. ISBN-10: 1571781536, ISBN-13: 978-1571781536.
* Donald R. Strombeck. 1999. Home-Prepared Dog & Cat Diets: The Healthful Alternative. Iowa State University Press. ISBN-10: 0813821495, ISBN-13: 978-0813821498. Note: Veterinary nutritionists have suggested that the taurine and calcium are too low in some of these recipes. Clam juice and sardines are poor sources of taurine; use taurine capsules instead.
* Celeste Yarnall. 2000, Natural Cat Care: A Complete Guide to Holistic Health Care for Cats; and 1998, Natural Dog Care: A Complete Guide to Holistic Health Care for Dogs. Available at www.celestialpets.com.

The books listed above are a fraction of all the titles currently available, and the omission of a title does not necessarily mean it is not useful for further reading about animal nutrition.

The list is obviously promoting the organic life, so there may be some woo in there. OTOH, it may be biased toward a lifestyle but not necessarily toward woo.

 

[osmosis]

I saw a dog eat the turd of another dog once.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If this is true, I don't think it's a smart idea. Mad cow has already been mentioned. That's an obvious example of why we should not to feed a population to itself. Add to that the fact that these animals were put down intentionally, meaning there was something wrong with them that warranted ending their lives early. I can just imagine a cycle of pets getting sick, put down, and made into food that got more pets sick...

When the last mad cow cases turned up in Canada, there was a feed manufacturer still putting rendered sheep parts into the feed despite all the publicity and serious health threats.

Here's a related story. Too much trouble to track down the one that talked about the specific feed manufacturer these cows were traced to having eaten food from. It's out there if someone else cares to hunt for it.

In 1997, changes designed to keep animal parts out of animal feeds were implemented. Among them, Ottawa made it illegal to give beef herds products made from rendered cattle. However, rendered cattle could be used in feed for pigs and poultry.

A month after Canada's first case of BSE, a panel of experts recommended that the parts of the cow that can pass on BSE, such as the brain and spine should be kept out of all animal feed. That's policy in most European countries.

It's a recommendation that has met stiff resistance in the beef industry. Including rendered cattle parts in feed means disposing of heads and intestines can make money for cattle farmers instead of costing them money.

Meanwhile, documents obtained by CBC News through the Access to Information Act show that in the weeks after that first case of BSE, cattle were allowed to eat feed meant for chicken and pigs. Some of the feed was likely made from the original diseased cow.

The federal agriculture minister at the time, Andy Mitchell, said the government is moving to ban the use of cattle remains in all feed. The regulations were due to be in place by the middle of 2005.

In fact, the CFIA got the right in July 2005 to make violators of its rules pay penalties; before that, it had been limited to warnings, seizure of products that broke the rules, suspension or cancellation of permits and prosecutions.

In June 2006, the agency said that effective July 2007, it "is banning cattle tissues capable of transmitting bovine spongiform encephalopathy from all animal feeds, pet foods and fertilizers."

But small establishments will get additional time to comply. The government said it had allocated $80 million to help the industry implement the new rules.

This kind of stuff drives me nuts. Makes you want to scream what is wrong with these people? How long does it take to change a dangerous feed practice?

 

[casebro]

Didn't lots of humane societys use vaccuum chambers to euthanise? No residue whatever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw a dog eat the turd of another dog once.

That's common. I had to teach my dogs not to. Eeeewwww.

 

[casebro]

I see where the link said one company stopped doing this in 2001, but that still means that other companies could be doing this. I don't see where the link said that the company that did this until 2001 was the only company that engaged in this process. .

From the link in the OP: ""Although leading American manufacturers promise never to put rendered pets into their pet food,...." I guess that leaves the little 'organic' producers, if anybody.

I recall that my county (San Diego) has more horses than an other. 50,000 horses. They live an average of 20 years. So, 2500 horses die each year locally. Lots of dog food there, eh? 2,000,000 pounds?

