Dr. Hodgkins’ Statement and Testimony

 

 

from

 

 

 

      [Senate Hearing 110-172]

 

       EXAMINE THE CURRENT PET FOOD RECALL

 

=======================================================================

 

 

 

   HEARING

 

   Before a

 

   SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

 

     COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

 

      ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

 

    FIRST SESSION

 

     __________

 

      SPECIAL HEARING

 

        APRIL 12, 2007--WASHINGTON, DC

 

                               __________

 Full Hearing Minutes available online at - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110shrg37883/html/CHRG-110shrg37883.htm

                               __________

 

 

STATEMENT OF DR. ELIZABETH HODGKINS, VETERINARIAN

 

Chairman Kohl, Senator Bennett, Senator Durbin, thank you all for asking me to speak this afternoon.

 

I speak today not as a previous pet food company employee, but as a veterinarian with a deep concern for the health of my own pets, my many patients, and, indeed, dogs and cats everywhere.

 

Notwithstanding the pet food industry's insistence that it is already stringently and adequately regulated, experience tells us otherwise. In the past 18 months alone, there have been no fewer than three national-level pet food recalls, including the most recent Menu Foods recall. Although the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that pet foods not be adulterated, the definition of which includes not containing any poisonous or deleterious substance, it is clear that breaches of this requirement are occurring at an alarming rate.

 

The present pet food safety crisis is not an unfortunate aberration, but part of mounting evidence of a systemic breakdown in the commercial pet food safety assurances demanded by the pet-owning public.

 

Pet foods carry both an implicit and an explicit guarantee of safety in the label statement that they carry, conferred by the American Association of Feed Control Officials, AAFCO. It is important to note that the sweeping safety and adequacy guarantees that are ubiquitous on pet food labels today cannot be found on any human food. No human food, whether it is fresh

produce, meats, or commercially processed and packaged human consumables, is allowed to bear such broad guarantees of wholesomeness and nutritional completeness.

 

The widely allowed, but inadequately substantiated, pet food AAFCO label guarantees are the fundamental flaw in the present system that has allowed adulterated ingredients repeatedly to enter the pet food supply chain. This flaw is also responsible for the proliferation of AAFCO statement labeled foods that are far from adequate for long-term feeding of pets as an exclusive diet.

 

AAFCO label statement guarantees are not based on routine testing of individual ingredients by either the companies under whose brands those foods will be marketed or by the co-packers who may produce the foods for those companies at distant manufacturing plants. There is no systematic inspection of supplies--suppliers of these ingredients. Similarly, the nutritional adequacy guarantee explicit in this claim is not based on long-term feeding of guaranteed foods. The most rigorous testing protocol for a lifetime adequacy claim is based upon the feeding of a representative food, not each food, to a very small number of animals for a short period of time, only several months, at best. As long as no disastrous effects of the representative food are seen in these few test subjects over a very short period of time, the representative food will gain the right to carry this long-term adequacy claim, as will all of that company's related, but untested, foods.

 

Unfortunately, because these label statements are ubiquitous and allow the pet food purchaser no way to differentiate between available commercial products, no company has any incentive to test and prove the quality of its foods beyond the bare minimums required for the AAFCO statement.

 

Although the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that meaningful inspections of production facilities must occur, the increasing size of the industry has prevented this inspection process from keeping up with that growth.

 

Governmental inspection of plants cannot solve the problem of adulterated ingredients, because of the sheer volume, variety, and sources of those ingredients. Increased facility inspections cannot prevent the marketing of foods with misleading claims, that they are nutritionally adequate for the

long-term exclusive feeding of pets, since such scientific authentication must be proven in long-term clinical studies.

 

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act already provides the framework for meaningful regulation of the pet food industry, without new laws and without a significant increase in the size of government. What we need now is stronger adherence to the simple, clear meaning of the act.

 

To begin meaningful reform, I propose that the FDA adhere to the letter of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that pet food labeling may not be false and misleading, by adopting a presumption that all safety and nutritional adequacy claims for pet food are disallowed. Pet foods could be marketed without claims, as is the case with almost all human foods, with

consumers and veterinarians aware that the product carries no label claims for safety or nutritional adequacy.

Thereafter, the pet food industry and FDA/AAFCO might well work out a system of honestly informative label statements that notify pet owners and veterinarians of the actual safety and adequacy testing to which each labeled food is subject. No implicit or explicit safety claims could be made without

rigorous ingredient testing by the manufacturer and/or the ingredient supplier. No long-term nutritional adequacy claims could be made without long-term, well-controlled clinical studies proving that adequacy to genuine scientific standards.

