Myths about protein dispelled...

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I just spoke to a good friend of mine who is a Doctor at the CDC and is pretty high up in that government organization.  He said he wouldn't feed is pets, or anyone for that matter, any kind of food from a rendering plant.  He says that many diseases are probably caused by eating meat from sick and diseased , and dead animals that almost every rendering plant uses as ingredients for it's products.  He also said that it is a billion dollar business and one that couldn't care less about your pet having it's life cut short from diabetes, cancer, nerve problems, or any of the other illnesses that dogs come down with, when they are just middle age. They will claim that their by-products are the healthiest things since vitamins were invented, and they really have no idea about what is actually in the garbage they sell to pet food companies........ Now this person is actually a Doctor, not a hobbiest that wrote a book, or someone studying be something at some future date.

He said, she said

He said, she said

Let's regain a little perspective here. We're having a discussion about what we choose to or choose not to feed our dogs. Nobody is diminished by his opinion. Nobody has to lose. It doesn't have to fall out into little remarks just because one person doesn't hold with the beliefs of another person.

Just saying.... 
Paula

He says that many diseases are probably caused by eating meat from sick and diseased , and dead animals that almost every rendering plant uses as ingredients for it's products. He also said that it is a billion dollar business and one that couldn't care less about your pet having it's life cut short from diabetes, cancer, nerve problems, or any of the other illnesses that dogs come down with, when they are just middle age. They will claim that their by-products are the healthiest things since vitamins were invented, and they really have no idea about what is actually in the garbage they sell to pet food companies........ Now this person is actually a Doctor, not a hobbiest that wrote a book, or someone studying be something at some future date.

 
Um, physicians at the CDC specialize in communicable diseases and outbreaks so maybe I would listen about reported outbreaks attributed to plants.  I'm not sure how he would know ANYTHING about ? pet food or byproducts cutting your pets life short or causing DM/Cancer.  In fact, these physicians don't actually take care of patients, they are researchers and epidemiologists.   Especially when good clinicians pratice evidence based medicine and there are not studies supporting these claims.  You can always find someone to support your ideas, but whether they are credible or talking way outside of their expertise, that's another point.  IMO you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink, regardless what evidence is presented, if they want to believe something is evil and bad, they will find a way to make it so.  FYI, one of my classmates in medical school works for the CDC currently and assures me that they are not currently involved in pet food research relating to pet longevity, they stick to people.

ORIGINAL: ottoluv

He says that many diseases are probably caused by eating meat from sick and diseased , and dead animals that almost every rendering plant uses as ingredients for it's products. He also said that it is a billion dollar business and one that couldn't care less about your pet having it's life cut short from diabetes, cancer, nerve problems, or any of the other illnesses that dogs come down with, when they are just middle age. They will claim that their by-products are the healthiest things since vitamins were invented, and they really have no idea about what is actually in the garbage they sell to pet food companies........ Now this person is actually a Doctor, not a hobbiest that wrote a book, or someone studying be something at some future date.

Um, physicians at the CDC specialize in communicable diseases and outbreaks so maybe I would listen about reported outbreaks attributed to plants.  I'm not sure how he would know ANYTHING about ? pet food or byproducts cutting your pets life short or causing DM/Cancer.  In fact, these physicians don't actually take care of patients, they are researchers and epidemiologists.   Especially when good clinicians pratice evidence based medicine and there are not studies supporting these claims.  You can always find someone to support your ideas, but whether they are credible or talking way outside of their expertise, that's another point.  IMO you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink, regardless what evidence is presented, if they want to believe something is evil and bad, they will find a way to make it so.  FYI, one of my classmates in medical school works for the CDC currently and assures me that they are not currently involved in pet food research relating to pet longevity, they stick to people.

Nobody said they were involved in pet food research, and with all the opinions on this forum that are presented by people with little or no formal background in the subject, I thought it was important to pass his comments on. This person had a life prior to the CDC and became very interested in pet nutrition and has been researching it for quite a few years ,  since he has three dogs.... If anyone would like to offer any information that would be counter to  his statements, and they feel as though they have the educational background to do that, I am sure we would all be interested in hearing it......

