The first ever pet food testing by consumers!
http://associationfortruthinpetfood.com ... t-results/
The Pet Food Test Results
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
The Pet Food Test Results
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
So sorry this link isn't working. It was the only one that I could get to work yesterday. Something very fishy is going on with all this. BRB with some info from other sources.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/01/1 ... K1xdu8g_X5
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/pr ... 90f618c890
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/01/1 ... K1xdu8g_X5
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/pr ... 90f618c890
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
Joan,
The links all work fine. Here are my thoughts on that "study".
The problem with that project (at least the problem with the reports written about the tests) is that the standards appear to be arbitrary and unrealistic. They defined the standards in order to insure they would get the results they wanted. It's difficult to say without seeing all the data, but it appears that in order to get the results to come out so that they could claim the samples to be "98 %" contaminated with mycotoxins, etc., they arbitrarily assigned standards not recognized by government or responsible private labs.
IOW, it appears that in the case of mycotoxins, for example, if a sample contained any detectable level of any known mycotoxin, it was classified as "contaminated" with mycotoxins. The problem with such standards is that mycotoxins are ubiquitous in grains, peanuts, cottonseed, and various other seeds these days. If you test food sold for human consumption, you will find almost exactly the same level of contamination.
Yes, those mycotoxins are in there, but the maximum levels are carefully monitored by state and federal regulatory agencies, to make sure that they do not exceed unsafe levels. The same goes for bacteria. Bacteria are everywhere. If we can't detect them, it's not because they are not present, but because our testing methods are not adequate for the job. But a few bacteria are not a problem — it's when they're present in huge numbers that they pose a health threat. It's not a perfect system, that's for sure, but it's the best we can do until something better comes along, because the sad reality is that if we require zero contamination in all food and feed, there would be nothing to eat.
The reason why those folks have not received a response from the government regulatory professionals association is because the pros see the claims made by the promoters of this study as ludicrous — fabricated sensationalism, and much ado about nothing. One cannot assign arbitrary testing standards and expect to receive support from the cognesenti.
Now I'll grant you, some of the test results mentioned apparently were indeed in violation of accepted standards. So it's not a perfect world — no surprise there. But these people killed their credibility by trying to sensationalize the project by playing games with test standards, and by ignoring reality. The reality is, virtually all food and all feed is contaminated. That is a given. The name of the game is monitoring the contamination level in order to keep it below safe limits.
This is no different from the reality of gluten-free labeling. Gluten-free does not actually exist in the world we live in, because gluten is ubiquitous. I would be extremely surprised if anyone could find a single product in any grocery store anywhere in the developed world that has a gluten content of absolute zero. Experience shows that a zero result is typically due either to an incorrectly performed test, or a test with inadequate sensitivity. The best we can hope to do is to regulate the contamination level to keep it below practical safe limits for most people in the general population.
At least that's how I see it, FWIW.
Tex
The links all work fine. Here are my thoughts on that "study".
The problem with that project (at least the problem with the reports written about the tests) is that the standards appear to be arbitrary and unrealistic. They defined the standards in order to insure they would get the results they wanted. It's difficult to say without seeing all the data, but it appears that in order to get the results to come out so that they could claim the samples to be "98 %" contaminated with mycotoxins, etc., they arbitrarily assigned standards not recognized by government or responsible private labs.
IOW, it appears that in the case of mycotoxins, for example, if a sample contained any detectable level of any known mycotoxin, it was classified as "contaminated" with mycotoxins. The problem with such standards is that mycotoxins are ubiquitous in grains, peanuts, cottonseed, and various other seeds these days. If you test food sold for human consumption, you will find almost exactly the same level of contamination.
Yes, those mycotoxins are in there, but the maximum levels are carefully monitored by state and federal regulatory agencies, to make sure that they do not exceed unsafe levels. The same goes for bacteria. Bacteria are everywhere. If we can't detect them, it's not because they are not present, but because our testing methods are not adequate for the job. But a few bacteria are not a problem — it's when they're present in huge numbers that they pose a health threat. It's not a perfect system, that's for sure, but it's the best we can do until something better comes along, because the sad reality is that if we require zero contamination in all food and feed, there would be nothing to eat.
The reason why those folks have not received a response from the government regulatory professionals association is because the pros see the claims made by the promoters of this study as ludicrous — fabricated sensationalism, and much ado about nothing. One cannot assign arbitrary testing standards and expect to receive support from the cognesenti.
Now I'll grant you, some of the test results mentioned apparently were indeed in violation of accepted standards. So it's not a perfect world — no surprise there. But these people killed their credibility by trying to sensationalize the project by playing games with test standards, and by ignoring reality. The reality is, virtually all food and all feed is contaminated. That is a given. The name of the game is monitoring the contamination level in order to keep it below safe limits.
This is no different from the reality of gluten-free labeling. Gluten-free does not actually exist in the world we live in, because gluten is ubiquitous. I would be extremely surprised if anyone could find a single product in any grocery store anywhere in the developed world that has a gluten content of absolute zero. Experience shows that a zero result is typically due either to an incorrectly performed test, or a test with inadequate sensitivity. The best we can hope to do is to regulate the contamination level to keep it below practical safe limits for most people in the general population.
At least that's how I see it, FWIW.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thanks, Tex.
Yes, the link was working again. I think the sites were hacked.
Glad the euthanizing drugs weren't detected. That's some progress since Ann Martin's book the Foods Pet Die For.
http://www.homevet.com/index.php/diet-d ... ts-die-for
If you have a weak stomach, don't click on this link.
Yes, the link was working again. I think the sites were hacked.
Glad the euthanizing drugs weren't detected. That's some progress since Ann Martin's book the Foods Pet Die For.
http://www.homevet.com/index.php/diet-d ... ts-die-for
If you have a weak stomach, don't click on this link.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan