# DCM..A different view



## IntheWillows (Jun 10, 2019)

Who is the author of this blog and what are their credentials?


----------



## Jeff s. (May 5, 2019)

Why does it matter?


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

IntheWillows said:


> Who is the author of this blog and what are their credentials?


 I have no idea....I mentioned that I came across it during my own research (from another member that does not post anymore).


I put it up as a service..not as gospel, for the forum members to see.


I don't belong to FB and never will; but I would also question any of those sources TBH..Especially in light of the way the big food companys deal with the competition.


One thing is for sure..a MUCH bigger and CONTROLLED experiment needs to be done.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

I agree..it pays for us to be watchful, and consider ALL other viewpoints. Not to do so, with the new flood of information would not be wise imo. 



Social media is and always has been a great (FREE) place to spread dis-information.


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

Lol way to much to quote. That would probably break the thread.

Couple things. First thing... about 60%-70% is accurate info. Some is conjecture which is fine

The thing about taurine and the chicken breast... It doesn't much matter since the extrusion process destroys almost all of the available taurine. This is why it had to be added back it by adding taurine itself or with DL-Metheonine and another (choline something I think) which the dog uses to make it's open taurine. Cats are true carnivores and dogs are omnivores. All mammals require taurine for heart and eye health.

The other thing... The UC Davis study didn't start because people started screaming about their dogs dieing on grain free foods. Dr Joshua Stern is a k9 cardiologist and noticed that golden retrievers, a breed not genetically predisposed to DCM, were suddenly having a huge spike in instances of DCM. It's his study that alerted everyone else about the issue, including the FDA and Tuff's University. They started their own investigations from the UC Davis study. This information is currently going through peer review or the review could be over by now and probably is. This is probably why the FDA recently issued their latest findings and started naming foods to be careful feeding. So to me, the way I'm reading this is that they're blaming the internet and irrational people for starting the "myth" about the did causing DCM. If I took that incorrectly I apologise, just my take.

I will say rotating foods is the right way to feed long term. When your change foods frequently, you dogs skin and coat are always in a state of flux. It takes a dogs skin 6 weeks or so to change when Channing a diet and up to 5 or 6 months for the cost to follow suit if it's a long hair double coated breed. So I'm that case, switching every 8 months to a year is more ideal then every 3 bags. When changing foods, changing protein/fats/oil sources is also ideal. That's my 2 cents on the rotation subject

I know you linked an article or write-up but just adding a little


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

The blog kinds sounds like conspiracy theory stuff with the big company thing too


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

From a veterinary nutritionist's perspective, read the comments section too. 


https://justinshmalberg.com/qualifications

https://justinshmalberg.com/blog/20...d-grain-free-diets-thoughts-on-the-fda-update


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

Charliethree said:


> From a veterinary nutritionist's perspective, read the comments section too.
> 
> 
> https://justinshmalberg.com/qualifications
> ...





Thank You..and the plot thickens!


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

I have never fed Grain Free, I do feed a Purina Pro Plan formula that is wheat, corn, and soy free. 

I have been following the information about DCM on the FDA site and also on a couple of Vet School sites. 

There's a lot of information out there about this, consider the source of where you're getting information.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

Was just sent this audio interview....another pet nutritionist speaks up!
Interesting to get other sides of the story, from people like these.


Confusion over FDA Report on Grain-free Dry Dog Food & Heart Condition in Dogs


----------



## goldwhiz (Feb 15, 2019)

*Dog Exp.s? CAN'T. Believe case reports... or play amateur*



jeffscott947 said:


> I have no idea....I mentioned that I came across it during my own research (from another member that does not post anymore).
> 
> ...not as gospel, {but} for the forum members to see.
> I don't belong to FB and never will...I...question ... the way the big food companys deal with the competition.
> One thing is for sure..a MUCH bigger and CONTROLLED experiment needs to be done.


