E-mail from the "OTHER SIDE"|
E-mail message #11 Received by William D. Cusick - Tue, 01 Oct 1996
Mr. Cusick,
My response: If you stamped your social security number on your
forehead, would we then all know better who you are? That SSN is
supposed to be unique to you, just as the IFN number is unique to the
name already listed in the ingredient statement. The inclusion would
provide no additional information, just make the ingredient statement
larger.
2) You state: "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 in Texas)' would choose to ignore a pet food company's
language in a brochure, ..., is an excellent illustration 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 part of the label or labeling. The brochure I quoted
was inside a sealed bag of dog food."
My response: First, I don't choose to to ignore, I am required to respect
Constitutional freedoms. Would you really want different? Where do
you want to live? Second, you didn't say this was in the package.
There is not any differences in the definition of label and labeling
between food and feed. The FFDCA defines "food means (1) articles
used for food or drink for man or other animals," and that includes both
food and feed. Further, AAFCO (page 65 of the 1994 O. P.) defines
"label means a display of written, printed, or graphic matter upon or
affixed to the container in which a commercial feed is distributed, or on
the invoice or delivery slip with which a commercial feed is distributed."
and "labeling means all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matter
(1) upon a commercial feed or any of its containers or wrapper or (2)
accompanying such commercial feed." Therefore I would take action on
misrepresentations on a brochure if it accompanied the sale of a feed. I
can not regulate a brochure that is provided without the accompanying
distribution or physical offer to distribute feed. So, if I had encountered
the brochure you have described or someone provided me with one
being used in Texas, I would take an appropriate action. I hate to use a
cliche, but I have to deal in the facts, just the facts. Maybe my
assumption that the brochure was standing alone was wrong but you
certainly weren't making yourself clear. Where is the fault? From the top
down, AAFCO is and has been providing protection for the consumer
and guidance for the industry that is virtually nonexistent in other
countries. I and my colleagues are not always there, we can't be
everywhere at once. We are restricted by the Constitution and legal
maneuverings by the industry and I don't disagree that we could use
some help. Just on the type of changes that will make a difference.
3) Your response to feathers and wood shavings, etc.: "I got the
numbers of 35% and 40% out of the same sentence that you got the 'not
more than 40% crude fiber' from.
My reponse: Those products have never been seen on a pet food label
and you can not show me one where that is true. The definitions you
are quoting from and have been quoting from are "Recycled Animal
Waste Products" and are not used in pet foods. What is your point?
You are wrong! These are not the "Animal Products" you discuss at
your web site as being in pet foods and contain questionable
"by-products", those are on pages 156-161 and are clearly defined as
not containing extraneous materials except hydrolyzed feathers, which
isa clearly identified. This another case of your taking information out of
context, but in this case you don't even know what the basic nutrition
terms, such as "crude fiber", are. I grant you, the average consumer
may also lack that knowledge but they are not trying to convince
everyone of their expertice. Crude fiber constitutes the cellulose and
some of the hemicellulose and lignin portions and even 100% wood
chips is only 85% crude fiber. The recycled animal wastes are not used
extensively but see limitted use in ruminant rations, not pet foods.
4) You state: "With AAFCO regulations that are now in effect, the pet
food companies are allowed to mislead people with their advertising
statements."
My response: The Constitution allows anyone to stand on a street
corner, buy an ad, make a commercial, or get a web site and sayb
anything they want about pet food or most other things(ex., the
Presidential candidates). The line involves distribution or offer to
distribute, which includes the offering of free samples. When in Texas,
the companies are required to properly label as required on pages 64-98
of your 1994 O.P., plus the new regulations that have been adopted
since that publication(current O. P. pages 67-117).
5) You state: "As I stated above, "digetibility" 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.
My response: I did not say that the terms nutritious and digestibility were
synonymous. Nor did I say that the metabolizable energy test protocols
were a digestibility test or a synonym for determining feeding amounts. I
did say that "within these protocols are contained digestibility testing." I
assumed that because of your background you would be able to extract
the digestibility information from the protocol. This was provided as part
of the response to refute your claim of "A test to see how much time it
takes a food solid to break down in a strong laboratory acid." and "do
you really think that the companies are doing it the 'hard way?'
6) You suggest: "...,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-analytica', then call that laboratory and ask the
Ph.D there for his definition."
My response: You would still direct the question to your camp. These
type tests are not done at an analytical laboratory but a research facility
such as Summit Ridge, Theracon, Cavendish or Cornell University aand I
am sure others. Further, many laboratories will tell you they can do a
number if they are trying to sell you business or think you are in the
market. Why not go to sn information provider, there are County Agents
in most areas that ar part of the Cooperative Extension Program that
while they aren't always Ph.D.'s certainly have access to them at the
Land Grant Universties and many have 4H programs that involve animal
nutrition instructioning. I have found the County Agents to be a
resonable source of information and generally interested in providing
assistance without the need to sell you something. They are found in the
local government listing under "County Extension" or "Cooperative
Extension."
7) You state: "you seem to be having trouble finding page 304 in the
Offical Publication 1994."
My response: Read page 304, which states, "The Pet Food Committee
has announced the formation of the Descripotive Terms Working Group
to develop standards for label terms, such as 'low fat,' 'light,' 'lean,' etc."
This is not the Pet Food Committee. This is a working group to advise the
committee. And yes, it had both industry and government members. But
I repeat, this was not the Pet Food Committee as you stated. just a note
for interest, subsequent to this publication the group was disbanded
when the industry decided it was not in their best interest cooperate iby
being on the group and regulations were passed at the last annual
meeting defining at least some of the terms indicated over protests from
the industry.
In closing, I don't think you are trying to harm the pet food industry or pet
owners. If I did I would not be corresponding with you. I do think you are
somewhat misinformed, which is the trade off for taking things out of
context. And in turn you are perpetuating some of the misinformation. I
agree there should be relief from some of the misinformations that pet
food companies use and ther need to be stronger regulatory programs to
enforce the existing and any revised regulations. But these proposals
need to be based on fact and a truthful and clear representation of the
facts. To do that you must be informed. You also should be informed
concerning the workings of regulatory agencies. I do not have the ear of
the legislature, just the opposite. The old cliche, " Idon't write the laws,
just enforce them." Is true. I don't have contact with legislators as a
representative of my office for purposes of proposing legislation other
than to answer questions from the legislator. Representing myself and
not my office or position, I can contact my legislators but do not have any
more power than you when I do.
Roger Hoestenbach, FFCS Head, r-hoestenbach@tamu.edu
|
|
E-mail message #12 (William D. Cusick's Reply to E-mail message #11) Sent on Wed, 02 Oct 1996
Dear Roger Hoestenbach,
1) Your statement:
My response: If you stamped your social security number on your
forehead, would we then all know better who you are? That SSN is
supposed to be unique to you, just as the IFN number is unique to the
name already listed in the ingredient statement. The inclusion would
provide no additional information, just make the ingredient statement
larger.
2) You state: "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 in Texas)' would choose to ignore a pet food company's
language in a brochure, ..., is an excellent illustration 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 part of the label or labeling. The brochure I quoted
was inside a sealed bag of dog food."
My response: First, I don't choose to ignore, I am required to respect
Constitutional freedoms. Would you really want different? Where do
you want to live? . . ."
1) My response:
It has been said that the pen is mightier than the sword. Any time a company uses misleading claims - in writing - to take money they should be treated the same as people who take money at gun point.
The point I am trying to make at my web site is that pet food companies are taking money by using misleading claims to sell their products. This should be stopped.
I am glad that you "agree there should be relief from some of the misinformations that pet food companies use and ther need to be stronger regulatory programs to enforce the existing and any revised regulations."
Lets work together on making it happen.
Now Re: definition of "Digestibility Test"
2) Your statement:
My response: You would still direct the question to your camp. These
type tests are not done at an analytical laboratory but a research facility
such as Summit Ridge, Theracon, Cavendish or Cornell University aand I
am sure others. Further, many laboratories will tell you they can do a
number if they are trying to sell you business or think you are in the
market. Why not go to sn information provider, there are County Agents
in most areas that ar part of the Cooperative Extension Program that
while they aren't always Ph.D.'s certainly have access to them at the
Land Grant Universties and many have 4H programs that involve animal
nutrition instructioning. I have found the County Agents to be a
resonable source of information and generally interested in providing
assistance without the need to sell you something. They are found in the
local government listing under "County Extension" or "Cooperative
Extension." . . .Ó
2) My response:
3) Your statement:
My reponse: Those products have never been seen on a pet food label
and you can not show me one where that is true. The definitions you
are quoting from and have been quoting from are "Recycled Animal
Waste Products" and are not used in pet foods. What is your point? . . ."
4) My response:
The "Premium Pet Food" companies are selling their food at a higher price than the "Grocery Store Pet Food" company and citing the "fact" that the reason they cost the buyer more is because they use a better quality of ingredient EVEN THOUGH THE TWO FOODS ARE USING THE SAME WORDING in their label's "Guaranteed Analysis" or "Ingredient Listing."
So it is not a matter of, "Are we being mislead", but "Which pet food company is doing it." Either company "A" is using misleading statement to get higher prices, or company "B" is putting different ingredients into their food than company "A" and showing the same ingredients in their "Guaranteed Analysis" or "Ingredient Listing."
If all pet food companies were being required to show the IFN number along with the wording they are now using we would KNOW which one is misleading us or just plain mislabeling their product.
4) Your statement:
My response: Read page 304, which states, "The Pet Food Committee
has announced the formation of the Descripotive Terms Working Group
to develop standards for label terms, such as 'low fat,' 'light,' 'lean,' etc."
This is not the Pet Food Committee. This is a working group to advise the
committee. And yes, it had both industry and government members. But
I repeat, this was not the Pet Food Committee as you stated. just a note
for interest, subsequent to this publication the group was disbanded
when the industry decided it was not in their best interest cooperate iby
being on the group and regulations were passed at the last annual
meeting defining at least some of the terms indicated over protests from
the industry. . . ."
4) My response:
This is the second paragraph of the article where I make refference to 4 of 6 members in a group used to develop, and review standards for terms used on pet food labels being from the pet food industry:
____________
I have never said that group was AAFCO's "Pet Food Committee."
I will however remain firm on my stand that the working group listed on page 304 in the Official Publication 1994, Association of American Feed Control Officials shows how the pet food industry has been involved in developing the regulations that oversee their own industry - and that the ratio of that group being: 4 pet food company employees to 2 regulatory agency employees is important to note.
In closing I wish to thank you again for being willing to openly discuss these issues in a manor that all can see and make up their own mind. IT IS A GREAT COUNTRY WE LIVE IN where both sides can present their views, agree to disagree, and work out their differences. I feel that our E-mail correspondence may be the start of getting, as you so aptly put it: "relief from some of the misinformations that pet food companies use."
Yours truly,
William D. Cusick, The Animal Advocate
PS: I also thank you for offering to take action on "misrepresentations" in Texas. Because of your offer I need your mailing address. I would like to send you a copy of a dog food label that was on a product sent to me by a Texas dog food company. There is a claim on the front of the label that goes beyond misleading to blatantly false. The label reads: "100% Complete & Balanced Nutrition For Your Dog." This is a claim that can not be met by any one food. I understand the AAFCO regulations regarding the claim of "Complete & Balanced Nutrition" but they overstepped the line by adding "For Your Dog." They do not know what breed of dog will be fed that food and with the different breeds having such vast differences in nutritional requirements it would be impossible for their food to be NUTRITIONALLY COMPLETE & BALANCED FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT BREEDS.
|
|
E-mail message #13 (from William D. Cusick) Sent on Wed, 16 Oct 1996
Dear Mr. Hoestenbach,
It has been two weeks since my last E-mail message to you. In that message I requested that you provide me with an address so that I could send you a label of a dog food manufactured in Texas with a blatantly false claim. I wanted to send you this label so that you could take the appropriate actions in Texas, as per your offer in your E-mail of 10/01/96.
I have had no response to my last E-mail and would appreciate a reply.
Yours truly,
|
|
E-mail message #14 Received by William D. Cusick - Thurs, 17 Oct 1996
Mr Cusick,
Date: 10/03/1996 10:01 am (Thursday)
Mr. Cusick,
Roger Hoestenbach
I'll look forward to recieving the brochure.
|
|
E-mail message #15 (William D. Cusick's Reply to E-mail message #14) Sent on Thurs, 17 Oct 1996
Dear Mr. Hoestenbach,
I received your E-mail with your address. Thank you.
Yours truly,
|
|
If more E-mail is exchanged, I will post the copy here.
|