As we commemorate the first anniversary of the most far-reaching and tragic pet food recall in history, it may be the best opportunity for all of us to re-dedicate our efforts to do everything we can to try and prevent a recurrence of this horrible disaster.

Over the last few weeks, and for some weeks to come, many pet families across the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world, have and will shed tears of remembrance and sorrow for their departed loved ones. In the beginning, as now, it is incumbent on all of us to never rest until we have made sure that our beloved furry family members did not die in vain.

When we initially examined the disaster that had taken place, we discovered that there were more questions than answers. We discovered that the actual contamination was a deliberate action on the part of individuals and companies in China, in an attempt to maximize their profit with a contaminated ingredient. But, we asked ourselves “How could this contamination escape detection? Also, “How are standards and testing for ingredients regulated? “Who’s minding the store?”

Lots and lots of questions. What became apparent was that the regulatory infrastructure that was supposed to protect our companion animals was virtually non-existent.

While many regulators say otherwise, the truth is that pet food manufacture and sales have been largely self-regulated. The Pet Food Institute (PFI) staunchly defends their members’ obvious use of misleading and unsubstantiated advertising claims. They fight vigorously to minimize regulations which might force them into an accurate disclosure of ingredients. To increase their profits, they vigorously oppose tougher regulations on ingredient importation, inspection, manufacture, testing, and labeling. To avoid an accurate disclosure of ingredients, they have established a “code” for determining the relative content of different ingredients in the pet food they sell so vigorously with ads designed to appeal to the love we have for our companions. These emotional advertising appeals continue while the PFI is fighting the very things we seek that will improve the safety of pet food.

We found that many pet foods are not actually made by the companies that sell them. And yet, the PFI objects to co-maker labeling. The risk of imported food and food ingredients has been clearly demonstrated over the past year, and yet, the PFI opposes COOL (Country Of Origin Labeling).

The FDA and the U.S. Customs still inspect barely 1% of all pet food ingredients imported. Have any new funds been appropriated to increase these inspections? NO! The FDA does not have the regulatory power to declare mandatory recalls. Has this changed? NO!

Just so there can be no doubt of what we, as pet food consumer families all across the globe, expect from the regulatory authorities whose primary task is to create and enforce policies that should protect our families and our companion animals, let us again state our demands publicly and loudly:

1. Co-Maker Labeling – The actual manufacturer of a pet food should be clearly declared on all pet food labels along with contact information.

2. Country of Origin Labeling – Countries desiring to import pet food ingredients into our country should have their manufacturing and quality control procedures tested and certified by the FDA BEFORE any imports are allowed. Whether any ingredients imported should be labeled as to country of origin, or at the very least, labeled to expose lack of certification, some action must be taken IMMEDIATELY!

3. Ingredient Labeling – The current “code” that makes it incredibly difficult for a consumer to understand what is really in the pet food we buy, MUST BE REPLACED with a clear labeling of the percentage content by dry weight of all ingredients.

4. “Balanced and Nutritous” diet claims – Before any label can make such claims for the pet food being sold, long-term testing must be performed. At present, these claims are only marginally justified.

5. Marketing Claims – Words such as “Premium”, “Super-Premium”, “Organic”, “Holistic”, mean absolutely nothing from a regulatory viewpoint. The PFI staunchly defends the use of “marketing claims” as not falling under the regulatory control of the FDA. HOWEVER, false and misleading advertising claims are heavily regulated in other industries.

6. Inspections – We demand that funds be appropriated or “user fees” be levied to fund a radical increase in the number of inspections that are conducted to assure pet food safety. At the bare minimum, we need to have inspections of foreign production prior to shipping, inspections of shipments prior to transport, inspections of shipments as received in our country, manufacturers’ inspections of ingredients prior to use, and, finally, thorough inspections of final product before it is sold to the public.

7. Recalls – The FDA must be empowered to order mandatory recalls. The system of “voluntary recalls” is another example of the inmates running the prison.

8. “By-Products” etc. – All ingredients that are deemed “unfit for human consumption” must be so-labeled.

The pet food consumer groups have had some successes the past year.

1. The FDAAA (FDA Amendments Act) calling for new regulations on manufacture, labeling, and ingredients was passed by Congress and signed into law in September. We wish to express our gratitude to the various legislators who helped get this vital law passed. It’s only a small start since it doesn’t actually put any new regulations into effect, but at least it calls for a thorough review of the regulations with the consumer taking part in the process.

2. DefendOurPets.org has become the first consumer group to have an advisory role within the Pet Food Committee of AAFCO. AAFCO is an advisory group that makes regulatory recommendations to the FDA concerning animal feed of all kinds. The FDAAA tasks AAFCO, along with other stakeholder groups, in helping come up with recommendations for the revised regulations called for in the FDAAA.

3. Several class-action lawsuits are nearing settlement which will serve to warn and punish pet food companies and retailers that negligently monitor the safety of the pet food they sell.

4. Indictments have been brought against the Chinese companies and Chem-Nutra officials responsible for the tainted ingredients.

5. Pet Food Companies involved in the crisis have experienced a substantial decrease in sales, but this is diminishing.

HOWEVER, none of these new regulations are worth a damn if they are not backed by sufficient funding for inspection and enforcement.

What are the biggest challenges facing us as we begin this second year of our struggle?

1. Apathy – We cannot allow the pet community to forget what we are trying to achieve. We cannot allow anyone to divert us from our cause.

2. Bureaucracy – New laws and regulations take time to formulate and put into action. If you add to this bureaucracy the strident opposition of the PFI, you can see that this will not be a short or easy struggle.

3. “Diffusion of Effort” – The subject of Pet Food Safety is like many other topics that our community deals with. Everyone has an opinion and there is too damn little agreement and unified purpose. We must overcome this problem by agreeing on some very fundamental changes that we can all support.

4. Public Relations – The amount of air-time and press coverage given to this problem has diminished to a trickle.

Where do we go from here?

1. We intend to submit testimony to the public FDAAA hearings in May.

2. We will fight to support Rep. Dingell’s H.R. 3610 submitted late last year to certify, regulate, and fund inspections of foreign food imports as well as ingredients.

3. In the event that we are not able to develop the regulatory changes called for in the FDAAA, we will develop an alternative “certification” plan to help guard our companion animals’ safety and health.

As long as the risk of another devastating recall exists, we cannot afford to give up the rallying call of: