Aletho News

What’s Really in the Bag: The Pet Food Industry’s Dirty Secret

An Essay on the Hidden Ingredients, Deceptive Labels, and Chronic Disease Epidemic in Commercial Pet Food

Lies are Unbekoming | February 23, 2026

The label on a popular dry cat food lists its ingredients in this order: poultry by-product meal, ground yellow corn, wheat, corn gluten meal, soybean meal, brewers rice. Most people reading that label assume the poultry by-product meal is the primary ingredient — a protein source feeding their obligate carnivore. They’re wrong. Corn is the primary ingredient. The company split it into two categories — ground yellow corn and corn gluten meal — so that each individual corn listing falls below the poultry by-product meal on the label. Combined, the corn outweighs everything else in the bag.¹

This is not a labelling error. It is standard industry practice, known as “splitting,” and it is legal under the guidelines of the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). It is also the first clue that the commercial pet food industry operates in a space between what owners believe they are buying and what they are actually feeding their animals. The gap between those two things is wide enough to make animals sick — and the evidence suggests it has been doing exactly that for decades.

What the Label Conceals

Pet food labels are required to list ingredients. They are not required to tell you what those ingredients actually are.

The term “meat by-products,” for instance, sounds like it involves meat. Under AAFCO guidelines, acceptable meat by-products include lungs, spleens, kidneys, brains, livers, blood, bones, low-temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of their contents. Livers infested with parasites qualify. Lungs filled with pneumonia qualify. If an animal is diseased and declared unfit for human consumption, the carcass is acceptable for pet food. Parts of animals where they have been injected with antibiotics, hormones, or other drugs — so-called “stick marks” — are cut from carcasses intended for human consumption and redirected to pet food.²

The term “meat meal” conceals even more. Meat meal is the dried product of a rendering plant, and rendering plants are the final destination for material that no other industry will touch. As investigative journalist Ann Martin documented over a seven-year investigation, rendering plants accept dead zoo animals, road kill too large for roadside burial, grocery store waste including the Styrofoam trays and plastic wrap, restaurant garbage, and condemned material from slaughterhouses. They also accept “4-D” animals — dead, diseased, dying, and disabled livestock — from factory farms. Before the slaughterhouse ships these condemned parts to the renderer, workers spray them with crude carbolic acid or cresylic disinfectant, both classified as poisons by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In Canada, the denaturing agent is called Birkolene B. When Martin asked the Ministry of Agriculture for its composition, she was told it was a “trade secret.”³

At the rendering plant, all of this material — including, in many cases, the flea collars, ID tags, and plastic bags — is ground together in massive vats, cooked at temperatures between 220°F and 270°F for twenty minutes to one hour, and centrifuged to separate the fat from the solids. The fat becomes the source of “animal fat” in pet food. The remaining solids are dried and ground into “meat meal.”⁴

The AAFCO ingredient definitions that govern these terms apply identically to pet food and livestock feed. When Martin contacted the chair of AAFCO to confirm this, the reply was unambiguous: “The feed ingredient definitions approved by AAFCO apply to all animal feeds, including pet foods, unless specific animal species restrictions are noted.”⁵ No species restrictions distinguish what goes into food for a family dog from what goes into feed for industrial poultry.

This is what the label means when it says “meat meal.”

The Fat Sprayed on Kibble

Open a new bag of dry pet food and you’ll notice a distinctive, pungent odour. That smell comes from rendered animal fat or, increasingly, discarded restaurant grease.

Restaurant grease has become a major component of feed-grade animal fat over the last fifteen years. The grease is typically stored in fifty-gallon drums kept outside for weeks, exposed to temperature extremes with no protocols for future use. Rendering companies collect this grease, blend different types together, stabilise the mixture with powerful chemical antioxidants to slow further spoilage, and sell the blended product to pet food manufacturers.⁶

The fat is sprayed directly onto dried kibbles or extruded pellets after manufacturing. Its primary purpose is not nutritional. The spray transforms an otherwise bland or distasteful product into something animals will eat. As a 1996 Animal Protection Institute report put it, pet food manufacturers are “masters at getting a dog or cat to eat something she would normally turn up her nose at.”⁷ Taste appeal, not nutritional quality, is paramount.

The pet food manufacturing process extends this principle across every stage. The raw material — already nutritionally questionable — is extruded through machines that subject it to steam, pressure, and high heat, puffing it into shapes like popcorn. Then it is sprayed with fat and chemical flavour enhancers. Whatever nutritional value the raw ingredients had is further degraded at each step.

As veterinarian Randy Wysong, a long-time critic of industry practices, observed: “Processing is the wild card in nutritional value that is, by and large, simply ignored. Heating, cooking, rendering, freezing, dehydrating, canning, extruding, pelleting, baking, and so forth, are so commonplace that they are simply thought of as synonymous with food itself.” To compensate for this destruction, manufacturers must “fortify” the finished product with synthetic vitamins and minerals — because the ingredients they started with are not wholesome, the quality is extremely variable, and the manufacturing practices have destroyed whatever nutrients the food contained.⁸

Chemical dyes then create the appearance of quality. Sodium nitrite prevents colour fading. Red Dye #40 gives kibble a meaty look. Both agents have been linked to cancer or birth defects in laboratory animals and are banned in some countries. The cosmetic effect is for the buyer, not the animal. Animals don’t care what colour their food is.⁹

Grains for Carnivores

Two of the top three ingredients in most dry pet foods are some form of grain product. Corn is the most common, but wheat, soy, and rice also feature heavily. The grains used in pet food are typically the cheap dregs of the human food chain — material that did not pass inspection for human use because of excessive levels of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, or mycotoxins. Little, if any, testing is undertaken to determine the levels of these toxic substances once they reach the pet food plant.¹⁰

The grain problem is especially severe for cats. Cats are obligate carnivores. Their physiology is designed for a high-protein, moisture-rich diet derived from prey. A diet built around corn makes no biological sense for a cat, but from the manufacturer’s perspective, corn provides a far cheaper protein source than meat. In one dry cat food Martin examined, corn appeared in four different forms — a staggering carbohydrate load for an animal that requires at least half its diet as protein. Grains cannot supply cats with sufficient arachidonic acid, vitamin A, or vitamin B-12. They also lack the natural form of taurine, an amino acid critical to feline survival, which is why manufacturers add synthetic taurine as a supplement.¹¹

The “high protein” labels splashed across packaging are another layer of deception. As veterinarian Alfred Plechner documented, manufacturers use excessive amounts of cheap, inferior-quality protein to reach a minimum percentage that animals can actually utilise. In California, the state’s FDA requires 18 percent protein in dog kibble, knowing that animals may absorb only 5 to 9 percent of it. For cats, which require twice the protein of dogs, the gap between labelled protein and usable protein is even wider. The rest — the indigestible fraction — becomes a burden on the kidneys and digestive tract.¹²

The Euthanised Animals in the Vat

The most disturbing ingredient in commercial pet food is one that never appears on any label.

In Los Angeles alone, more than 200 tons of dogs and cats were rendered each year as of the early 2000s. The National Animal Control Association reported that of approximately 13 million household pets euthanised annually in the United States, 30 percent were buried, 30 percent were cremated, and the remaining 40 percent — roughly 5.2 million animals — were sent to rendering facilities.¹³

The path is straightforward. When a pet is euthanised and the owner does not take the body home for burial or pay for cremation, the carcass is collected by a dead stock removal company and delivered to a rendering plant. There it joins the rest of the raw material — the condemned livestock, the road kill, the grocery store waste — in the same vat. The remains, including collars, tags, and flea collars, are ground and cooked together. The end product is meat meal.¹⁴

Pet food manufacturers deny this. The Pet Food Institute (PFI), which represents more than 90 percent of pet food produced in the United States, insists that none of its members use rendered companion animals. Martin pressed the PFI repeatedly on this point, asking a direct question: do any of the pet food companies actually test the raw material they purchase from rendering plants to determine if it contains rendered companion animals?

