Comments on: Pesky problems with multi-nutrient supplements http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/ Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:38:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Offy http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-25310 Offy Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:59:47 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-25310 Shaking Nutro's Denial Tree: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/3/488 <b> " The cat's requirement for zinc is probably between 15 ppm and 50 ppm." </b> Per NRC: "In many instances, high dietary level of one mineral antagonizes another element, resulting in physiological deficiency of minerals essential for the animal. Because many different factors affect the quantity of a mineral needed to produce toxicity diverse observations have been reported on the toxic effects of any given mineral." Nutro has provided no science stating that the levels of zinc they put in their foods is <b>safe </b>, nor have they provided any proof that the composition of their foods is not adversely impacted by the levels of zinc. Nor have they provided any data to indicate their food is safe - feeding the Nutro food means you feed it all, not just the zinc. Safety is a two way street - the makers and those consuming. I'd bet on the impact on those consuming the food to be the true indicator of safety & nutrition before I would the Nutro denial program and lack of any proof to the contrary. Burden of proof of Safety rests with Nutro and they are not forthcoming. I would venture a guess that the lack of science to prove the overall composition of their food with zinc at those levels is actully safe is why they would not release the bloodwork of the cat populations they tested to the vet requesting them. Shaking Nutro’s Denial Tree:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/3/488

” The cat’s requirement for zinc is probably between 15 ppm and 50 ppm.”

Per NRC: “In many instances, high dietary level of one mineral antagonizes another element, resulting in physiological deficiency of minerals essential for the animal. Because many different factors affect the quantity of a mineral needed to produce toxicity diverse observations have been reported on the toxic effects of any given mineral.”

Nutro has provided no science stating that the levels of zinc they put in their foods is safe , nor have they provided any proof that the composition of their foods is not adversely impacted by the levels of zinc. Nor have they provided any data to indicate their food is safe – feeding the Nutro food means you feed it all, not just the zinc.

Safety is a two way street – the makers and those consuming. I’d bet on the impact on those consuming the food to be the true indicator of safety & nutrition before I would the Nutro denial program and lack of any proof to the contrary.

Burden of proof of Safety rests with Nutro and they are not forthcoming.

I would venture a guess that the lack of science to prove the overall composition of their food with zinc at those levels is actully safe is why they would not release the bloodwork of the cat populations they tested to the vet requesting them.

]]> By: Marion http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-25197 Marion Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:16:56 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-25197 @Claire--my guess is that feline diabetes, just like human diabetes, results from eating too much and not moving enough. Cats, like people, need to eat less and move more! @Claire–my guess is that feline diabetes, just like human diabetes, results from eating too much and not moving enough. Cats, like people, need to eat less and move more!

]]> By: Claire Ginesi http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-25187 Claire Ginesi Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:26:08 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-25187 Marion, With a newly diagnosed diabetic cat (never overweight), I have been shocked to find out that feeding kibble to our cats is condemning them to disease and poor health. Of course cats are carnivores, and get some carbs in "the wild" from whole carcass of prey. However, the carb levels, esp the use of wheat gluten in almost all pet foods, incl canned, are what my vet says is a big cause of feline diabetes. As pet food companies "fancy up" their products, with gravies, human food allusions, etc.(why would a cat care about Tuscan menu cat food) the use of oat bran, wheat gluten and other things are dangerous to our cats. Would appreciate any comments on the explosion of feline diabetes. Thank you. Marion,
With a newly diagnosed diabetic cat (never overweight), I have been shocked to find out that feeding kibble to our cats is condemning them to disease and poor health. Of course cats are carnivores, and get some carbs in “the wild” from whole carcass of prey.
However, the carb levels, esp the use of wheat gluten in almost all pet foods, incl canned, are what my vet says is a big cause of feline diabetes. As pet food companies “fancy up” their products, with gravies, human food allusions, etc.(why would a cat care about Tuscan menu cat food) the use of oat bran, wheat gluten and other things are dangerous to our cats.
Would appreciate any comments on the explosion of feline diabetes. Thank you.

]]> By: Mary http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-24732 Mary Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:17:53 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-24732 Marion, thank you so much for reporting this story. Lots of good information here, and the comments are excellent. Your readers certainly know a lot about pet food. Offy's comment alone is an education! Wish Nutro was that well informed. Marion, thank you so much for reporting this story. Lots of good information here, and the comments are excellent.

Your readers certainly know a lot about pet food.

Offy’s comment alone is an education! Wish Nutro was that well informed.

