Champion Petfood (Orijen/Acana) Buyout Concerns

[Faveokatro]

The change is subtle, but the bumping up of peas and the addition of field beans (both protein sources) means the protein from meat content decreased. I would remind that the fishing company specified that Champion Petfoods was buying their byproducts that would have otherwise gone to rendering...

If you read the language carefully, on the PFAC page it indicates that the ingredients section, feeding instructions, guaranteed analysis and nutritional adequacy are all voluntary. Additionally, this was a direct e-mail from PFAC:

Pet food is not regulated in Canada and there is no regulatory requirement to have an ingredient panel. That said, our members follow AAFCO feed definitions. You can learn more about AAFCO at www.aafco.org


M. Martha (Marty) Wilder, C.A.E.
Executive Director
Pet Food Association of Canada
PO Box 35570, 2528 Bayview Avenue
Toronto, ON M2L 2Y4
416 447 9970
info@pfac.com
www.pfac.com

BUT if you look at AAFCO, their disclaimer is glaring:

AAFCO does not regulate, test, approve or certify pet foods in any way [emphasis added].

AAFCO establishes the nutritional standards for complete and balanced pet foods, and it is the pet food company's responsibility to formulate their products according to the appropriate AAFCO standard.

In other words, I can't find any regulatory body which is responsible for ensuring the ingredients label on dog food matches what's put in.

Edit: Again, I'd like to reiterate that NOTHING would make me happier than for someone to come out and tell me I'm wrong. I've trusted Champion, and recommended it to a few friends who switched to their products. This isn't a witch hunt.

 

[OntarioSheltie]

The change is subtle, but the bumping up of peas and the addition of field beans (both protein sources) means the protein from meat content decreased.

Yes, but that still doesn't mean its a significant change. In most cases its changed a space or two in the list of ingredients.

I would remind that the fishing company specified that Champion Petfoods was buying their byproducts that would have otherwise gone to rendering...

Yes, but if you look up the definition of meal and byproduct meal, it depends what exactly the meal is comprised of and how its handled. I didn't deny that you may be right, but what Fresh Water Fish is calling a byproduct may just be the part of the fish that humans don't normally eat. Remember that heart, lungs and other organs aren't something we'd all consider a meal, but they're still very nutritious, especially for our dogs. But like I said, its something I'm interested to look into.

http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/animal-by-products/

If you read the language carefully, on the PFAC page it indicates that the ingredients section, feeding instructions, guaranteed analysis and nutritional adequacy are all voluntary. Additionally, this was a direct e-mail from PFAC:



BUT if you look at AAFCO, their disclaimer is glaring:



In other words, I can't find any regulatory body which is responsible for ensuring the ingredients label on dog food matches what's put in.

I LIVE in Canada, I just want to point that out before I continue.

You're right, apparently it isn't mandatory that the ingredients be listed on the label, but I'd encourage you to come on over the boarder and see if you can actually FIND one pet food on the market that doesn't list its ingredients or have a guaranteed analysis listed. You won't find one.

Of course for exporting purposes we'd be required to follow the regulations of the countries we export to, if our products didn't meet those guidelines we'd be suspended from exporting. That's also why you'd be hard pressed to find the ingredients list and guaranteed analysis missing from our Canadian labels, it wouldn't exactly be cost effective to have different labels, depending on where the products are being sold.

Also please see the last point in the following link. It states that:

"Ingredients must be listed and identified by their common name."

In other words, even though having the ingredients list label on the bag is suggested (it says this in the second point), if the label IS present, the ingredients MUST be identified.

http://www.pfac.com/learn/industry/index.html

Please don't make accusations that you can't back up.

 

[BarbV]

Just a thought....

I would be cautious about any food that puts in by-products.....not that its ALL bad, but the problem is that you don't know WHAT by-products they put in!

 

[Faveokatro]

I haven't made any accusations, all I've done is laid out the facts. I've deliberately avoided accusing Champion of any wrong-doing simply because I don't know.

Yes, but that still doesn't mean its a significant change. In most cases its changed a space or two in the list of ingredients.

It's subjective what you consider significant, but we can agree to disagree. To me personally, having a fish ingredient in the top 4-5 is important, and Acana Ranchlands no longer does. Even disregarding the herring -> whitefish change. I guess it's highly subjective whether you think that matters or not.

