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
__________
__________
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,