]]> By: Offy http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-24633 Offy Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:16:35 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-24633 Also found this from NRC Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity in Animals: Mineral Tolerance of domestic animals NRC pg 558: http://tinyurl.com/knxas9 "Cats were found to vomit or refuse to eat a meal containing 320 or 400mg zinc as the oxide (Scott & Fisher, 1938)" "Table 42 summarizes data on accute toxicosis of single oral doses of zinc salts in small animals" So, there are 2 NRC studies specifically on cats. (Barrett failed to note the NRC amount of 600ppm and that it was short term in the LA article, didn't she? ) In Toxicoloby by Gary D Osweiler on pg 205 he lists clinical signs of dogs. 1)Early signs 2)Intermediate signs 3)Advanced signs. http://tinyurl.com/kkg44q IMO, that makes "But, Barrett said, there's a general lack of scientific knowledge about the levels of zinc and other nutrients that are safe for cats." incredibly misleading to readers. I would ask also, if her statement invalidates the Nutro nutrition & safety claims on cat food. Barrett also seems to have failed to mention the obvious. If there's no science to prove it is toxic, then there is no science to prove it is safe at those levels. That's a fairly axiomatic assessment. I think in the NRC 2008 book on supplements they mention AAFCO had used/extrapolated from swine for the dog level. I'd really like to see their "science" to support Dr Bierer's statement on Nutro Sept 08: http://www.zimbio.com/Latest+pet+food+recall+list/articles/46/Nutro+Press+Release+Regarding+Zinc+Copper "In order for a food to provide all the essential nutrition for a pet, it must exceed the minimum requirements for all essential nutrients." Is that a fact proven by science for cats & dogs or not? Something is very wrong in the pet food industry & with AAFCO when pet parents are being put in the position of being in-home studies on the pet food safety & nutrition. But then, back in 2001: http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub/SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000/PR00001.htm "These improved procedures do not represent a perfect solution for nutrition of the individual animal, however. In the words of Quinton Rogers, DVM, PhD, one of the AAFCO panel experts, “although the AAFCO profiles are better than nothing, they provide false securities. I don't know of any studies showing their adequacies and inadequacies.” Rogers also states that some of the foods which pass AAFCO feeding trials are actually inadequate for long term nutrition, but there is no way of knowing which foods these are under present regulations (Smith, 1993)." AngryLabCat Also found this from NRC Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity in Animals:

Mineral Tolerance of domestic animals NRC pg 558:

http://tinyurl.com/knxas9

“Cats were found to vomit or refuse to eat a meal containing 320 or 400mg zinc as the oxide (Scott & Fisher, 1938)”

“Table 42 summarizes data on accute toxicosis of single oral doses of zinc salts in small animals”

So, there are 2 NRC studies specifically on cats. (Barrett failed to note the NRC amount of 600ppm and that it was short term in the LA article, didn’t she? )

In Toxicoloby by Gary D Osweiler on pg 205 he lists clinical signs of dogs.
1)Early signs
2)Intermediate signs
3)Advanced signs.

http://tinyurl.com/kkg44q

IMO, that makes “But, Barrett said, there’s a general lack of scientific knowledge about the levels of zinc and other nutrients that are safe for cats.” incredibly misleading to readers.

I would ask also, if her statement invalidates the Nutro nutrition & safety claims on cat food.

Barrett also seems to have failed to mention the obvious. If there’s no science to prove it is toxic, then there is no science to prove it is safe at those levels. That’s a fairly axiomatic assessment.

I think in the NRC 2008 book on supplements they mention AAFCO had used/extrapolated from swine for the dog level.

I’d really like to see their “science” to support Dr Bierer’s statement on Nutro Sept 08:

http://www.zimbio.com/Latest+pet+food+recall+list/articles/46/Nutro+Press+Release+Regarding+Zinc+Copper

“In order for a food to provide all the essential nutrition for a pet, it must exceed the minimum requirements for all essential nutrients.”

Is that a fact proven by science for cats & dogs or not?

Something is very wrong in the pet food industry & with AAFCO when pet parents are being put in the position of being in-home studies on the pet food safety & nutrition.

But then, back in 2001:

http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub/SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000/PR00001.htm

“These improved procedures do not represent a perfect solution for nutrition of the individual animal, however. In the words of Quinton Rogers, DVM, PhD, one of the AAFCO panel experts, “although the AAFCO profiles are better than nothing, they provide false securities. I don’t know of any studies showing their adequacies and inadequacies.” Rogers also states that some of the foods which pass AAFCO feeding trials are actually inadequate for long term nutrition, but there is no way of knowing which foods these are under present regulations (Smith, 1993).”

AngryLabCat

]]> By: Rocky http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-24617 Rocky Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:03:47 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-24617 Very disturbing that Ms. Barrett would quote a statement from NRC to "minimize" high zinc levels found in Nutro recalled food. Last time I checked, pet food companies don't formulate according to NRC standards. LOL, I guess you CAN have it both ways. Something very wrong with Nutro, and persons who represent the company, IMO. Very disturbing that Ms. Barrett would quote a statement from NRC to “minimize” high zinc levels found in Nutro recalled food.