Yes, but if you look up the definition of meal and byproduct meal, it depends what exactly the meal is comprised of and how its handled. I didn't deny that you may be right, but what Fresh Water Fish is calling a byproduct may just be the part of the fish that humans don't normally eat. Remember that heart, lungs and other organs aren't something we'd all consider a meal, but they're still very nutritious, especially for our dogs. But like I said, its something I'm interested to look into.

Agreed, I just think it's unlikely Fresh Water Fish separates its former cast-away parts. Maybe they do, like I said all I know is what they said in the article. I'd give them a call, but frankly I feel a bit silly having my co-workers hear one end of that conversation I'll wait for a day off.

You're right, apparently it isn't mandatory that the ingredients be listed on the label, but I'd encourage you to come on over the boarder and see if you can actually FIND one pet food on the market that doesn't list its ingredients or have a guaranteed analysis listed. You won't find one.

Of course for exporting purposes we'd be required to follow the regulations of the countries we export to, if our products didn't meet those guidelines we'd be suspended from exporting. That's also why you'd be hard pressed to find the ingredients list and guaranteed analysis missing from our Canadian labels, it wouldn't exactly be cost effective to have different labels, depending on where the products are being sold.

Also please see the last point in the following link. It states that:

"Ingredients must be listed and identified by their common name."

In other words, even though having the ingredients list label on the bag is suggested (it says this in the second point), if the label IS present, the ingredients MUST be identified.

I don't think I made the key point of the e-mail response clear. My original question to PFAC was not whether the ingredients label was required, but whether by-products could be included in a product without declaring it:

I was curious on how by-products in dog food were treated. Is there any possible way to include them without being in the ingredients list? Maybe a percentage of meal hurdle under which it doesn't have to be reported (say, if salmon by-products comprising less than 10% of salmon meal don't have to be disclosed)?

Which is why I found the response by PFAC striking in that it leads off by saying the industry is unregulated. Maybe I'm naturally more suspicious living in the US, where our USDA with considerable enforcement power still struggles with companies that skirt (or cross) the line repeatedly. And that's for human grade food.

 

[OntarioSheltie]

Just a thought....

I would be cautious about any food that puts in by-products.....not that its ALL bad, but the problem is that you don't know WHAT by-products they put in!

But that's the thing, they pretty much ALL do. If it says 'meal' on the ingredients list, its a byproduct.

 

[Ann]

Actually, "meal" is not something we would think of as a by-product, unless it's specifically called "by-product meal." That's when it becomes questionable. "Meal" from meat is considered better than just the meat itself. Here is the US Food and Drug Administration's explanation of how the different types of meal are defined:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines meal as "the rendered product from mammal tissues, exclusive of any added blood, hair, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents."

Meal is produced through the process of rendering in which ingredients are ground, boiled, spun to remove the fat, and dried. After rendering, only about 10% water remains allowing the end product to consist largely of minerals and protein (about 50 - 65% protein).

While they can be an excellent source of nutrition and protein, not all meals are created equal.

When describing meal as an ingredient in dog food, the FDA's website states: "In addition to the processing, it could also contain parts of animals one would not think of as 'meat.'"

Source-listed meals

Generally speaking, a "quality meal" is one for which the source of the ingredient is clearly listed, such as "lamb meal", "fish meal", and "chicken meal". Below are the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) definitions of these ingredients:

Lamb meal: "The rendered product from lamb tissues, exclusive of blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices."

Fish Meal: "The clean, dried, ground tissue of undecomposed whole fish or fish cuttings, either or both, with or without the extraction of part of the oil."

Chicken Meal: Chicken which has been ground or otherwise reduced in particle size."

Chicken is defined as: "The clean combination of flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts or whole carcasses of chicken or a combination thereof, exclusive of feathers, heads, feet and entrails"

By-product meals

The AAFCO defines a meat by-product as: "The non-rendered, clean parts, other than meat, derived from slaughtered mammals. It includes, but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted low temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of their contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth and hoofs. It shall be suitable for use in animal food. If it bears name descriptive of its kind, it must correspond thereto."

