E-mail from the "OTHER SIDE"|
E-mail message #7 Sent by William D. Cusick - Wed, 25 Sep 1996
Dear Mr. Hoestenbach,
It has been one week since our last exchange of E-mail messages. You indicated that you had more to share in your September 18th E-mail, your last E-mail to me.
In my reply, also dated September 18th, I said "Keep in touch" and was hoping that we could continue sharing our opinions with each other. I found your views to be interesting and even enlightening, even though we did not agree on most points discussed. I was even looking forward to hearing your views on some of the other facts I present at my web site. i.e.. 1) How different dog breeds have different nutritional requirements that are so vast than a dog food formulated for one breed could be POISON to a different breed; 2) Since dogs of different breeds have different nutritional requirements it is misleading for pet food companies to claim their food is "Complete and Balanced;" 3) That AAFCO's "Testing Protocols For Providing An Unqualified Representation of Nutritional Adequacy For A Dog Or Cat Food" wouldn't even meet the criteria to have their results published in most accredited scientific journals; 4 - ) your choice
As I said in my reply to your last E-mail to me, "I would like to show all of the E-mails between us at my web site. I believe that it would be interesting for people visiting there." I hope that this did not cause the abrupt stop in our communications. I, for one, was looking forward to the two of us debating in this honest and open forum and allowing the truth to be discerned by the audience.
I assure you that when I post our E-mail correspondence it will be uncensored. Your views and stands will be presented "AS IS", just as they were sent to me. I realize that this could be viewed as my providing you with an Internet platform where you will be able to convince people that your views should be listened to more than mine. This is a risk that I am willing to take since I believe so firmly about my stand regarding the facts presented at my web site.
At the top of the web page showing our E-mail correspondence I will use this title: "E-mail from THE OTHER SIDE" and will follow the title with the following two paragraphs:
Not everyone agrees with the facts I present at my web site and I get some interesting E-mail. Recently I received E-mail from a person who has identified himself as the current President of the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). The first E-mail received from him was on 9/16/96. The first E-mail from him was an unsigned message but I responded anyway, then he responded, I responded, he responded . . . and as the dust settled it was easy to see that we do not agree on most points.
NOW - for those who are interested in taking a look at both sides of an issue, and reaching their own conclusions, I am showing the following E-mail messages in the order I received and sent them. Please excuse any typo's and misspelling's. They are uncut, and other than formatting them in HTML so that they can be read on the WWW, the E-mail messages have not been edited in any way.
After those two paragraphs I will show all of our E-mail correspondence.
One question I have is regarding the phone and fax numbers you list in your third E-mail to me. I do not know if they are unlisted or listed numbers. And prior to my showing them on the Internet, I would like to know if you would prefer that these be cut. I would understand and honor your request. I would only need to change the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph to read: "They are uncut, with one exception: personal phone and fax numbers have been deleted to preserve privacy, and other than that and formatting them in HTML so that they can be read on the WWW, the E-mail messages have not been edited in any way." On the other hand by leaving your phone and fax numbers in you could be opening a clear channel for people who want to hear more about your side and from you directly.
I plan to post the web page with our E-mail messages "AS IS", including the phone numbers, during the first week in October and will take a "No Reply" to this E-mail as your permission to do so.
Yours truly,
|
|
E-mail message #8 Received by William D. Cusick - Wed, 25 Sep 1996
Mr. Cusick
|
|
E-mail message #9 Received by William D. Cusick - Fri, 27 Sep 1996
Mr. Cusick,
Lets get to this. You implied in your correspondence of 9/16 that my
correspondence is some how less than truthful since you use "direct
quotes" that you don't need to "make the disclaimer" that I use.
The e-mail service that I am using is not my own. The disclaimer
informs that the comments are mine and my responsibility and not
those of my employer or the service I am using. These disclaimers are
sufficiently commonplace on the internet that I am sure you have seen
them. I am disappointed that you would stoop to this kind of
malignment not once but several times. For example, you state "I can
understand the posture you must take as 'Current President of AAFCO."
Alternatively, I can understand why you need to take the position you
do to defend your statements, wrong as they may be but cloked in
enough truth to lend them a false legitimacy.
Now lets look at your responses. To my claim that the inclusion of
IFN numbers would result in unnecessary redundancy that would not
accomplish your suggestion. Your response was to discuss misleading
brochures and suggest that I should discuss the wrong advertising
issues of large members of my industry. Does this mean you concede
that your statements that "if pet products used the IFN with each
ingredient listed we would know if a food contained Dehydrated swine
excreta" are wrong? Or is this another of those times when "one of
the tools of debate I adhere is that of taking something out of
context to make an otherwise unsubstantiated point" is being used to
confuse the information. To answer the response you made, even though
it wasn't in my opinion related to my statement, is that the large
manufacturers are protected by the Constitutionally guaranteed right
of speech, which doesn't require that speech to be truthful or with
reason. They do however over step that bound when labeling a
product. That is where I have my jurisdiction and where I excercise
it by not allowing many of the abuses you claim are allowed.