 

[Dogdoctor]

Is it true that some dogfood has been found to contain dog or pentobarbitol? Yes. Is it anything other than a rare occurance? NO The descriptions of dogfood ingrediants is misleading as is likely the rest of it which I did not bother with since it uses the same old bs lines I have heard before.

 

[delphi_ote]

This kind of stuff drives me nuts. Makes you want to scream what is wrong with these people? How long does it take to change a dangerous feed practice?

 

[joobz]

To play the other side of the coin, it is efficient.
Think of all of the "Zero carbon emmission" society issues. It's a way to recycle and not waste resources. The alternative that would have happened would have most likely been incineration, which just releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

Also, isn't the trouble with the prions more of a issue with canabalistic practices not rendering? Since dogs and cats are carnivores naturally, as long as we feed them other animals outside their own species, we can reduce the probability of prion transmissions?

As for the trouble with euthanizing chemicals, that's an easy thing to change.

Truthfully, outside of my inherent knee jerk heebie-jeebies at the idea, I can't think of a reason not to. I love my dogs, their great. But I need to know WHY would feeding them cats or dogs be bad for them.

-and Delphi, not all pets are put down because of health issues. I'm fairly certain puppu mill dogs that aren't sold will be put down.

 

[delphi_ote]

Since dogs and cats are carnivores naturally, as long as we feed them other animals outside their own species, we can reduce the probability of prion transmissions?

After doing some Wikipedia reading, I'm not so sure about that. It sounds like there are many prions that cause problems across species.

But I think we're asking for trouble if we're feeding a species to itself. One mutation in one of those creatures could potentially cause an epidemic. Especially if the population of animals we're making into food are also likely to be sick in some way. Hearing the recent stories about people being forced to put their pets down because they ate the contaminated food is just heartbreaking. Imagine if every single one of the animals put down was potentially adding to the contaminated food supply.

And if the prion happened to also be dangerous to humans or some of our livestock? The more I think about this, the more I think this is seriously not a good idea.

-and Delphi, not all pets are put down because of health issues. I'm fairly certain puppu mill dogs that aren't sold will be put down.

I may not have worded it clearly, but my point is that the pets that have health issues are likely to be put down. If one unfortunate creature somewhere happens to have the unlucky mutation that codes for one of these TSEs, the vet isn't going to know what's wrong. The animal will most likely be put down. If we then make food for other animals of the same species using tissue from that pet, we've got a big problem on our hands.

ETA We might not have to wait for a random mutation. This is a really really really bad idea.

 

[Dogdoctor]

After doing some Wikipedia reading, I'm not so sure about that. It sounds like there are many prions that cause problems across species.

But I think we're asking for trouble if we're feeding a species to itself. One mutation in one of those creatures could potentially cause an epidemic. Especially if the population of animals we're making into food are also likely to be sick in some way. Hearing the recent stories about people being forced to put their pets down because they ate the contaminated food is just heartbreaking. Imagine if every single one of the animals put down was potentially adding to the contaminated food supply.

And if the prion happened to also be dangerous to humans or some of our livestock? The more I think about this, the more I think this is seriously not a good idea.

I may not have worded it clearly, but my point is that the pets that have health issues are likely to be put down. If one unfortunate creature somewhere happens to have the unlucky mutation that codes for one of these TSEs, the vet isn't going to know what's wrong. The animal will most likely be put down. If we then make food for other animals of the same species using tissue from that pet, we've got a big problem on our hands.

ETA We might not have to wait for a random mutation. This is a really really really bad idea.

Well we really don't need to worry about feline spongiform encephalopathy from pet food since it is eceedingly rare to find any cat DNA in pet foods.

 

[delphi_ote]

Well we really don't need to worry about feline spongiform encephalopathy from pet food since it is eceedingly rare to find any cat DNA in pet foods.

Feline spongiform encephalopathy affects felines. It is caused by proteins called prions.

It is probable, but not proven, that the affected animals contract the disease by eating contaminated bovine meat.

Umm... DNA and proteins are not the same thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gee, Dogdoctor, that last post puts your expertise in question. Give us some good citations on the source of your skepticism and I'm sure we'd all be more inclined to accept your statements.

But on to two other important issues.

First, someone IDed a virus that could be the real source of prion diseases. While there is a pretty good hypothesis about abnormal protein folding as the mechanism for prion diseases, I just want to point out I don't think it's been shown to be just the transmissible proteins for certain.

Just a reminder for Dogdoctor or others reading the thread, there are some proteins which are stable under extreme heat. Some toxins produced by staph bacteria for example are very heat stable. That's why if certain foods sit out at room temperature, you can't just recook it and expect it to be safe. You will kill the bacteria but if it was toxin producing, you'll still be puking your guts out for about a day.

Prions are extremely heat stable. They are not destroyed with normal sterilizing procedures and they would not be destroyed in the rendering cookers.

The second issue is how do we get new diseases? It isn't as simple as saying you feed meat to a vegetarian animal or vice versa though the principle is correct. Whenever you change the food source or environment of any organism, you risk introducing an organism not typically found in that population. When that happens, you get a mismatch. Just like some invasive species take over in a new environment, a new disease encounters a population with no current resistance and not much genetic resistance either.

A number of infectious diseases brought to the native people in the Americas by Europeans wiped out about 95% of the population in some areas. The bush meat trade both in Africa and in rural Asia has been responsible for introducing new human pathogens into the population. SARS was one of those novel introductions. Ebola was another.

So if the climate changes, or people migrate, or we build a new road into the rain forest, or we eat food products not normally consumed by our species, any major change like that has the potential to introduce a new disease into a population.

It is not a wise idea to put everything organic into livestock feed. I'm less worried about the pets eating pets as I am about feeding sheep brains to cows or chickens or pigs since those animals then enter the food chain. The practice of feeding the cows back to the cows is what amplified the BSE (mad cow) in England. But if there is a feline form of SE then putty kitty into the kitty food can amplify it into an epidemic. It has such a long incubation period it may have already happened and we haven't seen the results yet.

The question becomes is the benefit of doing whatever worth the risk posed by whatever? It was until we found out about BSE. Now that we know about it, the practice of feeding any animal carcases back to that same species risks spreading prion diseases. We have increasing amounts of Elk with wasting disease similar to mad cow. We saw what happened to the cows and to some people because of it. It isn't like we have a food shortage. It's a matter of profit for the companies involved.

As far as do I care if there are rendered pets in my dog's food? I don't care about the principle of it. They're dogs. But I do care that the implications are the food is not very nutritious and is occasionally very unhealthy. I just prefer to feed a better quality product to my little buddies.

 

[Dogdoctor]

As far as I know there was only a pet food from Canada that was found to contain pet DNA and the incidence of pentobarbitol is rare (not to mention so low that it has virtually no effect). If you have evidence that disputes that you post it.

 

[delphi_ote]

As far as do I care if there are rendered pets in my dog's food? I don't care about the principle of it. They're dogs. But I do care that the implications are the food is not very nutritious and is occasionally very unhealthy. I just prefer to feed a better quality product to my little buddies.

Ditto, but I think a widespread problem with this type of disease could pose a problem for more than our pets. There are practical reasons not to do this beyond pet love here.

 

[delphi_ote]

As far as I know there was only a pet food from Canada that was found to contain pet DNA and the incidence of pentobarbitol is rare (not to mention so low that it has virtually no effect). If you have evidence that disputes that you post it.

Are you trying to say that this is rarely practiced, and the fact that cat DNA rarely shows up in the product is evidence of this? Or are you trying to say that genetic material from the animals doesn't end up in the final product, so we don't have to worry about spongiform encephalopathy?

My point is that to any extent putting euthanized pets in food is practiced, it is a bad idea. I have no idea if the practice is widespread or if this is legal. joobz thought it wasn't a half bad idea. When I started reading about prions, I realized it is a very bad idea indeed.

 

[joobz]

My point is that to any extent putting euthanized pets in food is practiced, it is a bad idea. I have no idea if the practice is widespread or if this is legal. joobz thought it wasn't a half bad idea. When I started reading about prions, I realized it is a very bad idea indeed.

