- Creation
-
Creator (Definite): Anon.Date: From 1 to 28 Feb 1935
- Current Holder(s)
-
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
-
CitesDog Food Code Authority
Description:'Readers of this magazine will not need to be told in detail that the dog food industry has been, and is, one of the most chaotic industries in which veterinarians, as such, are concerned, nor that no industry has more badly needed reorganization and revamping, or at least reforming and house cleaning than this one.
It was hoped that a code of fair practices might be adopted under the provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act and efforts to that end were made immediately upon enactment of that law. Readers will recall that little progress was made for months and not until nearly a year after many other industries had adopted codes, was one adopted by the dog food industry.
When the code was adopted and became effective, June 11, 1934, the code authority asked for and was granted a period of 90 days to establish "reasonable definitions and reasonable standards of identity and biological value for canned dog food, necessary to prevent deception, fraud and unfair competition in the sale of canned dog food," and to present to the NRA administrator recommended standards and a plan for their enforcement.
The "90 days" were stretched to six months and at last, the code authority has made the following report: [54-]
...
[report quoted in its entirety]
...
[-55] In many respects the report is commendable and the long delay in making it the more regrettable on that account. The establishment of a "Scientific Council for the Dog Food Industry" is an excellent, constructive piece of work, praiseworthy in all respects. The provision for the personnel of this council is entitled to unstinted commendation. It offers a prospect of improved conditions.
The good to be accomplished under any code depends almost wholly upon the integrity, ability and earnestness of the Code Authority. The foregoing plan is both broad and conservative and its very general terms are such as to permit slipshod enforcement in the hands of an indifferent Code Authority. It is to be noted that the scientific council is merely an advisory body (it could not be well otherwise), whose recommendations the Code Authority may accept, reject or disregard. Therefore, it may be repeated that very much now depends upon the attitude of the Code Authority.
Because of the long delay in accepting a code of fair practices, indicating a lack of sympathy on the part of many elements in the industry, and the long delay of the Code Authority in preparing the foregoing plan, which may indicate any one of several things, veterinarians will withhold judgment in the matter and watch the administration of the code in a spirit of hopefulness if not as yet with complete confidence. The dog food industry may well be on the way to correcting flagrant abuses, winning back the confidence of dog owners which it has lost, and establishing for itself a field of greater magnitude than any it has yet experienced, and again, it may not. The year and a half of unnecessary delay during which conditions have gone from bad to [55-56] worse, is now behind us. If the improvement in the practices of the industry, which is easily possible of being brought about under the provisions of the plan now adopted, materializes promptly, we shall forget the delay as speedily. Otherwise, our hopes for improvement in the canned dog food field must depend for fulfilment upon the enactment of the Copeland bill or some modification of it.' (54-56)
-
Cited by'The Dog Food Racket in the Lime-Light Again', Veterinary Medicine 31 (6) (1936), pp. 238-240.
Description:'Unfortunately, but probably inevitably, Senator Dickinson gave his speech a strong political slant, generally arraigning officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for permitting "sewage labeled as fit for human food" to enter into interstate commerce. However, he excepted Doctor Mohler from this general arraignment and paid him a high tribute.
The Senator urged that the meat inspection law be extended to include all canned dog food entering into interstate commerce, and clear up a situation worse than that described in Sinclair's "Jungle".
The Senator's interest in the matter was not the welfare of dogs, but grew out of the testimony at the Dog Food Code hearing in February, 1935 (Veterinary Medicine, Feb., 1935, pp. 54-6 and May, 1935, pp. 188-91), that a hundred million cans of dog food are consumed annually by the public, because of misleading statements on [239-240] the labels, to-wit: "Contains U.S. Inspected and Passed Meat" and "Fit for Human Food." Our opinion is that this phase of the matter has been exaggerated and that canned food is not used for human consumption to this extent. However, after the cans are opened, it is commonly kept in the family refrigerator with the family's food supply and is eaten by mistake occasionally. Further, it is, of course, known that it is intentionally eaten to some extent. Either circumstance makes the use of carrion in its manufacture simply unthinkable.' (239-240)
-
QuotesDefinitions and Standards of Identity and Biological Value and Labeling Required for Canned Dog Food and a Plan for their Enforcement (c. 1934)
Description:quoted in entirety
-
Related toJ.W. Patton, 'Further Studies on Commercial Dog Foods - Canned Dog Food', Veterinary Medicine 27 (12) (Dec. 1932), pp. 530-541.