=====
Run experiments on suspect dog food?? is that what you mean?? UNETHICAL! Going back to reread this thread, just to be sure. But in any case, skip the innuendo about the dog food co.s unless you have facts to cite and the appropriate credentials.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

No one said anything about running experiments....The FDA needs a much larger sampling (than that currently mentioned) for anything to be CONCLUSIVELY decided, imo. A control of some kind is also needed to prevent the skewing of data for financial gain (food producers)

I don't need credentials of any kind to post snapshots or links to articles.(or my own personal opinions). I post as a dog owner ..nothing more.

The big companys have trolls that inhabit social media and all have vets that swear by their products. I always urge people to research and make their own informed decisions, after digesting the information available. Skewing anything is possible these days with social media, which is why I take FB at face value..

Here is how 2 giants dealt with each other (openly and apparently for big $$)..a few yrs back. Check out the reason for the counter suit from BB at Purina too.(I would feed NEITHER to any of my dogs..currently four)..

https://blog.theanimalrescuesite.greatergood.com/purina-blue-buffalo-lawsuit/


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I am so tired of all the holier than thou bullstuff. For Dogssake, everyone just feed whatever you want to to your own dogs. Sheesh.


----------



## goldwhiz (Feb 15, 2019)

Yes, it's a free country and pets are property, so not to worry. No one's coming by to force-feed you science. But most dog owners would rather let company experts formulate & test a dog food in house *before* it's put out on the shelves & sold... Rather than EXPERIMENT on their pets.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

For those that are interested..THE SAGA CONTINUES!









FDA’s latest DCM update: No news is ... status quo?


FDA is not planning any public updates on its DCM and grain-free pet food investigation, yet many questions and concerns remain for the industry and owners.



www.petfoodindustry.com


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

There are a number of university studies going on- but of course there is no news, since not enough time has passed since they filled their numbers. You can take that as a conspiracy or good science. It takes YEARS to get something peer reviewed and published. As to the numbers being falsely raised due to vets encouraging owners to report to FDA- really? That's nonsensical. If it were not a known problem, owners would not be encouraged to report. It's a problem


----------



## OscarsDad (Dec 20, 2017)

Jeff s. said:


> Why does it matter?


A little late to this thread but as a general rule sources (i.e. credentials and affiliations) should always matter.


----------



## DevWind (Nov 7, 2016)

Jeff s. said:


> Why does it matter?


Proper sources and credentials are very important. Especially on the internet where anyone could type up and publish an article. Heart health happens to be very important to me so I've read a lot on the subject.

My advice to people is to do their own research and buy the best food they can afford.....even if it's Pedigree or Dog Chow. I'm always happy to share my experience with different foods if asked.


----------



## Miranda Gallegos (Aug 18, 2019)

Once I read on the post about “dog food for profit” I had to stop reading. All my red flags for pseudoscientific fearmongering conspiracy theories started flying all at once. We live in a capitalistic society where people make money and it’s highly encouraged to make money. So using profit as a reason to dissuade people from purchasing is nonsensical.

Credentials matter, by the way. If you have none and are speaking as an authority I’m likely going to dismiss whatever you’re saying.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

If you are speaking of me..I never claimed to be an authority on dog foods. I do my own research and choose what I believe is best. for my own dogs. Avoiding an entire brand of food due to an early/limited report by the FDA on DCM , about one particular line of food (and FB..speaking of a lack of credentials) is disturbing to say the least.