Further, you state "members of your industry." As I have told you,
my position is not part of this industry, I am not with the pet food
industry, I regulate them (rather vigorously here in Texas).
Your response concerning the presence of feathers in Poultry
By-Products again refers to brochures and not labels. Your claims
that By-Products can contain feathers, blood soaked saw dust and wood
shavings is wrong. I did read pages 220 and 221 of the AAFCO O. P.
and again I guess this is another of your attempts to debate out of
context because these definitions are not about "By-Products" and don't
mention "blood soaked" or even blood. The definitions don't provide
for any 35% or 40% allowance of these items and you don't either.
Where did those numbers come from? Surely you don't mean to suggest
that the requirements for "not more than 40% crude fiber" is an
allowance for the inclusion of wood chips at that level. If so, I
should refer you to a basic text in animal nutrition, or maybe this
again is that out of context debate tool being used.
I stand by my statement that while the term "mill run" is officially
defined, it may not be used in an ingredient statement. A brocheure
is another matter as we have already covered, remember the
Constitution and all that.
Your reponse to my statement on digestibility does not surprise me
and I am sure that you did a number of bench tests for the food
industry, since it is allowed there. This is just one of the reasons
I include in my lectures that most human food products would not be
allowed to be offered for animal feed. I refer you to the protocols
in the AAFCO O. P. , in 1994 they were on pages 99-109 and 119-123.
Within these protocols are contained digestibility testing, thoough I
will concede they were not written for lay use and if you need
assistance in interpreting I will be happy to do so or you might use
a text on basic animal nutrition. I suppose I should recommend On e
at this point sincce I have mentioned it. We have used Animal
Nutrition by Maynard/Loosli/Hintz/Warner, Magraw Hill or Feeds and
Nutrition by Ensminger/Olentine, Ensminger Publishing. Either of
these should be available at a university library.
I did list the current members of the AAFCO Pet Food Committee in my
statement concerning your claim that there were members of the pet
food industry on the committee. I apologize, I should have gotten
the 1994 O. P. out and provided that as evidence. So, again I state
there is no industry affiliation in the AAFCO Pet Food Committee and
in 1994 the members were (from page 10 of the 1994 AAFCO O. P.):
Teresa Crenshaw, Delaware Department of Agriculture; Julie
Zimmerman, Colorado Department of Agriculture; Rod Noel, Indiana
State Chemist's Office; Steve Martin, Michigan Department of
Agriculture; David Dzanis, Federal Food and Drug Administration;
Avi Deshmukh, Minnnesota Department of Agriculture; and Monica
Woelfel, from my office here at the Texas State Chemist. There is no
public record of any industry membership on this or any other standing
committee in AAFCO. There are however liaisons, and to describe
those I will refer to my Webster's for definition "3 b: one that
establishes and maintains liaison" and "3 a: communication for
establishing and manitaining mutual understanding." These liaisons are
not members and have no privileges, i.e. voting, proposing, etc. The
liaisons are important in conveying position to the industry and
receiving comment to actions of the committee. The current liaisons
include manufacturing and supplier industry representatives, animal
advocates, veterinarians and interested associations. I would still like
to find out the origin of your line of thought on how the Reagan
Administration had anything to do with my office, organization, or
pet food.
Finally, I need to close today but want to do so with a response to
your last e-mail. The first E-mail message you are refering to as
unsigned was not to you but to your "webmaster." I did have a
signature and it may have been lost during the forward. My phone
numbers and E-mail address are not unlisted, feel free to include
them. Till later,
***IMPORTANT*** NEW E-MAIL r-hoestenbach@tamu.edu
|
|
E-mail message #10 (William D. Cusick's Reply to E-mail message #9) Sent on Mon, 30 Sep 1996
Dear Mr. Hoestenbach,
Thank you for your permission to also include your phone numbers and E-mail address in the new page showing our E-mail correspondence at my web site.
In the E-mail I received Friday you addressed the following issues:
1) Your statement:
1) My response:
Now for the second issue you bring up in the paragraph. In a prior E-mail I quoted a brochure by Purina in my response.