Description:'Readers of this magazine will not need to be told in detail that the dog food industry has been, and is, one of the most chaotic industries in which veterinarians, as such, are concerned, nor that no industry has more badly needed reorganization and revamping, or at least reforming and house cleaning than this one.'
Relevant passages from earlier article:
‘In my opinion (naturally I may be partial to my own statements) none of the charges of prejudiced statements in my former article, for or against the product of any commercial manufacturer of dog food will stand analysis. In any case, they must stand as written. I believed them to be true when I wrote them and I still believe them to be true, after making them dozens of chemical and biological analyses of commercial dog foods, personally visiting most of the dog food manufacturers from New York to Illinois and from the Great Lakes to the Mason-Dixon Line, and interviewing or corresponding with most of those in business outside the area.’ (530)
‘The writer frankly admits that the statement “Fit for Human Food” is one of the most difficult angles of canned dog food advertising for him to understand. It appears conspicuously on the labels of all sorts of canned dog food, the good and the bad impartially. Many of the cheapest and most worthless brands display it. We could overlook its irrelevancy were it not for the fact that it is plainly intended to convey to the dog owner an implied superiority. “Fit for Human Food” and its running mate, “Inspected and Passed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” are worked to the point that makes us skeptical. The regulations of the Bureau of Animal Industry and their rules which govern the use of “Fit for Human Food” have in mind at all times the food of man, which is far different from saying that it is fit for a dog. It means just what it says. Comparatively speaking as applied to canned dog food, it is meaningless.
We have in mind a can of dog food which would not appeal to us as a human food. It sells to the various so-called manufacturers [note: ‘Manufacturer as used here and throughout this article means the firm under whose label the product is sold. Only in a small minority of such cases are such firms actually manufacturers. A large majority of canned dog foods are put up by meat packers, sometimes as many as 20 brands by a single packer, and shipped to the “manufacturer,” labeled [sic] and ready for distribution. This business of canning dog foods for others is catered to largely by the small packers who have not an established trade for their tankage and other offal. One of the large packers does not engage in canning for others at all and the others engage in it to a limited extent only; probably for the reason that the price has been forced so low that there is more profit in marketing their surplus products elsewhere, where there is an established demand for it.’] at five cents a can. It costs about four-and-one-half cents to buy the empty can, fill it, and label it. There cannot be over one half of one cent’s worth of food in the can. It is compounded from the cheapest cereals procurable, namely rice-siftings. Rice-siftings have the property of absorbing a large percentage of water and swelling to gigantic proportions, as well as being cheap. The flesh which this particular brand contains is the so-called beef trimmings, lungs, weasand, and trimmings of the trimmings – much of which, no doubt, [534-535] went into the inedible department before the advent of canned dog food. It has no scientific or other regular formula. It contains what the canner has no other sale for on the day he cans it. It must be as variable in nutrients as the variability of in [sic] the ingredients would permit. At best, it can never be highly nutritious.
All this is no secret to the meat packer who admits this is not good dog food. It has complied with the regulations as to cleanliness, which make it “fit for human food” because it comes from the edible department and the rice is edible. The packer is not blamable [sic] for its inadequacy or its variability. He is merely supplying what the purchaser asked for – the cheapest can of stuff that a dog will eat.
When we go to the other extreme we have a can of dog food, which either cannot be classed as “fit for human food,” or must so qualify this statement as to lower our estimation of its sources. It is built to a scientific formula. It will adequately nourish every demand of the animal. It may be fed exclusively either as a single meal or for generations without a single deviation in any one of many pertinent considerations. There is not the slightest deviation in its scientific formula except it be as the result of newer knowledge in nutrition. Its formula is compounded with prescription-like precision. Though it may not be justified or advantageous to make the statement “fit for human food,” it can meet the most rigid and scientific interpretation of the statement “fit for dog food.” It is not intended to imply the meat packer cannot or does not put up this kind of dog food; but he does not and cannot fill a can with one-half cent’s worth of this food, nor not for four times this amount.
Fit for human food and adequacy are not identical terms. Materials which come from the edible department may be edible but not necessarily adequate. Our requirements from a nutritional point of view for a can of dog food must be met on the standard of adequacy.’ (534-535)
