FDA to hold public meeting on pet food safety

I just got an email from Sen. Durbin's office, announcing that the FDA (who used to send me these types of things directly... do you get the feeling they don't love me anymore?) is going to be taking public commentary on pet food safety regulations:

Today, FDA announced its intention to schedule and hold a public meeting in early 2008 to obtain information from stakeholders for the development of ingredient, processing, and labeling standards to ensure the safety of pet food. The announcement is below. The date and time of the meeting have not been announced but will be announced at a later time. It also appears that FDA is currently accepting comments through an open docket.



This announcement is a step toward achieving the policy we championed in the Durbin amendment to the PDUFA bill. I think it would be great to have your participation in the beginning stages of the FDA process.

The FDA notice:

FDA is announcing its intention to schedule and hold a public meeting early in 2008 to obtain input from stakeholder groups, including, but not limited to, the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), veterinary medical associations, animal health organizations, and pet food manufacturers for the development of ingredient, processing, and labeling standards to ensure the safety of pet food. These standards were mandated by the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA).



The date, time, and location for the 2008 public meeting will be announced in a subsequent notice that will be published in the Federal Register a later date.



A docket has been opened at FDA to receive any comments in advance of the public meeting. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-3051, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Electronic comments can be submitted here or here, and there is more information here (PDF).

Comments

[VJ]

Bernie is very knowledgeable. Hope you send in your comments, Bernie.

[Nadine L.]

From the FDA notice quoted by Gina above (with addresses where to mail):



"A docket has been opened at FDA to receive any comments in advance of the public meeting. **Submit written comments** to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-3051, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852."

[Nadine L.]

Yes. Also, I see one can include an attachment on this comment form. If it is the same format for the one we're talking about, the attachment can be a compilation from the forum.

[The OTHER Pat]

Oh - just to be perfectly clear - the link in my previous post is NOT to the pet food comment form. That form is not yet up.

[The OTHER Pat]

Here's an example of the input page for submitting comments:



http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/COMMENTSMain.CFM?EC_DOCUMENT_ID=1872&SUBTYP=CONTINUE&CID=&AGENCY=FDA

[The OTHER Pat]

If you look at the page for submitting comments (I just picked one of the available ones at random to see what the form required) you will see that it needs a first and last name. So I doubt they'd accept essentially "anonymous" comments from a blog, where people don't typically post that information.

[Nadine L.]

Any precedented cases? Calling all legal researchers.....



There MUST be a way to submit the information, even if it's all in quotes with a bazillion footnotes and credits.



There were so many contributors to the forum from those with valuable professional insight and to-the-point commentary to John Q. Public's offerings of common sense and logic that were so right-on and powerful.



Now, isn't that what the FDA is looking for???

[Serijna]

I have never seen it but when signing up for a blog, a simple statement (yay/nay) similar to entering sweepstakes thingies should allow you to take a subscriber's comment and do whatever you want with it. But then , am not a lawyer.

[Gina Spadafori]

There may be a legal issue to that, even though the terms of use of our our site make it clear this is a public forum. Thoughts?

[Nadine L.]

Re: Public Comment



Every relevant post on the Pet Connection should be submitted to the FDA as Public Comment. After all, that's what the original intent was anyway.

[Nadine L.]

Serijna - we should all call those 800 numbers! Actually, a list of "who answers the phone" could be published ... I've noticed that the pet food companies have completely changed their images - packaging - so that what appears to be a new product is simply the old one redressed thanks to savvy marketing.



However, you can't put a silk hat on a pig.

[Serijna]

Oh, the labeling. Wonder if I am the only one that always calls the 800 number on cans to see who answers the phone.

Two days ago, hubby picked up some canned Fancy feast and also some of the store brand(Giant) since it looked so similar to the brand name and was cheaper. I called the 800 number on the can and Menu Foods answered. Needless to say Giant got the stuff back with the remark, I donot buy stuff from Menu Foods, never, ever.

LOL, you have to love the 800 numbers.

The ingredients , my old eyes have to use a magnifying glass to read them.

[Sandi K]

I went to their site and the docket # is not recognized. Maybe its still too early (even though it says a docket has been opened in their statement)?

[Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski]

VJ, I appreciate the compliment but in this case I can only state the obvious....



As we discovered as the events occurred right here on this blog the Xiong Co. was in the business of making so called enhanced protien products that were not appropriate for consumption by monogastrates (single stomached animals). Any company that bought any of their stuff had to know that. It was all over their website which we discovered thanks to Nadine. Back then when I saw the repeated references to NPN (Non Protien Nitrogen) red lights and flare went off. I knew what had happened and said so. Thanks to supporting research by Lynn nothing in those posts has ever even been disputed by the FDA or any industry source.



Now, if an aging X Farmer with a little college biology under his belt can spot this I would need a very good explanation as to how all the nutritionists and bio-chemists both at Menu and the entire FDA not to mention several noted universities took weeks to spot the problem.



Given the products that Xiong publicly acknowledged the business that they were in the idea that the insidious Chinese somehow slipped Menu a Mickey is utter nonsense. In fact I dont recall seeing a single product on their website that didnt refer either directly to NPN or one form or another of artificially enhanced protien products. At the very least Menu didnt bother to ask what was in the brew which was bad enough. But, I think it more likely that they really didnt want to know (officially anyway). Certainly the consumer has a right to expect that they would know and basic quality control standards would require them to test it for its chemical content.