To discredit my argument you chose to ignore the wording used in the brochure, and defended your right to ignore those words because: ". . . the large manufacturers are protected by the Constitutionally guaranteed right of speech, which doesn't require that speech to be truthful or with reason. They do however over step that bound when labeling a product. That is where I have my jurisdiction and where I excercise it by not allowing many of the abuses you claim are allowed. "
The fact that you or your agency are not responsible for the claims made in brochures printed by pet food companies to sell a product and only responsible for the label on the product has been noted and in the future I will limit my quote's about ingredients to those found on a product label.
And here I must say: I find it appalling that you or any person who claims to be in the position: "not with the pet food industry, I regulate them (rather vigorously here in Texas)" would choose to ignore a pet food company's language in a brochure, by differentiating between a brochure and a label. The fact that you only take responsibility for the wording used on a label is an excelent illistration of the differences in regulations for the pet food industry and the food and pharmaceutical industry in this country. In the food and pharmaceutical industry a brochure that is included inside of a sealed package containing a product is considered to be a part of the label or labeling. The brochure I quoted was inside of a sealed bag of dog food.
Your choosing to ignore the wording on a pet food companies brochure and only wanting to deal with wording on a label clearly demonstrates why I am asking people to contact their legislators and get regulations passed. At my web site I urge pet owners to "take action and demand both state and federal laws that would force commercial pet food companies to tell (in language we can all understand) just the facts about their food." . . . Telling them . . . "You can do your part in getting truthful pet food labeling laws passed. A good way to do this would be to write your legislator and let them know where you stand on this issue." When I wrote those words it was my hope that laws would come about so that when officials are shown blatant misleading claims are being used to sell a product these officials, the people who we trust to regulate the industry, will not be able to ignore a companies actions because it is not "where I have my jurisdiction" but will be forced to be in a position to protect the citizens who are buying the product.
I could not have illustrated my stand on how AFFCO, from the top down, is able to ignore the issue of misleading claims being used to sell pet food or the reason for people to get involved and get some laws passed on this issue any better that what you have just provided. When I first read your statement it made me angry, but now I thank you for making it. Maybe now more people will see the need for the type of legislation I call for in the articles at my web site.
2) Your statement:
2) My response:
I have attached a copy of the two pages, #220 and 221 with this E-mail and have highlighted the two sentences. I am also making a copy of those two pages available with a link at this point for visitors to my web site. They will be able to see the full page and all the wording for themselves by clicking on this link.
3) Your statement:
3) My response:
Pages 99-109 and 119-123 in the AAFCO OFFICIAL PUBLICATION for 1994, cover the "AAFCO FEEDING PROTOCOLS FOR DOG AND CAT FOODS" and "MINIMUM PROTOCOL FOR USE IN THE DETERMINATION OF METABOLIZABLE ENERGY OF DOG AND CAT FOOD." As I stated above, "digestibility" is not a synonym for the word nutritious. And I can not be convinced that "Digestibility Test" is a synonym for a test to determine the Metabolizable energy of a dog food or that it is a synonym for test protocols to determine feeding amounts of a dog food.
I stand firm on the definition I provide and believe that we are at an impasse about how the two of us do and will continue to define "Digestibility Test." You indicated that your time is valuable. My time is also valuable. Therefor I suggest that we allow a third party to provide their feedback or definition of "Digestibility Test." I am also suggesting that instead of that third party being one of my Ph.D. friends who would obviously be in my camp, or one of your Ph.D. friends who would obviously be in your camp, that we direct anyone interested in pursuing this further to go to their local Yellow Pages phone book and pick out a phone number under "Laboratory-Analytical", then call that laboratory and ask the Ph.D. there for his definition.
4) Your statement:
1) My response:
You seem to be having trouble finding page 304 in the Official Publication 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials. You first disputed my claims in that article by showing names from the 1996 AAFCO OP., and now are showing a list from page 10 in the 1994 AAFCO OP. I am therefor sending you a copy of page 304 and as I did with the copies of the other two pages being sent, as attachments to this E-mail, I am also making a copy of page 304 available with a link at this point for visitors to my web site. They will be able to see the full page and all the wording for themselves by clicking on this link.
I closing I will state: I am NOT trying to do any harm to the pet food industry in this country. The main thrust of my web site is to show people why there is a need for laws governing the pet food industry's continued use of misleading claims and mislabeling of their products. I firmly believe that you as the "Current President of AAFCO" or just as a pet owner can also see the need for some new laws. The point made by your not accepting the wording from a pet food companies brochure because it was not a part of the label illustrated the need. I am hoping that you will join with us in working for new laws in this area. A person in your position can get the ear of legislators and do some real good here. I believe that the entire pet food industry would benefit by having laws that could help eliminate the unscrupulous members. You are NOW in a position to lead by example.
Yours truly,
|
|
Our E-mail corespondence continues CLICK HERE to view it
|