Dear Dr.:

We will need to spend more time to answer your letter. In the meantime, please send us the name of any producer in the country that renders pets into meat meals that can be used in pet foods. We can find not even one such supplier.

Dear Dr.:

Since we have not heard back regarding sources of euthanized pets as a pet food ingredient we can only assume none can be found - just as we have been unable to find any evidence to support this claim.

Then one would assume that at least ONE such source could be named.

Yes there are many nasty things that can be used in foods. Even the AAFCO publications have listed dehydrated garbage and feces (sterilized) as approved. No pet food manufacturer uses them. You can, however, see that this would create an opening for yet another "new and improved" brand to make marketing claims about how their food "contains no dehydrated garbage or feces."

Essentially no human foods are tested in this way either. Neither are organic foods. Therefore this is a nonissue.

Again, where is there a supplier of such an ingredient? Where is the law that is being cited?

How can this be claimed to be "lack of regulation" when the very definition quoted is a regulation?

Where is the proof that there is no supervision? One would believe from this that anyone could walk in off the street with an old tire and throw it in the vat and nobody would notice. No rendering plant in the country is without supervision and regulation.

Nobody DNA tests any food routinely. The costs of doing so would drive costs of food beyond anyone's reach. Also, not all nucleic acids are destroyed by cooking. The conclusion one is supposed to draw is that all "meals" contain pentobarbital and who knows what else. Proof needs to be provided for such an outrageous claim.

That is untrue. All food manufacturers are under regulatory control. Nobody stands watch over any food product (human or animal) to determine exactly what is in it at all times.

The only way to know for sure is to grow and harvest foods for oneself. Otherwise, yes, trust is required. One should examine the credentials, history and information produced by any company whose products are being purchased. In this regard there are essentially no pet food companies (other than Wysong) with ownership/leadership credentials other than business/profit hopes and perhaps some "good intentions." Food is a serious health matter and requires more than intentions and profit desires. See How to Choose a Pet Food Company .

Not all pet food ingredients have denaturing agents. Not all denaturing agents are harmful if products containing them are not fed exclusively. "Inedible" ingredients are derived from edible food animals and are inspected by veterinarians and approved for use in animal feeds. Charcoal is commonly used to mark a food as human inedible. Charcoal in an activated form can be consumed by both humans and animals and can serve as a detoxifying agent. See Wysong Adsorb™ for example. It, itself, is not a toxin in the low levels found in foods.

Food animals are not permitted to eat certain meat ingredients because of the possibility of contagion, not because such ingredients are unfit for carnivores. Carnivores in the wild regularly eat what we would consider to be unfit for human consumption, the dead, dying, diseased and disabled, so-called 4D meats. That is the genetic model, not our artificial notions of what a food should or should not be. See The Truth About Pet Foods .

Wysong was omitted yet has been doing that and better for 25 years. It is not clear from the above unsubstantiated and erroneous claims that the products here being promoted are of any special merit. Virtually all pet foods contain ingredients that are from human grade sources. See The Pet Food Ingredient Game .

Are we to assume then that this person DNA tests ingredients and does all the other things listed? Proof and evidence is needed here. What are the credentials of the people at the helm in the pet food companies cited, and do these companies even own their own manufacturing facilities so that they can directly control and oversee every single aspect of production? Those are important questions not addressed.

How does any person know what is or is not in competitor's foods. Was the argument not made above that nobody really knows what is in any pet food?

What carnivores eat in the wild is reviling to us. Revulsion does not determine nutritional or health value. Carnivores eating their natural 4D prey in the wild are far healthier than those that are domesticated eating a steady diet of heat processed foods, "human grade" or not.

All heat processed pet foods are "safe" for humans to eat. Heating sterilizes the foods.

It should be noted that the primary issues facing pet feeding have not been addressed in any of the above arguments: Pet's should get at least part of their diet raw and they should not eat a steady diet of any processed food - including "Healthy Pet Gourmet" and "Halo." Variety is the spice of good nutrition and health. See How to Apologize to Your Pet . Arguments about tainted boogeyman ingredients are canards and distractions from these important issues of health and nutrition. If they are important at all, it would only be because a person has been misled into feeding any processed food singularly at every meal. The unsubstantiated claims made above only make sensational fodder for those who like to be led by myths. Myths only serve to gain customers for the endless stream of pet food marketers looking for a piece of the pet food profit pie.