Cites Bureau of Animal Industry (U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Description:

'It is not necessary to repeat, even in abstract, what has already been published in detail, but it seems worth while to restate that canned dog food is of two types: (1) That manufactured in inspected plants, that is, in abattoirs whose products are inspected by veterinarians of the Federal Bureau of Animal Industry; and (2) that manufactured without any sort of inspection or official control. [note: 'A fish product canned for dog food under state inspection is not considered in this discussion.']

Not all the canned dog foods made in B.A.I. inspected plants are adequate; in fact the majority of them are of rather low nutritional value, but they are clean and so far as their nutrition goes, wholesome. They are fit for a dog owner to take into his home, to feed in his kitchen, to store in his icebox and fit for a dog to eat although inadequate for his continued maintenance. About 30 brands of canned dog food are made in some 17 inspected plants. Perhaps a third of them are really adequate foods; others approach this goal in varying degrees.

It should be noted that the only inspection legend on the label that means anything, is: "U.S. Inspected and Passed by the Department of Agriculture."

The other, uninspected group of canned dog foods, is quite a different matter. It includes some 200 brands which, in the main, are abominations. Perhaps no one person knows the details concerning the manufacture of all of them. Certainly a large majority of them are of low nutritional value, a product of filth and putrefaction, and unworthy of the confidence of the veterinarian or the dog owner and unfit for the dog. In most instances they are a byproduct of rendering works and scavengers, a larceny on the tankage and fertilizer supply. Not only are they made from the carcasses of animals dead from accident and disease but usually from the putrefied flesh of such animals, or from meat scraps and garbage in like condition.

The labelling of many of them is a study in deception. In the past, many of these labels have contained the statement: 'Contains U.S. Inspected and Passed Lean Beef," or statements of similar purport. Some of them still contain such legends, but they are not so common as formerly. How deceptive such a label may be, even where it is literally true, is shown by the following experience.

The writer, on a hot summer day, standing beside tons of putrefying garbage collected from the meat markets of a half dozen small cities and viewing the mass, the whole surface of which was crawling [238-239] with maggots, asked the manufacturer how he could say that his dog food "Contained U.S. Inspected and Passed Lean Beef." His reply was that the butchers from which he gathered the scraps, bones, chicken heads, chicken entrails and everything else that went into the garbage barrel, sold inspected and passed meat and therefore, at least some of the scraps in his dog food had been inspected and passed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. His labels also contained the statement, "fit for human food." The use of this latter statement, however, has been largely discontinued not only on uninspected but on inspected foods as well. It should never have been used.

Claims of a "biologically tested product," and "adequate ration," and a "perfectly balanced food," etc., quite generally made for even the most inadequate foods were revealed, upon investigation, to have originated in the fertile imagination of the advertiser, without any sort of test, scientific or otherwise, nor upon any better evidence than testimonials and often without even that dubious evidence of quality.

A recent ruling of the solicitor of the Federal Bureau of Animal Industry, that the meat inspection law of 1906 gives the Bureau no control over uninspected dog food, removes what small restraint the Bureau has been able to exercise on this field heretofore, a restraint that extended only to requiring that canned dog food shipped interstate be "decharacterized" by the addition of charcoal or some other substance, the amount not stated. It is highly desirable that some governmental agency be given authority to prevent false, fraudulent and deceptive labeling of canned dog foods, at least as to the ingredients in them, even of the veterinarian or the dog owner must still, perforce, rely upon his own information as to the quality, wholesomeness and nutritive value.

The long record of the Bureau of Animal Industry for efficiency and honesty, in control of the slaughter and processing of meat for human food, recommends it as an agency to which the Congress may delegate, with entire confidence, such measures for control of the canned dog food industry as it sees fit. [239]
...
[240] The day following the speech by Senator Dickinson, Senator Burke of Nebraska introduced a bill to place the manufacture of all canned dog food entering into interstate commerce under the control of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; in effect, to provide for inspection of canned dog food and the premises where it is prepared by the Bureau of Animal Industry as is done for meat and meat products for human consumption. Although adjournment of the Congress is near, it is expected by its sponsors that this bill will reach a vote and be passed practically without opposition during the present session.' (238-240)

 

Cites National Association of Dog Food Manufacturers
Description:

'Congress is reported to be considering, in committee, the nefariousness of the canned dog food racket and considering measures for curbing it. It furnishes sufficient evidence of abuses to attract the attention of the Congress, even in a campaign year. It is highly desirable that something constructive come of the consideration.

This magazine, and this magazine alone, has exposed objectionable features in the canned dog food industry repeatedly for the past four years. Although the articles published were intended solely for veterinarians, their popular appeal was such that, altogether more than half a million reprints have been distributed. These articles were in considerable part responsible for the failure of the Dog Food Manufacturers' Association to obtain the recognition of the NRA for its program. The publicity this magazine gave to the objectionable methods of the majority of the manufacturers of canned dog food was in part responsible for the failure of the Association, after an elaborate administrative personnel, costing more than $50,000 a year, had been provided. Manufacturers of inadequate and unfit canned dog food have privately acknowledged to the writer that the attitude of the veterinary profession towards their foods made conditions harder for them. This is gratifying.' (238)