A new lawsuit filed in California discusses some vital considerations about human meals, particularly Extremely Processed Meals (UPF).
Quoting the lawsuit (daring added for emphasis):
“In 1999, in Minneapolis, an government climbed the dais in entrance of his fellow executives and begged them to vary.”
“There aren’t any straightforward solutions,” he mentioned. “However this a lot is evident: For these of us who’ve appeared arduous at this problem, whether or not they’re public well being officers or employees specialists in your individual corporations, we really feel certain that the one factor we shouldn’t do is nothing.”
“The manager wasn’t the top of a medical insurance firm, drug firm, automobile producer, or firearms firm. His identify was Michael Mudd, and he was the Vice President to the predecessor of Kraft Heinz, a conglomerate finest recognized for making meals merchandise resembling vibrant crimson ketchup and electrical yellow macaroni and cheese. He was talking to his friends that day in 1999 concerning the devastating penalties of growing and advertising ultra-processed meals (“UPF”) to Individuals—and to kids specifically.”
“After months interrogating scientific information with a colleague, Mudd spoke concerning the ‘devastating public well being penalties’ of UPF consumption. He famous that the UPF trade had induced childhood weight problems charges to double, that well being circumstances brought on by consumption of ultra-processed meals had been costing as much as $100 billion a 12 months, and, extremely, inflicting 300,000 Individuals to die every year.”
“But, regardless of his pleas—and regardless of the devastating statistics he shared—his colleagues, lots of them executives of the defendant corporations, had been fully unmoved. If something, they had been emboldened. They knew that their corporations had been designing, promoting, and distributing dangerous meals—and relentlessly advertising these meals to kids. They knew that doing so was wreaking havoc at each step, they usually didn’t care.“
I’ve personally witnessed many related occasions at AAFCO conferences over time – however this one was the worst…
The dialogue was relating to the livestock feed ingredient “Recovered Retail Meals”. The dialogue offered the instance of yogurt cups, resembling these six packs of yogurt bought in your grocery. It was defined/mentioned that when a majority of these meals expire, the merchandise are collected in giant bins behind each grocery. Expired yogurt, breads, meats, no matter – together with plastic containers – are collected, floor and included in ‘feed’ for livestock.
A veterinarian in attendance of the assembly – Dr. Cathy Alinovi – questioned the pet meals regulatory authorities who had been about to approve this feed ingredient. Dr. Alinovi went to the microphone and acknowledged her concern of plastic parts being within the feed – that animals resembling dairy cattle could be consuming. She acknowledged to the committee ‘I don’t need my daughter consuming milk with phthalates (plastic chemical compounds) in it.’
In response to her science based mostly assertion – the whole room – 400 or so representatives of trade, FDA, and State Feed Officers – boo-ed her. Loudly.
This scientist alerted trade and authorities to a threat of their proposed feed ingredient – and identical to the human meals assembly mentioned within the lawsuit – they didn’t care concerning the threat.
One other quote from the human meals lawsuit (daring added): “This case is just not about meals that’s merely ‘unhealthy.’ This case is about meals merchandise with hidden well being harms, that Defendants designed to be low cost, colourful, flavorful, and addictive. This case is about meals merchandise whose elements and manufacturing processes interrupt our our bodies’ skills to perform. It’s concerning the Defendants—gigantic meals conglomerates, all—who designed, manufactured, marketed, and bought these meals realizing they had been harmful for human consumption. Defendants did the whole lot of their energy to deprive customers of an knowledgeable alternative.”
The identical may be mentioned about (some) pet meals. Pet meals – regulatory and trade – does ‘the whole lot in its energy to deprive customers of an knowledgeable alternative’. Two examples…
Each ingredient in pet meals has its personal authorized definition that’s usually VERY totally different from the identical ingredient in human meals. As instance the authorized definition of human meals rooster is required to be USDA inspected and handed. The identical ingredient in a pet meals – rooster – is NOT required to be USDA inspected and handed. Pet meals rooster may be sourced from condemned rooster. All human meals rules/authorized definitions are public data. On the contrary, all pet meals/animal feed authorized definitions are privately owned by AAFCO – NOT available for public entry.
