Pet Food for food intolerances with animal proteins undeclared in 3 out of 4 cases, among the 40 samples examined by the University of Padua. A real scandal, curiously ‘escaped’ by the national press, as well as to the control authorities.
Pet Food for food intolerances
The Pet Food specifically formulated for the diagnosis and reduction of food intolerances in dogs and cats consists of wet and dry foods that stand out for the ‘exclusive’ formulation. Expressed with terms such as ‘mono-protein’ and similar.
The products in question should be formulated through rigorous selection of protein sources. With the precise purpose of allowing the diagnosis and treatment of food intolerances in companion animals, thanks to specific ‘elimination diets'.
The elimination diet is in fact carried out by limiting nutrition to a single animal protein source, and is recommended whenever an adverse food reaction is suspected. The logic is identical to that applied to humans, who also have suspected intolerant foods removed from their diet to observe the effects.
Single-protein foods for dogs and cats, the Padua study
The University of Padua has recently published, in BMC Veterinary Research, the research ‘Undeclared animal species in dry and wet novel and hydrolyzed protein diets for dogs and cats detected by microarray analysis.’ (1)
The researchers have used a kit analytical aimed at identifying animal proteins, compared with DNA from 19 different species. On a series of references of Pet Food presented as single-protein, as it is intended for diagnosis and treatment of food intolerances.
Only 10 products out of 40 analyzed have revealed content consistent with what is declared on the label. The 'remaining' 30 Pet Food – that is, 75% of the sample examined (!) – is instead illegal. With the following peculiarities:
– 5 products do not even contain the protein of the declared animal species (!)
– 2 labels are so vague as to make an evaluation of their meaning impossible,
– 23 foods labeled as single-protein instead reveal the presence of additional animal proteins, of different species than declared.
13 of the 14 brands analyzed by the Padua researchers present at least one product labeled inconsistently with its actual composition. The presence of undeclared animal proteins was mainly found in dry foods. The most frequent undeclared animal protein sources are pork, chicken, and turkey.
Pet Food 'dietetic', dangers and responsibilities. The roar of silence
To the Padua researchers goes the credit for having brought to light a very serious situation, considering both the extraordinary spread of infringements and the severity of the resulting dangers. 3 out of 4 foods currently sold on the Italian market expose vulnerable animals to the real danger of adverse reactions. Disease and death. (2)
The safety of Pet Food for the diagnosis and treatment of food intolerances – as well as that of diet-therapeutic foods and those specifically formulated for celiacs, in human nutrition – must be carefully verified regarding its outcome for vulnerable categories of consumers.
The presence of undeclared animal protein sources therefore qualifies single-protein products as high-risk feeds, pursuant to the ‘General Food Law'. This entails the duty, for the responsible operators, to provide for the immediate commercial withdrawal of all potentially affected batches, notification to the competent Veterinary Services, public communication of the risk with clarification of the reasons for the withdrawal and batch codes involved, destruction of the goods unless otherwise ordered by the authority. (3)
The public control authorities have a duty to intervene, in turn, following news of the feed safety risk. Once the identity of the products analyzed by the researchers of Padua has been verified, they should immediately initiate inspections, sampling, and analyses. Ordering the corrective actions mentioned above, where the responsible operators have not already acted on their own initiative. In addition to communicating the crime reports to the competent Prosecutor's Offices.
The scandal is international, as it most likely also concerns the Corporation that control the market. We await to learn their names and to see legality asserted, for once, also in the pet food sector. In criminal and administrative courts, remembering that for a couple of years now the - so far unprecedented - sanctions for incorrect labels.
To serious companies the Padua study will serve as a warning, an external signal of emerging risk (cross-contamination). It will then be useful to arrange analytical verification plans on the products. In case of positive results, analyses on incoming raw materials and possible revision of the supplier qualification process, review of prerequisites and critical control points.
Dario Dongo
Notes
(1) BMC Veterinary Research (2018) 14:209 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1528-7. Authors Rebecca Ricci, Daniele Conficoni, Giada Morelli, Carmen Losasso, Leonardo Alberghini, Valerio Giaccone, Antonia Ricci and Igino Andrighetto
(2) Moreover, intolerances in quadrupeds as well as bipeds can cause the development of diseases whose lethal outcome is delayed compared to the intake of the proteins the subject is vulnerable to
(3) Cf. EC Reg. 178/02, articles 15 and 20. The authority could reasonably authorize the re-labeling of the products in question, as commonly used feed, with a view to reducing waste (feed waste)
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT – Food Times) and Égalité.