In 2004, the PFI admitted that pet food companies do not test the raw material for the sources of animals rendered. When Martin asked the same question again before the third edition of her book, the PFI chose not to respond.¹⁵

The industry’s “proof” that pets aren’t in the food rests on a single study. The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) tested dry dog food samples in 1998 and 2000 for dog and cat DNA. The results, which the FDA did not release until 2002 — and which Martin obtained only after filing Freedom of Information Act requests at least twice — showed no detectable dog or cat DNA. But the test was conducted on finished kibble, not raw material before rendering. The sample size was less than an eighth of a cup from a five-pound bag. And as multiple scientists confirmed to Martin, the rendering process itself — cooking at temperatures above 220°F — destroys DNA. Testing rendered product for DNA is, by design, incapable of finding what was there before the heat destroyed the evidence.¹⁶

The same FDA study did find something else: sodium pentobarbital, the drug used to euthanise companion animals.

The Euthanasia Drug in the Food

Sodium pentobarbital is a barbiturate administered intravenously to euthanise dogs and cats. Federal law restricts its use to administration under the direction of a veterinarian. The American Veterinary Medical Association’s own report states that in animals intended for human or animal food, “chemical agents that result in tissue residue cannot be used.”¹⁷

A 1995 study by three veterinarians at the University of Minnesota established that sodium pentobarbital “survived rendering without undergoing degradation.” Even boiling the liver of a calf euthanised with pentobarbital for twenty minutes did not reduce the drug levels.¹⁸

The FDA/CVM’s survey found pentobarbital in numerous brands of dry dog food. The first survey, in 1998, detected the drug in 30 of the sampled products — including brands sold by Heinz, Ol’ Roy (Walmart’s brand), and ProPlan. The second survey, in 2000, measured actual concentrations, finding levels ranging from 3.9 to 32.0 parts per billion across 10 positive samples.¹⁹

When asked to explain the source, the FDA initially claimed it was likely from rendered cattle or horses. But the FDA’s own published study subsequently revealed that none of the 31 dog food samples tested positive for equine-derived proteins, and acknowledged that cattle are “only occasionally euthanized with pentobarbital, and thus are not considered a likely source.” The study concluded that it “does not define the source (i.e. species) responsible for the contamination.”²⁰

The logic is not complicated. The drug is found in the food. The drug survives rendering. The drug is primarily used to euthanise dogs and cats. The FDA could not identify an alternative source. Yet no enforcement action was taken.

When Martin contacted the FDA/CVM and asked what steps were being taken to remove pentobarbital from pet food, she was told: “CVM is not planning to undertake any special enforcement efforts to detect pentobarbital in pet food.”²¹

No long-term studies have been conducted on the effects of daily pentobarbital ingestion by companion animals over years or decades. What is documented is that veterinarians began reporting dogs developing tolerance to pentobarbital — the drug becoming less effective when used for euthanasia — which is precisely what prompted the FDA study in the first place.²²

The Regulatory Illusion

Every pet owner Ann Martin spoke with during her years of investigation was convinced that a government agency closely regulated pet food manufacturers. A pet supply store owner became incensed when Martin told him the industry was essentially self-regulated. He was certain that inspectors examined every ingredient. Martin had believed the same thing once.²³

The reality is layered in the appearance of oversight without the substance of it. AAFCO, the organisation whose logo appears on pet food labels, is a non-government commercial enterprise. It has no regulatory authority, no inspectors, and no laboratories. It publishes model guidelines and encourages states to adopt them voluntarily. As Rodney Noel, former Chair of AAFCO, explained to Martin: “AAFCO on its own cannot enforce any of the models that it produces. It has no regulatory authority. It has no inspectors or laboratories. Any inspection of a pet-food plant is done by a state agency or the FDA.”²⁴

When Martin contacted state representatives to determine what testing actually occurs, the answers were revealing. New Jersey’s agriculture department: “We check the nutritive values for the product. We do not check the ingredients.” Utah: testing covers only “guaranteed analysis and product registration.” Georgia: “Drug screening is done in various livestock feed, but not pet food.” Only eight of fifty states that Martin contacted actually tested pet food at all — and that testing verified only whether the percentages of protein, fat, and fibre matched the label. The source of those nutrients was irrelevant. The required levels of protein, fat, and fibre could theoretically be achieved by combining old shoe leather, crankshaft oil, and sawdust.²⁵

AAFCO’s feeding trials — the basis for the “complete and balanced” claim on labels — use eight dogs, last six months, and measure four blood values. Two of the eight dogs are allowed to drop out and the trial remains valid. The dogs must simply not lose more than 15 percent of their body weight. These trials give no indication of how the food affects animals eating it for years. The taurine deficiency that killed cats went undetected for the same reason — a few months of observation cannot reveal what a lifetime of nutritional inadequacy produces.²⁶