The most commonly used by-product meal is defined below by the AFCO:

Chicken By-Product Meal: "Consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice."

As a rule of thumb, it is best to steer clear of by-products in your dog's food, whether as a meal or other ingredient.

 

[OntarioSheltie]

As a rule of thumb, it is best to steer clear of by-products in your dog's food, whether as a meal or other ingredient.

For sure, but as that's pretty much all commercial foods, that's just not an option for some of us.

Champion Petfoods has always had a good reputation (until now anyways), I've never doubted where their foods come from. I will look into what constitutes the white fish meal a little more, but its likely I won't change foods unless significant changes are made to their recipes.

But that's just me.

 

[BarbV]

Actually, "meal" is not something we would think of as a by-product, unless it's specifically called "by-product meal." That's when it becomes questionable. "Meal" from meat is considered better than just the meat itself. Here is the US Food and Drug Administration's explanation of how the different types of meal are defined:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines meal as "the rendered product from mammal tissues, exclusive of any added blood, hair, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents."

Meal is produced through the process of rendering in which ingredients are ground, boiled, spun to remove the fat, and dried. After rendering, only about 10% water remains allowing the end product to consist largely of minerals and protein (about 50 - 65% protein).

While they can be an excellent source of nutrition and protein, not all meals are created equal.

When describing meal as an ingredient in dog food, the FDA's website states: "In addition to the processing, it could also contain parts of animals one would not think of as 'meat.'"

Source-listed meals

Generally speaking, a "quality meal" is one for which the source of the ingredient is clearly listed, such as "lamb meal", "fish meal", and "chicken meal". Below are the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) definitions of these ingredients:

Lamb meal: "The rendered product from lamb tissues, exclusive of blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices."

Fish Meal: "The clean, dried, ground tissue of undecomposed whole fish or fish cuttings, either or both, with or without the extraction of part of the oil."

Chicken Meal: Chicken which has been ground or otherwise reduced in particle size."

Chicken is defined as: "The clean combination of flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts or whole carcasses of chicken or a combination thereof, exclusive of feathers, heads, feet and entrails"

By-product meals

The AAFCO defines a meat by-product as: "The non-rendered, clean parts, other than meat, derived from slaughtered mammals. It includes, but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted low temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of their contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth and hoofs. It shall be suitable for use in animal food. If it bears name descriptive of its kind, it must correspond thereto."

The most commonly used by-product meal is defined below by the AFCO:

Chicken By-Product Meal: "Consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice."

As a rule of thumb, it is best to steer clear of by-products in your dog's food, whether as a meal or other ingredient.

Ann,

Quite a technical description but a great resource nonetheless...

Another concept to be explored is "rendering". You can render meat and you can render by-product....

Rendering is a process that converts waste animal tissue into stable, value-added materials. Rendering can refer to any processing of animal products into more useful materials, or more narrowly to the rendering of whole animal fatty tissue into purified fats like lard or tallow. Rendering can be carried out on an industrial, farm, or kitchen scale.
The majority of tissue processed comes from slaughterhouses, but also includes restaurant grease and butcher shop trimmings, expired meat from grocery stores, the carcasses of euthanized and dead animals from animal shelters, zoos and veterinarians. This material can include the fatty tissue, bones, and offal, as well as entire carcasses of animals condemned at slaughterhouses, and those that have died on farms, in transit, etc. The most common animal sources are beef, pork, sheep, and poultry.
The rendering process simultaneously dries the material and separates the fat from the bone and protein. A rendering process yields a fat commodity (yellow grease, choice white grease, bleachable fancy tallow, etc.) and a protein meal (meat and bone meal, poultry byproduct meal, etc.).
Rendering plants often also handle other materials, such as slaughterhouse blood, feathers and hair, but do so using processes distinct from true rendering.

And more on by-products and rendering....

http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/animal-by-products/

Eyes spinning yet? Few food advertise that they come from non-rendered product. Now! is one of the few that I know about.
That makes me happy because that's what I feed.

I honestly don't know if that puts them above the rest. That is, that if rendered meat might be ok if its meal instead of by-product.

Eyes still spinning? Yeah, me too!