If anyone would like to offer any information that would be counter to his statements, and they feel as though they have the educational background to do that, I am sure we would all be interested in hearing it......
 
Now this person is actually a Doctor, not a hobbiest that wrote a book, or someone studying be something at some future date.

 
So the last comment there would seem to indicate you are not just trying to pass along info, but insult some of the very intelligent posters on this forum who are still in training.  I have come to trust and value their opinions because their claims are substantiated by actual studies and not propaganda.  Just because I'm done with my medical education and they are not does not make my opinion more valuable since they are in different fields as I implyed in my prior post.  There are no randomized controlled trials, or even retrospective reviews in the peer reviewed journals on Pubmed or OVID that substanciate any of your "friend"'s claims.  That should be a red flag IMO when critically analyzing the literature.  You want evidence, log on yourself and take a look, the lack of evidence is impressive. 
 
Now that being said, I have no problem not feeding something because you don't want to or are not comfortable.  To each their own, the foods I feed don't have by-products. 

I am reminded of a safety director at a company my husband worked for many years ago.  It was up to her to determine if the driver could have prevented the accident--ranging from major accicent to knocking off side view mirror.  She had studied rules and regs, etc BUT this woman not only didn't have a driver's license, she had never driven a car much less a rig.    I can tell you reading about driving a rig in certain situations and actually driving it is TWO entirely different things. My husband never read ONE of the books and manuals she read to get this position, but has driven rigs for 34 years and can park one where some couldn't park a go-Kart and his only accident was when a guy ran a red light--many witnesses.  And once he hit a large piece of retread in the road and damaged a fender, once hit a deer and broke a headlight.  He knows FAR more about what is preventable under what circumstances than she will ever know because she has never "been there, done that."   She has never driven on black ice, took a huge rig on a road that was hardly more than one lane wide, come up on a multicar pile up on a foggy road, etc, etc. And the safety director where he worked next and now are former over the road drivers.
 
My point is sometimes experts, no matter what field, which side they take, what they think, are not always right and don't always know everything they think they do.  We all have room to learn.

There are different grades of by-products. From what I've read about rendering plants, they don't separate their batches by specifics, so if the by-products are defined (chicken and turkey organ meat only) they may not have come from a rendering plant.

He said he wouldn't feed is pets, or anyone for that matter, any kind of food from a rendering plant.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

Got any specific examples (like below)?
 
Thread-> Opinions On Merrick - 11/4/2006 11:56:46 PM 

I think they have had a TON of quality control problems and Garth Merrick also owns the largest dead stock removal company in Texas (Hereford By-Products) and a rendering facility (Tejas Industries). From what Mordanna learned in her research (www.dogfoodproject.com) the pet foods plant is located at the rendering facility. Also, kind of makes me understand why they have the market on beef bones and chews.

ORIGINAL: sooner

 

ORIGINAL: paulaedwina

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I just spoke to a good friend of mine who is a Doctor at the CDC and is pretty high up in that government organization.  He said he wouldn't feed is pets, or anyone for that matter, any kind of food from a rendering plant.  He says that many diseases are probably caused by eating meat from sick and diseased , and dead animals that almost every rendering plant uses as ingredients for it's products.  He also said that it is a billion dollar business and one that couldn't care less about your pet having it's life cut short from diabetes, cancer, nerve problems, or any of the other illnesses that dogs come down with, when they are just middle age. They will claim that their by-products are the healthiest things since vitamins were invented, and they really have no idea about what is actually in the garbage they sell to pet food companies........ Now this person is actually a Doctor, not a hobbiest that wrote a book, or someone studying be something at some future date.

I agree Bobsk8.  Like I said, if I pick up deer road kill I'm more certain about the quality of 'by-products' my dogs would eat than if I bought kibble made with by-products. I'm going to stick to my no by products rule thanks.

Paula

Agreed, way too many unknowns with "by-products" to take the risk.  Additionally, most foods that have by-products as an ingredient also have other less than desirable ingredients.  For me, it's one of those ingredients that represents a red flag that the company is trying to cut corners and increase profit margins.  Otherwise the specific by-products would be listed and I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Agreed, way too many unknowns with "by-products" to take the risk. Additionally, most foods that have by-products as an ingredient also have other less than desirable ingredients. For me, it's one of those ingredients that represents a red flag that the company is trying to cut corners and increase profit margins. Otherwise the specific by-products would be listed and I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Couldnt agree more,particularly the highlighted parts.