People that read the articles and charts that I post are perfectly free to decide on their own. I have no intention of changing anyone's mind about anything; I simply post for new owners so they can decide, with existing information, what is best for their own animals and not follow the herd. I do not attempt to promote one brand over another..My feelings are to stay clear of companys that promote corn as being good for a dog. (Corn is great for their bottem line..unlike for the dogs that have to eat it). Currently it is prudent to avoid grain free until a sizable sampling is in.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

Duplicate deleted by author


----------



## dbrown (Nov 13, 2018)

If we're conspiracy building on this one, I think someone from BIG CHICKEN Is behind this howtofeedadog.com website! Don your tin foil hats and read between the lines with me, but remember: Draw your OWN conclusions! I'm just here to present facts. Evidence: Author never provides a name, about me, or similar across about a dozen pages. What are they trying to hide??? The next clue lies in the article - they are upset about "research" that says feeding raw chicken to dogs is a dangerous practice. Why are they so upset?? Note that the site reviews Australian-based foods. Australia. Chicken. In the last 10 years, Australia's poultry industry has exploded and gone from producing 834,409 tonnes of meat to producing 1,238,000 tonnes according to Australian Chicken Meat Federation - Home Page. This is a +50% INCREASE, and most chicken is never exported -- so how can they sell more domestically?? Maybe by getting it into Fido's bowl by fearmongering and seeking to undermine the legitimacy of regulatory agencies and scientific experts. (and if you believe me on that one, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you)

It's a real doublespeak feat that this site says "the big food companies are allowed to change their formulas and not disclose it, that's nonsense!", then discredits the FDA- which does what it can legally to hold food companies accountable. This "don't trust scientist experts and do your own research/ create your own version of reality" mentality is why measles is back in the US.

Sorry. End of my rant. Please trust experts who have dedicated their lives to this. Having that (Tufts?) longitudinal study with minimal variance in feeding is extremely helpful data. A comparative and similarly-powered study where dogs WERE exposed to variance in diet would be interesting data to have as well. Getting data like this takes a long time, and there is zero impetus for private companies (e.g. places besides vet schools) to undertake funding a study of this nature.


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

You're still uneducated about corn? Take your own advice and research it. Corn isn't an issue unless a dog has a reaction to the protein in the corn (allergy/sensitivities).

The myth about corn started from Nutro back in the late 80's when they came out with their Natural Choice line of food. They had a huge multi million dollar ad campaign to attack every food that had corn in it (hills, Purina, Iams/Eukanuba amount others) the effects of that campaign is still going on with people just spouting the same thing from that campaign and don't even know it. Corn isn't digestible, corn is bad, corn this and that.

Whole corn isn't very digestible. The outer kernel is cellulose. It keeps the inside protected and not much gets digested. Once you grind it and Mill it, it exposes everything that is digestible and what you get from corn.... Protein, fats, carbs, AL oils. Once ground, corn is highly usable.

I look for a food that has more meat and fruits and veggies in it. I don't look to steer clear of corn, it's just not in the type of food I'm looking for. Because of the stigma corn had it's left out of those foods. What you really don't want in a dogs food is soy (unless it's soy protein isolate) and wheat.


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

dbrown said:


> If we're conspiracy building on this one, I think someone from BIG CHICKEN Is behind this howtofeedadog.com website! Don your tin foil hats and read between the lines with me, but remember: Draw your OWN conclusions! I'm just here to present facts. Evidence: Author never provides a name, about me, or similar across about a dozen pages. What are they trying to hide??? The next clue lies in the article - they are upset about "research" that says feeding raw chicken to dogs is a dangerous practice. Why are they so upset?? Note that the site reviews Australian-based foods. Australia. Chicken. In the last 10 years, Australia's poultry industry has exploded and gone from producing 834,409 tonnes of meat to producing 1,238,000 tonnes according to Australian Chicken Meat Federation - Home Page. This is a +50% INCREASE, and most chicken is never exported -- so how can they sell more domestically?? Maybe by getting it into Fido's bowl by fearmongering and seeking to undermine the legitimacy of regulatory agencies and scientific experts. (and if you believe me on that one, I have a bridge I'd love to sell you)
> 
> It's a real doublespeak feat that this site says "the big food companies are allowed to change their formulas and not disclose it, that's BS!", then discredits the FDA- which does what it can legally to hold food companies accountable. This "don't trust scientist experts and do your own research/ create your own version of reality" mentality is why measles is back in the US.
> 
> Sorry. End of my rant. Please trust experts who have dedicated their lives to this. Having that (Tufts?) longitudinal study with minimal variance in feeding is extremely helpful data. A comparative and similarly-powered study where dogs WERE exposed to variance in diet would be interesting data to have as well. Getting data like this takes a long time, and there is zero impetus for private companies (e.g. places besides vet schools) to undertake funding a study of this nature.