Last time I checked, pet food companies don’t formulate according to NRC standards.

LOL, I guess you CAN have it both ways.

Something very wrong with Nutro, and persons who represent the company, IMO.

]]> By: Marion http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-24613 Marion Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:33:54 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-24613 @Sophie: thanks for the comment and the links to the L.A. Times article and info on zinc toxicity. The 2006 National Research Council report on the Nutrition Requirements of Dogs and Cats is as good as it gets on review of the science. By this time, my copy opens automatically to the section on Zinc. For dogs, the report says that zinc is relatively non-toxic but that "there is insufficient information available on which to base a safe upper limit." For cats, the report cites data that up to 600 ppm has no adverse effects, at least for short periods of time. The AAFCO zinc profile for dogs is within the range of 120-1000 ppm. For cats, it is 75 to 2000 (!). But AAFCO profiles are based on NRC data and I do not understand where the 2000 ppm safe upper limit comes from. The problem here is that there just isn't research to say what the limit might be. And I cannot imagine anyone trying to do a study in which cats are fed zinc at levels that might make the animals sick. So the important questions are how did so much get into the mix, how come nobody noticed, and why is the FDA being so weird about this incident? Let's hope we find out soon. @Sophie: thanks for the comment and the links to the L.A. Times article and info on zinc toxicity. The 2006 National Research Council report on the Nutrition Requirements of Dogs and Cats is as good as it gets on review of the science. By this time, my copy opens automatically to the section on Zinc. For dogs, the report says that zinc is relatively non-toxic but that “there is insufficient information available on which to base a safe upper limit.” For cats, the report cites data that up to 600 ppm has no adverse effects, at least for short periods of time. The AAFCO zinc profile for dogs is within the range of 120-1000 ppm. For cats, it is 75 to 2000 (!). But AAFCO profiles are based on NRC data and I do not understand where the 2000 ppm safe upper limit comes from. The problem here is that there just isn’t research to say what the limit might be. And I cannot imagine anyone trying to do a study in which cats are fed zinc at levels that might make the animals sick. So the important questions are how did so much get into the mix, how come nobody noticed, and why is the FDA being so weird about this incident? Let’s hope we find out soon.

]]> By: Sophie http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-24610 Sophie Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:40:32 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-24610 Marion, some new info...Nutro responded to zinc test results and this is their statement: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/06/nutro-cat-food-recall-zinc.html Pardon me while I go bang my head on the wall!! Aargh. I thought Nutro said at their site & press release they had no reports of sick cats but yet Ms Barrett says they are working with people that contacted them? How come they arent chging their story in a new press release so news media knows cats have gotten sick and would maybe cover the story so people than just those with computers can learn about the recall. And I wonder if that statement she made from the 2006 NRC about no studies showing excess zinc affected cats is really accurate in the way its being portrayed by Nutro, an ASPCA vet toxicologist seemed to think otherwise and there is this issued in 2002 saying otherwise: http://tinyurl.com/lo7npm Marion, some new info…Nutro responded to zinc test results and this is their statement:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/06/nutro-cat-food-recall-zinc.html
Pardon me while I go bang my head on the wall!! Aargh. I thought Nutro said at their site & press release they had no reports of sick cats but yet Ms Barrett says they are working with people that contacted them? How come they arent chging their story in a new press release so news media knows cats have gotten sick and would maybe cover the story so people than just
those with computers can learn about the recall.

And I wonder if that statement she made from the 2006 NRC about no studies showing excess zinc affected cats is really accurate in the way its being portrayed by Nutro, an ASPCA vet toxicologist seemed to think otherwise and there is this issued in 2002 saying otherwise: http://tinyurl.com/lo7npm

]]> By: Janet Camp http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-24604 Janet Camp Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:03:22 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-24604 Thank you, Marion, for the note about the forthcoming book. I will look forward to it and join Sophie in lamenting the delay. Thank you, Marion, for the note about the forthcoming book. I will look forward to it and join Sophie in lamenting the delay.

]]> By: The Friday news wrap-up: It’s all one food chain, folks http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/06/pesky-problems-with-multi-nutrient-supplements/comment-page-1/#comment-24503 The Friday news wrap-up: It’s all one food chain, folks Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:58:23 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1408#comment-24503 [...] to FoodProductionDaily.com, 25% of Adverse Event Reports (AERs) sent into the FDA last year concerned multivitamin [...] [...] to FoodProductionDaily.com, 25% of Adverse Event Reports (AERs) sent into the FDA last year concerned multivitamin [...]

]]>