The Pet Food Institute completes the picture. PFI is the industry’s self-described “public and media relations resource, representative before the U.S. Congress and state and federal agencies.” It is funded by the companies it claims to oversee. PFI’s Affiliate Members listed on its website include rendering companies such as Griffin Industries, Darling International, Valley Proteins, and Baker Commodities — and Baker Commodities is documented as picking up euthanised pets.²⁷

The pet food industry is, in every meaningful sense, self-regulated. And it is a $14.3 billion industry, according to Euromonitor’s 2005 figures, with no incentive to change what works.²⁸

From the Bag to the Body: How Commercial Food Creates Chronic Disease

If this were only a matter of aesthetics — unappetising ingredients processed into something edible — it would be a consumer issue and nothing more. But the evidence from veterinary practice connects commercial pet food directly to the epidemic of chronic disease now seen in dogs and cats.

A 2015 study by Banfield Veterinary Hospitals, examining 2.4 million dogs and 480,000 cats, documented what holistic veterinarians had been reporting for years: chronic disease in companion animals was rising at alarming rates. One in four dogs and one in three cats were overweight or obese — a condition rare when Richard Pitcairn began veterinary practice in 1965. Overweight and obesity in animals, Pitcairn argues, can actually be signs of malnutrition: the body keeps signalling hunger because it is not getting the nutrients it needs from the food, even as the calorie load pushes weight upward.²⁹

The specific disease pathways are traceable from ingredient to organ failure.

Kidney Failure in Young Cats

Cats evolved as desert animals. Their kidneys were designed to be extraordinarily efficient at conserving water. Historically, they ate a fresh food diet of prey containing roughly 70 percent body fluids. Kibble is 5 to 10 percent moisture. A cat fed exclusively on kibble operates in a state of chronic dehydration for its entire life.

Jean Hofve, DVM, puts it directly: “I have seen kidney failure in cats four or five years old, and that is really upsetting. It’s different if the cat is seventeen or eighteen years old. But there is no excuse for this in young cats. These animals must have a wet diet. It protects their kidneys.”³⁰

Many pet foods also contain excess levels of vitamin D, calcium, and phosphorus, which are directly toxic to the kidneys. Messonnier notes that while definitive proof is lacking, it is worth considering that years of feeding diets containing excess and potentially toxic levels of these nutrients could produce chronic damage and ultimately kidney failure.³¹ The commercial pet food industry has never funded a study to test this hypothesis.

Holistic veterinarians report seeing kidney problems in younger animals than they encountered in earlier decades. The quality of pet food, they say, no longer creates or maintains healthy organs.³²

Taurine Deficiency and Fatal Heart Disease

In the late 1980s, veterinary researchers discovered that an often-fatal heart disease in cats — dilated cardiomyopathy — was caused by a deficiency of the amino acid taurine. Cats who were not getting enough taurine from their food developed enlarged, weakened hearts. Some went blind. Many died.

The deficiency occurred because commercial cat food formulas contained inadequate amounts of taurine. The manufacturing process — rendering, extruding, and high-heat cooking — destroys this amino acid, and the formulas were not compensating for the loss. Cat foods are now supplemented with synthetic taurine, and dilated cardiomyopathy has become uncommon. But it took an unknown number of dead cats to force the correction. The AAFCO feeding trials, which last a few months and measure four blood values, were not designed to detect a nutritional deficiency that kills slowly over years.³³

As Messonnier observes: “We do not know what ingredients future researchers may discover that should have been supplemented in pet foods all along.”³⁴

Feline Hyperthyroidism: A New Disease

Hyperthyroidism in cats was first recognised in 1979. It did not exist before that — or at least, it was never diagnosed. Its emergence coincides precisely with the expansion of commercially manufactured canned cat food in the 1970s.