As properly, the FDA quietly permits pet meals to violate federal legal guidelines – particularly permitting “diseased animals and animals which have died in any other case than by slaughter” into pet meals (by means of “enforcement discretion”) whereas REFUSING to require producers to reveal this high quality of ingredient to customers.
The human meals manufacturers being sued: The Kraft Heinz Firm, (‘Kraft Heinz’); Mondelez Worldwide, Inc. (‘Mondelez’); Submit Holdings, Inc. (‘Submit Holdings’); The Coca-Cola Firm (‘Coca-Cola’); PepsiCo, Inc. (‘PepsiCo’); Common Mills, Inc. (‘Common Mills’), Nestle USA, Inc. (‘Nestle’); Kellanova; WK Kellogg Co.; Mars Integrated (‘Mars’); ConAgra Manufacturers, Inc. (‘ConAgra’).
Curiously, lots of the manufacturers concerned additionally promote pet meals.
This lawsuit entails Extremely Processed Meals (UFP), outlined within the lawsuit as: ”they’re formulations of usually chemically manipulated low cost elements with little if any entire meals added, made palatable and engaging through the use of mixtures of flavors, colours, emulsifiers, thickeners, and different components.”
“The consensus from the worldwide scientific group is that UPF are uniquely harmful to our well being—irrespective of how wholesome they could appear to the bizarre client or what nutritious worth they could provide—due to their industrially-processed elements, together with components and artificial chemical brokers.”
The lawsuit additionally included details about a research carried out on two teams of individuals, one group consumed extremely processed meals (UPF) and the opposite group consumed no UPF (entire meals); “the group that consumed UPF gained weight and fats mass, relative to the group that didn’t devour UPF—although each teams consumed the identical variety of energy.”
We have now to surprise if extremely processed pet meals are immediately linked to insanely excessive most cancers charges in pets, the weight problems epidemic in pets, and so many different widespread well being points our pets are affected by.
What are extremely processed pet meals?
The NOVA system is a meals classification system “with its identification and definition of ultra-processed meals that has been most utilized in scientific literature”. In accordance with the NOVA system, human meals are labeled into 4 teams:
Find out how to distinguish between a processed and ultra-processed pet meals.
With elements: “It begins with the fractioning of entire meals into substances together with sugars, oils and fat, proteins, starches and fibre. These substances are sometimes obtained from a couple of high-yield plant meals (resembling corn, wheat, soya, cane or beet) and from puréeing or grinding animal carcasses, often from intensive livestock farming.”
“A few of these substances are then submitted to hydrolysis, or hydrogenation, or different chemical modifications. Subsequent processes contain the meeting of unmodified and modified meals substances with little if any entire meals utilizing industrial methods resembling extrusion, moulding and pre-frying. Colors, flavours, emulsifiers and different components are steadily added to make the ultimate product palatable or hyper-palatable.”
If we apply these ultra-processed meals markers to pet meals elements, the next elements could be labeled as ultra-processed (in comparison with related elements labeled as processed):
Heating, pasteurizing, canning, and drying (air drying or freeze drying) are all thought-about types of processing; extrusion is taken into account by NOVA as ultra-processing. Thus, extruded kibble pet meals could be labeled as an ultra-processed meals for pets.
We have now hopes the attorneys representing the State of California take into account the same lawsuit in opposition to the pet meals trade.
Susan Thixton
Pet Meals Security Advocate
Writer Purchaser Beware, Co-Writer Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
Discover Wholesome Pet Meals in Your Space Click Here
The 2026 Record
Our trusted ‘listing’ of pet meals. Click Here to study extra.
The 2025/26 Deal with Record
Susan’s Record of trusted pet deal with producers. Click Here to study extra.
Affiliation for Reality in Pet Meals is a stakeholder group representing pet meals customers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend conferences and voice client considerations with regulatory authorities. Click Here to study extra.