Like 80% of all the research in dog food studies at universities are funded by the dog food companies, just an FYI. 

These are still legitimate studies. These universities aren't employed by the food companies and their reputations are in the line. Imagine if they were skewing results in their favor? That isn't happening. There are always shady things that go on but I'm highly doubtful something like that is going on. If that were the case, nothing anywhere for the food studies would be trust worthy and no one would be able to make an informed decision on food ever


----------



## dbrown (Nov 13, 2018)

Maggie'sVoice said:


> Like 80% of all the research in dog food studies at universities are funded by the dog food companies, just an FYI.
> 
> These are still legitimate studies. These universities aren't employed by the food companies and their reputations are in the line. Imagine if they were skewing results in their favor? That isn't happening. There are always shady things that go on but I'm highly doubtful something like that is going on. If that were the case, nothing anywhere for the food studies would be trust worthy and no one would be able to make an informed decision on food ever


Ahh, I hadn't realized. I'm a little surprised they'd bother putting money into studies, TBH, but am glad they aren't running their own studies. The institutions do have their reputations to protect, and hopefully have a review board or similar organized body internally is overseeing the study.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

Knocking the messenger will not change the message!
People need to do their own research and not listen to self proclaimed experts.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

Anyone have any updates on the big DCM scare last year, after the well publicized FDA article in the summer of 2019? My vet has not heard a thing and she is very well dialed in.

Perhaps they did a larger sample to base their conclusions on.; but I can't find a thing with a recent date stamp.
As I said last yr., I don't feed grain free or any of the high end foods that were mentioned in their article, but am still very curious what if any REAL data has been unearthed.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

the only thing available by way of update right now is literature review- which is not the various studies of course. I know UF has sent for publication, but do not know determination.


----------



## bigblackdog (Jun 14, 2013)

This is as of June...https://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/grain-diet-not-linked-to-dcm-in-dogs-study-says/


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

bigblackdog said:


> This is as of June...https://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/grain-diet-not-linked-to-dcm-in-dogs-study-says/


Interesting..Thank you. 
TBH, that was expected by many after all the hub bub. 

So it would appear that the FDA injured or tried to injure a few smaller dog food firms with the results of their super small "study". I still wonder who promoted it, as well as the motives for the scare. It will be very interesting should they issue a followup formal report.

When I go shopping, from all appearances , grain free and "speciality" dog foods never seem to have suffered; but as the owner of 3 dogs, I still prefer "regular" grain inclusive kibble, like Chicken and Rice. 
Even Walmart has "exotic" and many grain free foods..like Boar and Bison in their own brand of Kibble (Pure Balance) . Their kibble is a 4 star food at Dogfoodadvisor, and when supplies of my chosen brand disappeared last spring, I tried a few bags of their Chicken and Rice; and was pleased with the ingredients, quality, availability, and price.

Petsmart still carries an abundance of grain free products (including their store brand) as well as the huge online vendors like Chewy.com (Petsmart I think). In fact if I need a quick bag of dog food, Grain inclusive kibble is not easy to find in Petsmart)
Once again from a local visual perspective (Reno, NV, USA), companies like Blue Buffalo are thriving, and grabbing even more shelf space for their mostly grain free line of kibble.

Had always spiked the kibble that I feed with weekly raw chicken parts; which seem to have disappeared in the wake of CV-19. Now that my frozen supply of that is gone, (had quite a bit in the freezers just in case), they will still get other additional forms of animal protein on occasion. (raw turkey roll, sardines in water etc.) I try to stay away from large fish due to the high possibility of mercury. (for me as well, unless I can find high quality deep water fish, which is not so easy.)