I think the point is not knowing the health status of the feed stock is a bad idea. Cat, dog, horse, are all viable food sources for humans even. The advantage of using only USDA source meat (lamb, pork, chicken, beef, seafood..) is that the health status is known. If we allow the practice for pet food, we must require the pet sources to be inspected for health concerns. I'm sure that it'd be possible to screen for malicous proteins in a rendering output. A quick immunoassay. You could even do it using SPR for high throughput.

I know this only checks for diseases we know of, but that is all we can do for our food stuff as well.

 

[delphi_ote]

A quick immunoassay. You could even do it using SPR for high throughput.

Not quite, according to the Wiki entry for BSE,

Tests are also difficult as the altered prion protein has very small levels in blood or urine, and no other signal has been found. Newer tests are faster, more sensitive, and cheaper, so it is possible that future figures may be more comprehensive. Even so, currently the only reliable test is examination of tissues during an autopsy.

We're not talking about hundreds of pounds of meat for each animal here. Would the the practice be profitable with all this testing?

 

[joobz]

Not quite, according to the Wiki entry for BSE,

We're not talking about hundreds of pounds of meat for each animal here. Would the the practice be profitable with all this testing?

I wasn't thinking of the rendering input, i was considering the rendering output.

The key is, what is the minimum content needed for transmission? If we know this and can detect it, it seems a viable means of control.

The interesting point is, if the "minimum content" is so low as to be a single prion or virus, then transmission rates would be expected to scale with the size of the rendering batch process.

If there is a quantifiable "minimum content" than it would be expected that there is some batch size where we would expect such small content that transmission is highly unlikely. But overtime, if incidinces of SE increased, than we would start to see a autoaccellerating effect.


Probably not a good idea. We should just use the rendering product for fish food

 

[Goshawk]

The #1 hands-down, no-doubt-about-it reason you can be 100% sure that there are no euthanized pets in pet food, in the U.S. at least, is the federal truth-in-labeling laws. By law, and subject to penalty, pet food manufacturers are required to list EVERYTHING that goes into their pet food, right down to the miniscule amounts of vitamins and food-grade dyes that are added.

The FDA speaks.

Like human foods, pet foods are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and must be pure and wholesome and contain no harmful substances. They also must be truthfully labeled. Foods for human or pet consumption do not require FDA approval before they are marketed, but they must be made with ingredients that are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) or ingredients that are approved food and color additives. If scientific data show that an ingredient or additive presents a health risk to animals, CVM can prohibit or modify its use in pet food.

Pet food ingredients must be listed on the label in descending order by weight.

"Meat meal" from euthanized pets from random sources around the country--said pets being on unknown quantities of various medications before their demise, and dying from eating antifreeze or contaminated food--would not be "Generally Recognized As Safe", since the valium, antibiotics, anti-cancer drugs, etc. would be in their remains.

Any pet food manufacturer caught using euthanized pets in their food would not only be subject to fines, but due to the inevitable public revulsion would be quickly out of business.

And it can't be that some small local manufacturers might be using locally euthanized pets, because as we've all discovered over the past few weeks, there really aren't any small, anonymous, local manufacturers of mass-market pet food. Mass market pet food all comes from the same place, from just a few manufacturers who stick different labels on different batches.

Now, there are small local manufacturers of various "organic" and "all natural" pet foods, but you can bet they aren't using dead pets, because they've got consumers looking over their shoulder even more than the mass-market manufacturers, and the penalty for failure, for getting caught, would be so great--total annihilation--that it serves as a deterrent.

So it all boils down to whether you're paranoid enough to mistrust both the labeling laws and the pet food manufacturers.

The pound workers in the Skepchick thread were simply having it off at the expense of the kids, because who wants to explain to a bunch of kids that the dead doggies and kitties are incinerated in a big garbage incinerator out back? Like garbage? Much better to tell them that unadoptable pets are recycled into the Circle Of Life and thus, dying, are enabled to make a contribution.