Researchers at UC Davis found that cats eating commercially prepared canned food had approximately twice the risk of developing hyperthyroidism compared to cats that did not eat canned food. A 2004 Purdue University study examining 169,576 cats over twenty years confirmed that hyperthyroidism increased significantly from 1978 to 1997, and that consumption of pop-top canned foods was associated with greater risk. In female cats, the increased risk was specifically associated with pop-top cans. The mechanism is not fully understood, but the temporal association, the dose-response relationship, and the biological plausibility — canned food lining compounds acting as endocrine disruptors — all point toward the commercial diet.³⁵

This is a serious and sometimes terminal disease, and treatment is expensive. It emerged from nowhere in the late 1970s, and its rise tracks precisely with the commercial pet food practices of the same era.

The Allergy Epidemic

Food allergies have become an everyday condition in veterinary practice. The market for “limited antigen and novel protein” diets is now a multi-million dollar business — a business that exists because animals are developing intolerances to the ingredients in the standard commercial food they’ve been eating.³⁶

Plechner, who spent decades treating allergic animals, identified kibble as a concentrated delivery system for the most allergenic ingredients. His “Allergic Hit List” — the foods most likely to trigger reactions — reads like a standard kibble ingredient panel: beef, milk, wheat, corn, yeast, fish meal, plus chemical additives. The dehydration of kibble concentrates these allergens further; water acts as a diluter, and when little moisture is present, the allergen load becomes more potent.³⁷

The pattern extends beyond food allergies. Many animals become hypersensitive to flea bites, pollens, soaps, sprays, and environmental contaminants — reactions that holistic veterinarians trace back to immune systems already overwhelmed by processing the daily insult of commercial food. The food doesn’t just fail to nourish. It actively destabilises the immune response.³⁸

There is a further dimension that receives almost no attention: bacterial contamination. Commercially manufactured meat meals and by-product meals are frequently contaminated with bacteria because the source material is not always freshly slaughtered. Animals that have died from disease, injury, or natural causes may not be rendered for days. Dangerous E. coli bacteria are estimated to contaminate more than 50 percent of meat meals. The cooking process during rendering kills bacteria, but it does not destroy endotoxins — toxic substances that bacteria produce in unrefrigerated tissue. One study of commercial pet foods found endotoxins present in all samples tested, some in very large amounts. These endotoxins persist through manufacturing and are carried into the finished product that ends up in the feeding bowl.³⁹

What Veterinarians See

Joseph Demers, DVM, who uses acupuncture and Chinese medicine in his Florida practice, treats animals suffering the consequences of kibble daily. His description is clinical: “The animal on a diet of dehydrated food becomes dehydrated. The body builds up a lot of heat, which needs to be eliminated. Eventually you see burping, throwing up of bile in the morning, and upset stomachs. You see thick saliva, dry stools, and an animal panting after its evening meal even though the surroundings are cool.”⁴⁰

Demers turns many of these animals around within a month, simply by adding moisture and broth to the diet. The intervention is not complex. The damage was caused by what the animal was eating, and it reverses when the diet changes.

This observation — that animals improve rapidly when commercial food is reduced or eliminated — is the most consistent finding across holistic veterinary practice. Richard Pitcairn describes it as one of the earliest and most reliable insights of his career: switching animals from highly processed pet foods to quality fresh foods produced visible results, repeatedly. Problems resolved, coats became shiny, and animals got what he calls “a new lease on life.”⁴¹

The improvement is not subtle, and it does not require months of treatment. It requires a different bag — or no bag at all.

A Way Out

The commercial pet food industry will not reform itself. It is built on the economics of rendering: cheap raw material, processed into products that animals can be made to eat through the application of sprayed fats and chemical flavour enhancers, sold under labels that obscure what is inside. The regulatory structure does not inspect ingredients, does not test for contaminants, and does not fund long-term feeding studies. The system is operating as designed.

But the solution is available to any pet owner willing to act on what the evidence shows.

