Quoted by 'The Dog Food Code Authority Acts', Veterinary Medicine 30 (2) (1935), pp. 54-56.
Description:

quoted in entirety

Quoted by John W. Patton, 'A Discussion of the Proposed Dog Food Standards', Veterinary Medicine 30 (3) (1935), pp. 128-132.
Description:

'In a booklet, "Definitions and Standards of Identity and Biological Value and Labeling Requirements for Canned Dog Food and a Plan for their Enforcement," recommended by the dog food Code Authority, we find two paragraphs which appear worthy of discussion at this time.

Article II, Section 2 reads:

In executing this report the definitions duly promulgated for the administration and enforcement of the federal food and drugs act and the federal meat inspection act, respectively shall be used, if and to the extent they are applicable and appropriate.

As readers know, canned dog foods are of two general classes:

1. Those inspected and passed by the Bureau of Animal Industry, United States Department of Agriculture, unde the federal meat inspection act.

2. Uninspected dog foods.

The definitions promulgated for the [130] administration [131] and enforcement (according to the above paragraph) apply directly to the inspected dog foods. The pure food and drugs act applies, obviously, to all foods - but mainly to human foods. The inspected dog foods are under the rigid control of the federal meat inspection act; the uninspected up to the present time, have had little, or no control exercised over them  by the federal food and drugs act. We shall refer to this later.

Article III, Section 1, reads:

Canned dog food may consist of any edible substance or of any combination of edible substances, which is fit and suitable for use as dog food. [Italics ours.]

This paragraph applies to both inspected and non-inspected dog foods made under the Code Authority. Elsewhere in the Code recommendation it is provided that no dog food shall contain "any substance which has no reasonable justified use in a dog food." Hence, in the above paragraph the word "edible" possibly may be intended to serve an unusual purpose. Apparently it is susceptible of being used to offset the supposed advantage that the inspected product enjoys in the privilege of using, on the label, the phrase "Fit for human food." Manufacturers of inspected foods cry from the houestops that their products are "Fit for human food." Uninspected foods, according to the wording of the above paragraph, under no federal control comparable to that of meat inspection, may substitute the word "edible." There is probably little difference between the impression given in stating that a product is edible or that it is fit for human food. To the average person, "Fit for human food" and "edible" are synonymous. "Edible" mught be used in this way to obtain one of the sales advantages of inspection without submitting to its restrictions.

We don't like the word "edible" on a can of dog food, or in the advertising of it. It affords an opportunity for the manufacturer of a non-inspected food to infer that it is edible for man. Edible in this connection is unecessary. Everyone expects a dog food - be it inspected or uninspected - to be edible for a dog. What point can there be in stating it other than to mislead?"' (130-131)