 

Conscientious manufacturers would undoubtedly rise to the occasion and properly test their ingredients and their finished foods themselves in order to gain the competitive advantage that honest, carefully allowed label claims would provide. The consumer would have a more informed choice of pet food quality, as indicated by truthful labels. Veterinarians would have far

more meaningful guidance about what foods to recommend to their clients.

 

There is no doubt that the present system of pet food regulation needs meaningful reform. This can be achieved as a first step by a ``truth in pet food labeling'' initiative that would stimulate America's best pet food-makers to provide and prove the quality and safety of their foods. This is no less than what pet owner’s desire and deserve, and what will be required to regain faltering public confidence in the industry.

 

Thank you.

   

 

 

 

Senator Kohl. That's a good point. Thank you.  Dr. Hodgkins, in talking about the AAFCO label guarantees on pet food, you say that they are not based on routine testing of individual ingredients. Could you give us a little bit more thinking on that, expand on what you said?

 

Dr. Hodgkins. Yes, Senator, thank you.

 

I think the current situation illustrates a very good example of that, that, in fact, ingredients are not being tested individually before they're incorporated in pet food, and wheat gluten would not be the only one. I think the regulators in the room would agree that every ingredient batch that comes from overseas or from local suppliers is not tested.  That would be a daunting task, I realize. But my concern, as underscored in my testimony, about the implicit and explicit safety claim on the pet food label, would lead consumers to believe that it is. I think that we can only ask human beings, whether we're dealing with our own food or we're dealing with

our pet's food, we can only ask a certain level of perfection from human beings. And I understand that. But I do believe that there is an unwarranted sense of safety in a pet food label that contains an AAFCO guarantee. And there is an issue of fairness to the pet food purchaser here, in my view. Are people led to believe that their pet foods are safer than they really are, safer than they can be, perhaps? And do we need to re-examine how we label pet food so that they, in fact, tell the consumer what to expect?

 

Senator Kohl. Following up on that, in this case melamine does not appear to be an ingredient that ever would have been tested for. So, how do you think the situation could have been prevented?

 

Dr. Hodgkins. That's correct. I do not believe that melamine might now be on a list. In my fantasy world, where pet food manufacturers--the better pet food manufacturers who wish to access safety claims might very well test for melamine, going in the future. And, as time goes on, perhaps they would

add additional substances to the already substantial list-- aflatoxin, E. coli, salmonella, all of those things--so that list can become more safe, and more complete over time. But today we do know that melamine would not have been checked for, 2 months, 3 months ago. But a pet food label that identifies those foods that undergo no safety testing at all, versus those

foods that are at least undergoing safety testing that is as comprehensive at the time as is humanly possible, is more fair to pet owners. I have the same concern that the subcommittee has about wrapping up this investigation and making sure that all of the food is out of the marketplace, no more pets are

exposed to this particular toxicity, but I am personally a good deal more interested in going forward and fixing what is a sieve of safety inadequacy assurances. And that is my focus.

 

 

 

Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hodgkins, I'm interested in your proposal to take labels off and then let the marketplace see the cream of the manufacturers rise to the top as they put their own labels on, under the watchful eye of the FDA to make sure that they don't

put a false label on. Have I accurately summarized what you're recommending?

 

Dr. Hodgkins. I believe so, Chairman, yes.

   

 

Senator Bennett. Dr. Kirk and Dr. Hodgkins, would you agree with Mr. Ekedahl, that this is highly regulated?

 

Dr. Hodgkins. The industry has a great deal of regulation. If you look at the layers, there's a whole bunch of stuff happening and a whole lot of groups of people involved. It's not effectively regulated. As I outlined in my statement, we don't have products that are as safe as the labels suggest, or

as safe, perhaps, as we want them to be. And we certainly do not have adequacy testing that confirms that a pet can remain on the food for 6 months, 6 years, 2 decades, and not suffer harm. And there are examples in our own experience with pet foods that suggest that this is the case.

 

Mr. Nelson. There is no current requirement for the clean

out of equipment prior to manufacturing other feeds, other than

medicated feeds.

 

Senator Kohl. All right.  Yes, Dr. Hodgkins.

 

Dr. Hodgkins. This would be an important consideration, just as we are concerned about peanut contamination for people who have allergies to peanuts. I'm sure plants that handle peanuts have to be very careful about either not manufacturing any other types of products or being very clean. Certainly, food allergies occur in dogs and cats, as well, and there are

even products that are marketed for allergic pets and pets allergic to certain ingredients. So, this would be an important consideration. And it is a concern that there is a laxity in the amount of regulation that looks at that particular problem.



Diabetic Cat Care,
2009-2024