The core principle is straightforward: feed fresh, whole food appropriate to the species. For cats, that means a diet built on animal protein — ideally raw or lightly cooked — with adequate moisture. For dogs, fresh meat combined with whole grains, vegetables, and appropriate supplementation. Even modest changes produce results. Adding broth to kibble addresses chronic dehydration. Replacing a portion of dry food with fresh meat improves protein quality. Rotating food sources prevents the allergen accumulation that comes from feeding the same formula for years.⁴²

If homemade preparation isn’t feasible, the label itself reveals the hierarchy of quality. Look for a food where a specific, named meat — not “meat meal,” not “meat by-products,” not “poultry by-products” — appears among the first two or three ingredients. Avoid foods preserved with BHA, BHT, or ethoxyquin. The absence of ethoxyquin on the label does not guarantee it is absent from the food, since suppliers can add it before shipping to the manufacturer — but its presence on the label is a clear signal to walk away. Natural preservatives like mixed tocopherols (vitamin E) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) don’t extend shelf life as long, but they don’t carry the unanswered questions either.⁴³

Veterinarian Carolyn Blakey captures the consensus among holistic practitioners: “The best and most inexpensive food you can feed your pet is food you prepare yourself.”⁴⁴ For those who cannot prepare meals from scratch, a growing number of smaller manufacturers now produce foods using human-grade ingredients, whole grains, fresh proteins, and natural preservatives — without rendered material, chemical dyes, or mystery meals.

The label on the bag in your kitchen tells only half the story. The other half has been documented, investigated, and confirmed by veterinarians and journalists working independently across decades. The ingredients are a matter of public record. The disease patterns are visible in every veterinary clinic. The connection between the two is not speculative. It is the exposed wiring of a system that has been feeding animals the by-products of industrial waste and calling it nutrition.

The package insert lists what is inside. Most pet owners never see it — the marketing doesn’t mention it, the veterinarian doesn’t volunteer it, and the regulatory framework doesn’t require clarity. But the evidence exists, and it says what it says.