Then in February, even when they conducted what was nothing less than an unethical animal experiment they called a "taste test" and the majority of the poor little bastards (literally) were DEAD within a few days they continued to dither and deny for anyother MONTH. In that time I purchased some of their crap for my old friend Brandy who got sicker and sicker day by day. On March 15th 2007 I put her to sleep thinking she had other problems. The very next day I learned of the recall and looked at the cans in my pantry in horror as I compared them to the growing list on the Menu website.



Finally, gluten is not an essential ingredient of dog (or even human) food. When you think of gluten think of glue which is in fact a direct derivitive of the word "gluten". It is the elastic substance that holds your pizza crust together when its tossed and ensures that your spagetti doesnt decompose when you boil it. It is added to the foods to keep the "gravy" from seperating in the can or the nugget from turning to powder in the bag. Im sure the bakers among you know this. Your dog doesnt give a rats butt about it but YOU, the one that makes the purchaing decission wants have a product that looks nice...



So, we have an industry that A) Added something for purely cosmetic purposes and B) Failed to excercise what legal and business types would call "ordingary care" in safeguarding their customer's interests since even the most novice formulator of these products should have known about the obvious toxic effects of this stuff on their intended consumers.



Now, we need meetings about this?

Earth to FDA and industry! Dont put anything in the food that does not belong there!

If you make a mistake, pull the product quickly and err on the side of caution.



Meeting adjourned.

[Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski]

My guess would be the emoticon gesture... ;-)

[Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski]

I see my previously rejected post was published after all! THANKS!

[Gina Spadafori]

I found it in the spam filter. No idea why it went there.

[Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski]

Nadine,

I had said that re the submition of PC blogs, that I have been using my real name and not a handle because from the beginning I wanted these people to know who I was and would stand behind my comments. So, if PC wants to submit my blog history as comments to the FDA they have my permission.



The rest was intended as an overt and unrepenent insult to the FDA and Menu. I gave a visual example of what I would like to "submit" to them.

[Nadine L.]

Bernie, perhaps power is out again in Sac.?Change a few words and resubmit. Would be interested in reading what you have to say.

[Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski]

Looks like my last post was rejected.

Too bad. It had some choice symbology intended for the FDA...

[Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski]

Well I began submitting my posts with my full name because I wanted Menu and the rest to know who I was and I was not presenting some BS under an assumed handle.



Please feel free to submit any and all posts I've put on line then or now.



Id do it but they probably wouldnt accept obscenity.



FYI, listened to a radio show called "People's Pharmacy" from wpr.org. They had a rep from the FDA re the recent report that the FDA is underfunded and understaffed. No duh?



The rep said something about meeting challenges.



Hey FDA! Challenge this! ..!.. Is that obscene? Hope so.

[Dorene]

Gina should probably check with a lawyer -- or one of her formerly-speaking-to-her contacts at the FDA, but I would think that she could print out the comment sections on each blog entry that are relevant and submit them to the docket.



If it's not legal precedent, with so many blogs being "on the spot" media for breaking news on specific subjects, I would think that blogs and their entries could easily become "public comment" for specific issues.



To be purely mercenary, it might be good publicity for Pet Connection to see if this is possible.

[straybaby]

A lot of us are not just angry, but livid!



Comment by Colorado Transplant — January 6, 2008 @



methinks that would be an understatement.



what happened was criminal, imo. a lot of what's been happening lately is criminal, imo. and some of the crap coming up for our consumption is criminal, imo. there's so many things going wrong with our domestic and imported product it's hard to wrap your head around it. and everyone seems to pat us on the back and say "it's ok." whatever happened to accountability? producing product you could stand behind (and feed your family)?



i'm beyond livid and i REFUSE to let myself, family, friends, and furry critters be poisoned by corporate america. not gonna happen. not gonna 'buy' into it anymore. been going strong on that concept since april-ish. working great here and spreading the word and converting others.and this goes beyond food.



Bernie, i liked your emoticon gesture ;) i'm still trying to compose comments that would be, ahem, acceptable for submission to the FDA. i'm gonna need to go into zen mode to get anything half way acceptable.



my Dot stamps her feet so well when she wants to get her message across. maybe i should take lessons from her . . . lol!~ or just send her to congress!

[Colorado Transplant]

Just wondered if the FDA wants to invite companies and others just discuss how to convince the buyers of cat food that the new food is safe and wonderful.



I do not need to hide any comments I have made in the past about the poisoning of cat food.

I wish all our comments made in the past could be submitted, if at all possible.



A lot of us are not just angry, but livid!

[Sandi K]

Hey Christie, I've tried again and FDA's site isnt recognizing the Docket number they gave. Do you think Dick Durbins' office could check and tell us why?

[Carol V]

I do read here often, but not post. I feel the need to today though as I am delighted the anger and sadness from last year's disaster is still palpable here. Having just recently lost my cat who originally had survived her acute renal failure, my desire to let the powers that allowed this to happen feel my pain---from the actual poisoning to the way we pet parents were (and still are) treated----nothing was done right! I was afraid people have become complacent as it happened "so long ago" but to us whose pets were affected and to those whose weren't but don't ever want to be in the future----I am thrilled to see us still fighting!