Page 224 - Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 5th Edition
P. 224

Food Safety       227



                  Government has the authority under the Public Health  toxins. Both factors tend to increase the risk of foodborne dis-
        VetBooks.ir  Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of  ease in locally produced foods.
                                                                        The risk of litigation also encourages pet food manufacturers
                  2002 (i.e., the Bioterrorism Act) to administratively detain food
                                                                      to be diligent in maintaining high product quality standards.
                  items that may present a threat of serious adverse health conse-
                  quences or death to people or animals. The Act also authorizes  Under tort claims law, all products offered for sale to the pub-
                  enforcement actions that may be taken against perishable foods  lic contain an implied warranty (The American Law Institute,
                  subject to a detention order.                       1965). The law specifically provides “that a person who sells a
                    A tolerance is a codified legal regulation whereas action and  product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the
                  advisory levels constitute nonbinding FDA guidelines that  user or consumer or his property is liable for the physical harm
                  the agency uses in exercising its enforcement discretion.  the product causes . . .” News programs frequently report large
                  Instead of a tolerance, the FDA may choose to issue either an  verdicts against manufacturers of human food products because
                  action or an advisory level for some unnatural additives. All  of the harm allegedly caused by their products (Taylor, 1996).
                  three are considered maximum allowable levels, but an action  Animal feed and pet food manufacturers have also been caught
                  level is generally supported by more definitive safety data than  up in this trend. Procedural breakdowns or oversights during
                  is an advisory level. Therefore, some circumstances may elicit  production or storage can have a catastrophic effect on profits
                  enforcement action at levels below an action or advisory level  or even company viability. Mycotoxin litigation alone cost the
                  whereas others may not, even when an action or advisory level  pet food industry an estimated $7 million in the early 1990s
                  has been exceeded.                                  (McCoy, 1996). Recent problems with mycotoxin contamina-
                    The FDA does not set tolerances for pesticides; instead these  tion had financial repercussions and severely damaged the rep-
                  fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Environmental  utation of companies involved (Industry News, 1995;
                  Protection Agency (EPA) by the authority of the FFDCA and  Anonymous. FDA Recall, 2005). Such experiences have made
                  the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act  it necessary for manufacturers to devote extensive resources to
                  (Superintendent of Documents, 1995). The EPA establishes  documenting product quality.
                  and publishes pesticide tolerances for the various plant and ani-
                  mal commodities in 40 CFR 180. These tolerances are devel-
                  oped by combining the results of field trials and laboratory ani-  HOME-PREPARED FOODS
                  mal toxicity testing (NRC, 1993). The United States
                  Department of Agriculture (USDA) and FDA are then jointly  The use of home-prepared pet foods also has clinical relevance
                  responsible for enforcing the pesticide tolerances.  to foodborne disease. Meat and eggs produced for human con-
                    For contaminants not covered by a tolerance, an action level  sumption and used to prepare homemade pet foods are contam-
                  or advisory level, the limit remains theoretically at zero.  inated with microbes (Notermans et al,1995; Fenlon et al,1996;
                  However, present day analytical methods have become so sen-  Remillard, 2005). Research indicates that many people are care-
                  sitive that minuscule amounts can be detected. Fortunately, the  less about cross-contamination during food preparation at home
                  FDA has discretionary power when a contaminant is detected  (Patil et al, 2005). If breeders and pet owners use grocery store
                  at a low level not considered to be a safety concern.  ingredients that have been stored properly, heat foods to tem-
                    In Europe, the regulation of intentional additives (e.g., vita-  peratures sufficient to destroy pathogens and prepare amounts
                  mins and minerals) and unintentional additives (e.g., pesticides,  that are readily consumed, the potential for foodborne illness in
                  drug residues and metals) falls under the authority of the  the pet is expected to be similar to that for people in the same
                  European Union (EU) (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and  household. Some health-conscious pet owners forgo commer-
                  Food, 1995). Control measures are implemented on a national  cial foods and, instead, prepare foods for their pets daily. These
                  basis and can be stricter but never more permissive than the EU  owners must be fastidious and very careful about preparing and
                  legislation. Non-EU foreign countries regulate pet food safety  storing their pets’food,and truly be committed to the long-term
                  with a variety of internal regulations and policies.  maintenance of proper hygiene and preparation methods.
                    Most regulatory agencies, both domestic and international,  Otherwise, the best method to lessen the risk of foodborne ill-
                  use monitoring programs to maintain surveillance over pet food  ness is to feed the pet a high-quality commercial pet food man-
                  products. Specifically, in the United States, the FDA monitors  ufactured by a company that uses state of the art quality control
                  pet food and individual pet food ingredients for pesticides,  procedures. There are no such requirements or regulations for
                  mycotoxins and heavy metals as part of its Feed Contaminants  pet food manufacturers to do so and most do not; however,there
                  Program (Van Houweling et al, 1977).                are a few world-wide manufacturers that maintain self-imposed
                    Intrastate pet foods are under less federal scrutiny, with pri-  rigorous product quality control procedures.
                  mary regulation left to state and local officials.This relationship
                  has created concern that unsuitable food components, most
                  notably mycotoxin-contaminated grains, may be used inadver-  RAW INGREDIENT DIETS
                  tently (Nicholson, 1986). In addition, such products are often
                  pelleted instead of extruded; therefore, processing temperatures  Feeding raw ingredient diets (commercially available or home-
                  may not be sufficient to kill bacteria and inactivate heat-labile  made) to household pets has become increasingly popular.
   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229