Bob i give you points for standing staunch on you're views and opinions,many people would have given up by now and backed down.You're opinions hold just as much credence as everybody elses,and i do completely understand where you are coming from and what you're trying to say []

I rarely look at the authors name when reading articles,i like to make my own mind up no matter who writes what.Just because a scientist writes a paper,it doesnt make it the be all and end all.There are many pet owners out there who have studied nutrition for longer than i have been born and written many interesting and informative articles and yet hold no qualifications.Personally i dont care,if it makes sense than i am inclined to believe it [:-]

What I keep in mind about the animal feed industry is that they are looking at what your animal CAN eat not what your animal SHOULD eat. The standards such as the AAFCO are about testing whether your animal can get its nutritive needs met with these foods - not whether these are the best foods to meet your animal's nutritive needs.

The feed industry would be happy to use tire treads (completely made up example) if they find they can modify tires so that your animals can assimilate the protein (totally made up nutrition profile). And the AAFCO would test that your animal will meet its nutritive needs by eating this tire formula. This has NOTHING to do with whether tires are good for your animal.

I don't think people truly appreciate that. It is up to you to decide what you're going to feed your dogs. You do the best you can to understand nutrition and then you make a choice about how your dog will get its nutrition. You want to use by-products? Fine, your choice. But don't think that somehow the animal feed industry is saying by this product, with any authority, that by-products are the best way to feed your dog. That is up to you, that is purely your call.

Paula

What I keep in mind about the animal feed industry is that they are looking at what your animal CAN eat not what your animal SHOULD eat. The standards such as the AAFCO are about testing whether your animal can get its nutritive needs met with these foods - not whether these are the best foods to meet your animal's nutritive needs.

The feed industry would be happy to use tire treads (completely made up example) if they find they can modify tires so that your animals can assimilate the protein (totally made up nutrition profile). And the AAFCO would test that your animal will meet its nutritive needs by eating this tire formula. This has NOTHING to do with whether tires are good for your animal.

I don't think people truly appreciate that.

ORIGINAL: paulaedwina

Absolutely. 
 
Just think of what we'd get if food and pharmaceutical industries were self regulating like the animal food industry.  I know the FDA has (in effect) been approaching that the last few years but it isn't there.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

 ...He says that many diseases are probably caused by eating meat from sick and diseased , and dead animals that almost every rendering plant uses as ingredients for it's products. 

Bob, this is what I was referring to. 4D is dead, diseased, dying, disabled. What I was saying is that you're focusing on by-products coming from rendering plants and being low quality. How do you know that the meat in dog food is any higher quality?

Just to sum up my feelings on by-products, if I trust a dog food company to include high quality meat in their food, then why should the by-products be of different quality? So far I have not fed Gingerbread a food that included by-products, but if Eagle Pack Holistic (just for a hypothetical example) started including organs only by-products in their food, I would have no problem feeding it.

This is my last post on this thread. The topic that I had hoped people would discuss (and the main content of the article) was high protein, not by-products. [8|] [&:]

I agree Luv...if you trust a company with high quality meat in their food,,, then why should by-products be of different quality.
Randy Wysong says about by-products:
 
 
 
Are By-Products Evil?
            In the processing of human foods there are thousands of tons of by-products that cannot be readily sold to humans. Does that make them useless or even inferior? No. Such by-products could include trimmings, viscera, organs, bones, gristle and anything else that humans do not desire. Should these perfectly nutritious items be buried in a landfill? As I mentioned above, while Earth's resources continue to decline and people starve around the globe, should we feed our pets only "human grade" foods and let perfectly edible - and sometimes even more nutritious - by-products go to waste? How is that conscionable or justifiable for either the consumer or the producer?
 
That came from this website:
 
[linkhttp://searchwarp.com/swa12040.htm]http://searchwarp.com/swa12040.htm[/link]