This may or may not be true. The fact is–-the concept is used mainly by pet food manufacturers to market their “no by-product” foods. I’ll admit that some by-products don’t belong in pet food. However, many by-products are a superior source of nutrition for our pets.

Keep in mind that just because something is “unfit for human consumption” it isn’t always unhealthy. Last I checked there wasn’t a huge demand in the human food industry for chicken hearts, pork livers, sheep lungs, or beef spleen. But these are all ingredients that offer our pets excellent nutrition.

Many by-products like liver offer superior nutrition over muscle meats when used in commercial pet foods. In fact, advocates of raw food diets don’t think twice about feeding certain “by-products” to their pets.

The main argument against by-products is that the quality will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and from one batch of pet food to the next. The main problem is that it’s very hard to find consistency with by-products and many manufacturers are not specific about the types of by-products they use on the ingredient label. However, labeling all by-products as “bad” is simply teaching pet parents the wrong lessons.

In addition, there’s also the possibility that many by-products end up being re-routed from the human meat market to the pet food market because they may be showing signs of disease such as cancer or infection. I don’t have any proof or evidence that this is indeed the case, but I can’t imagine what exactly would be left over for pets once we’ve met our own quota for hot dogs, bologna, buffalo wings, McNuggets, and frozen dinners.

The AAFCO definition of “meat by-products” is as follows: The non-rendered, clean parts, other than meat, derived from slaughtered mammals. It includes, but is not limited to, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, livers, blood, bone, partially defatted low temperature fatty tissue, and stomach and intestines freed of their contents. It does not include hair, horns, teeth, and hoofs.

This can include ingredients that are both potentially healthy and unhealthy for pets. In essence, the amount of non-digestable material that a by-product contains will depend heavily on the ingredient supplier and the type of refinement process that the manufacturer uses.

So, does avoiding by-products in commercial pet food decrease your pet’s odds of acquiring horrible diseases like cancer, dog skin allergies, kidney disease and more? No one can say with 100% certainty. The choice to feed your pet by-products is more or less a personal decision. But keep in mind that the presence of by-products in a commercial pet food does not always indicate a poor-quality product. In fact, a food that has no by-products may have a large amount of second or third grade processed cereals which can be even less nutritious for our pets–-especially cats.

“Zheng Xiaoyu, director of China’s State Food and Drug Administration from 1998 to 2005, was convicted of dereliction of duty and taking more than US$832,000 in cash and gifts, according to state news agency Xinhua. An antibiotic approved under Zheng was withdrawn from the market last year after 10 patients died, state media reported, and six types of fake drugs were approved while he led the agency. Zheng’s sentence requires review by a higher court and approval by China’s highest judicial panel before he can be executed. On a related note, Chinese authorities have announced plans for a system that would enable them to recall unsafe or unapproved foods.”

In the meantime, a class action lawsuit has been filed against several pet food manufacturers and retailers. A cat and dog owner from Michigan and two cat and dog owners from Florida filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A copy of the complaint and supporting research materials is available at http://www.mflegal.com/petfoodlawsuit

These people mean business! Definitely some interesting reading material to be found if you take the time to read through it all.

Ladd Hardy, senior VP of marketing at Nutro Products says, “Since it is impossible to test for every possible contaminant, we do feeding trials on every batch of dry pet food we make. That batch is held until it passes the feeding trial.” According to Petfood Industry magazine, Nutro is starting the same procedure for its wet foods.

Dr. Doug Powell, scientific director of the International Food Safety Network says, “You better know your suppliers–and that goes way beyond HAACP [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points]. You need to have your people on the ground watching to see that suppliers are doing what they say they are doing.”

Matt Frederking, manager of regulatory compliance for Southern States Cooperative says, “Paperwork is not enough to ensure pet food safety. Anybody can make paper look as good as they want paper to look.”

And Brian Connolly, cofounder or Castor and Pollux Pet Works says, “Let’s set up an industry-wide crisis fund to help the pets and people affected by contaminated pet foods–no questions asked.”

Yep, Tim Phillips, DVM pretty much sums it up when he says, “A firm handshake and a solemn pledge to deliver safe pet food is no longer enough.”