---

References

1. Martin, Ann N. Food Pets Die For: Shocking Facts About Pet Food (New Sage Press, 3rd edition). Chapter 2: “The Deceptive Practice of ‘Splitting’ in Labeling.”
2. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 2: “Unravelling the Mystery Ingredients.” AAFCO ingredient definitions for “meat by-products.”
3. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 4: “The Rendering Process”; Chapter 2 on denaturing agents. OSHA classifications of crude carbolic acid and cresylic acid. Canadian Ministry of Agriculture correspondence on Birkolene B.
4. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 2: “The Rendering Process.” National Renderers Association, Essential Rendering: All About the Animal By-Product Industry (Kirby Lithograph Company, Arlington, Virginia, 2006).
5. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 2: “Can This Really Be True?” Personal correspondence with AAFCO chair confirming ingredient definitions apply equally to pet food and livestock feed.
6. Messonnier, Shawn, DVM. Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats (Prima Publishing). Section on “Animal and Poultry Fat.” See also Animal Protection Institute Report, 1996.
7. Animal Protection Institute of America, investigative report, 1996. Cited in Zucker, Martin. The Veterinarians’ Guide to Natural Remedies for Dogs and Cats.
8. Messonnier, Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats. Section on “What Happened to the Nutrients?” Wysong, Randy L., DVM, on processing and nutritional destruction.
9. Zucker, The Veterinarians’ Guide to Natural Remedies for Dogs and Cats. Section on chemical additives, colouring agents, and sodium nitrite in pet food. See also Messonnier, sections on additives in processed pet foods.
10. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 2: “Toxic Substances in Grain.” See also vomitoxin recall affecting Nature’s Recipe (1995) and Doane Pet Care / Ol’ Roy (1999), killing 25 dogs.
11. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 2, observations on corn in cat food, and AAFCO grain ingredient definitions. Taurine supplementation requirements.
12. Plechner, Alfred J., DVM, and Martin Zucker. Pet Allergies: Remedies for an Epidemic (Very Healthy). Chapter on “Kibble — A Sackful of Trouble.” California FDA protein requirement cited.
13. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 4: “Meat Meal Product.” National Animal Control Association statistics on companion animal euthanasia and disposal, 2002.
14. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 4. See also Quebec Ministry of Agriculture correspondence confirming rendering practices: “Dead animals are cooked together with viscera, bones and fats at 115°C for twenty minutes.” Also: “The fur is not removed from dogs and cats.”
15. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 4: “Testing for Cats and Dogs in Pet Food.” Personal correspondence between Martin and the Pet Food Institute, 2004 and subsequent. Nancy Cook, VP of Technical and Regulatory Affairs, PFI.
16. FDA/CVM, “Report on the risk from pentobarbital in dog food,” March 28, 2002. Martin’s FOIA requests, 1998–2003. Myers, Michael J., PhD, et al., “Development of a polymerase chain reaction-based method to identify species-specific components in dog food,” American Journal of Veterinary Research, Vol. 65, No. 1, January 2004. Joe Donnenhoffer, Roch Diagnostics, on PCR testing limitations.
17. “2000 Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 218, No. 5, March 1, 2001, p. 685.
18. O’Connor, John J., DVM, MPH; Stowe, Clarence M., VMD, PhD; Robinson, Robert R., BVSc, MPH, PhD, “Fate of Sodium Pentobarbital in Rendered Material,” American Journal of Veterinary Research, Vol. 46, No. 8, August 1995, pp. 1721–1723.
19. FDA/CVM surveys of dry dog food for pentobarbital, 1998 and 2000. Published results, March 2002.
20. Myers et al., American Journal of Veterinary Research, January 2004. FDA/CVM’s contradictory statements on pentobarbital source.
21. Personal correspondence between Ann Martin and Stephen Sundlof, DVM, Center for Veterinary Medicine, May 18, 2005.
22. United States Animal Health Association, “Report of the USAHA Committee on Feed Safety,” 1998. Veterinary reports of pentobarbital tolerance in dogs cited in Martin, Food Pets Die For, Chapter 5.
23. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 6: “Pet Food Regulations.”
24. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 6. Personal correspondence with Rodney Noel, DVM, former Chair of AAFCO, April 16, 2007.
25. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 6. Correspondence with AAFCO state representatives: Robert Hougaard (Utah), David Shang (New Jersey), Arty Schronce (Georgia). Colorado Department of Agriculture testing criteria.
26. AAFCO feeding trial guidelines cited in Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 6.
27. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 4: “Testing for Cats and Dogs in Pet Food.” PFI Affiliate Members listing, including Baker Commodities, Inc.
28. Euromonitor market data cited in Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 7.
29. Pitcairn, Richard H., DVM, PhD. Dr. Pitcairn’s Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs & Cats. Banfield Veterinary Hospital, State of Pet Health 2015 Report (study of 2.4 million dogs and 480,000 cats). http://www.banfield.com/state-of-pet-health.
30. Jean Hofve, DVM, cited in Zucker, The Veterinarians’ Guide to Natural Remedies for Cats.
31. Messonnier, Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats. Section on “Kidney Disease.”
32. Zucker, The Veterinarians’ Guide to Natural Remedies for Cats. Section on “Kidney Failure,” citing multiple holistic veterinarians.
33. Messonnier, Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats. Section on taurine deficiency and dilated cardiomyopathy. See also AAFCO trial limitations.
34. Messonnier, Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats. Commentary on unknown future supplement requirements.
35. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 11 on hyperthyroidism. UC Davis case-control study; Purdue University study examining 169,576 cats over twenty years, published 2004.
36. Messonnier, Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats. Section on “The 100% Myth — Problems Caused by Inadequate Nutrition.”
37. Plechner and Zucker, Pet Allergies: Remedies for an Epidemic. “Kibble — A Sackful of Trouble.” Allergic Hit List.
38. Zucker, The Veterinarians’ Guide to Natural Remedies for Dogs and Cats. Section on food intolerances and immune hypersensitivity.
39. Messonnier, Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats. Section on “Contaminants.” E. coli contamination estimate. Pitcairn, Complete Guide, on endotoxins in commercial pet food.
40. Joseph Demers, DVM, cited in Zucker, The Veterinarians’ Guide to Natural Remedies for Cats. Section on kibble and Chinese medicine perspective.
41. Pitcairn, Dr. Pitcairn’s Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs & Cats. Chapter 3: “What’s Happening to All Our Food?”
42. Zucker, The Veterinarians’ Guide to Natural Remedies. Sections on “The Broth Plan” (Demers), “The Three-Minute Plan” (Goldstein), and easy diet upgrades.
43. Martin, Food Pets Die For. Chapter 3: “Preservatives and Additives in Pet Foods.” Ethoxyquin discussion. Messonnier, Natural Health Bible, on preservative labelling requirements.
44. Carolyn Blakey, DVM, cited in Zucker, The Veterinarians’ Guide to Natural Remedies for Cats. Section on homemade meals.

February 24, 2026 - Posted by aletho | Deception, Timeless or most popular