----------



## Peri29 (Aug 5, 2017)

jeffscott947 said:


> I agree..it pays for us to be watchful, and consider ALL other viewpoints. Not to do so, with the new flood of information would not be wise imo.
> 
> 
> 
> Social media is and always has been a great (FREE) place to spread dis-information.





jeffscott947 said:


> While continuing to research DCM and it's POSSIBLE links to dog foods ..A member brought this to my attention. It is quite interesting as how the big dog food companies deal with competition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for the effort putting it together and doing a research throughly before deciding how to feed your pets. . Of course, everyone has freewill and opinions will differ..It is not important. The goodwill is. Thank you again


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

bigblackdog said:


> Grain-free diet not linked to DCM in dogs, research review finds
> 
> 
> Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs is largely an inherited disease and not the result of a grain-free or legume-rich diet.
> ...


That's the literature review, not really a study. None of the studies begun after the announced worry w GF food have been published yet.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

Sure looks like the FDA has produced ANOTHER nothing burger. been almost 1 .5 yrs since that damning report, and still no real followup.

This is the same organization that will not approve Cannabinoids on a federal level (still holding on to the antiquated position that they have no medicinal value), yet the USA HHS holds a patent on certain Cannabinoid uses that date back to the late 1990's! 

*





US Patent 6630507 – The US Government's Cannabis Patent







uspatent6630507.com




*
I would expect more from an organization that has been called the gold standard, be it for dog food or human medicines and food.
In other words..do your own research!


----------



## bigblackdog (Jun 14, 2013)

Prism Goldens said:


> That's the literature review, not really a study. None of the studies begun after the announced worry w GF food have been published yet.


The damage has been done. The big dog food companies had this news come out....and did not want anything to change. If things are repeated enough...it becomes the truth. Where are these studies?? I do not believe anything will ever come out.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

The reality is, anytime there is a study (and I do mean real study, with controls, parameters, etc) by a real group, it takes almost a year to pass peer review and make it into publication.


----------



## bigblackdog (Jun 14, 2013)

I doubt there ever will be a real study. The damage was done...good dog food companies had their reputation ruined...and Purina, Science Diet, and Royal Canin, etc. are laughing all the way to the bank. Pet food is a billion dollar business...the smaller companies were cutting into business. This was a way they could could get back some of their business.. Fear mongering without there ever being any proof...just vets that were on the FDA panel that also worked for the large pet food manufacturers.

This is also a very interesting read...especially near the bottom of the article. 









Review of canine dilated cardiomyopathy in the wake of diet-associated concerns


Abstract. Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) has been in the literature and news because of the recent opinion-based journal articles and public releases by regulator




academic.oup.com


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

I would again question just why the FDA found it necessary to publish apparently prelimary data last year, if it were not to help certain interests (the big 4) by injuring others (everyone else) . Interestingly this "study" made its way into the public realm without the above mentioned peer reviews, controls, etc.

If there were any truth to this report, then the FDA had/HAS an obligation to keep the public informed, (if they even continued their studies) no matter what, since the implications were so serious.

There is either no enchalada here, or the FDA has neglected some of their primary duties.......to keep us informed, and protect us and our pets.

This is not new either.....if you are not old enough to remember Thalidomide; look up that beauty!

From: FDA Recalls - How Dangerous Drugs & Devices are Recalled


_"On average, about 4,500 drugs and devices are pulled from U.S. shelves each year. The recalled products have U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and in many cases, are widely ingested, injected or implanted before being recalled. Although the FDA may identify concerns regarding the safety of a drug, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to initiate and execute a recall. On the other hand, the FDA can mandate the recall of a device."

====================================================================_

I was unfortunate enough to take Celebrex, another FDA blunder. Luckily I experienced no ill effects.
Then we have the medications that were first by perscription only, and then after lobbying, became OTC meds.
IE: ZANTAC!
More recently their emergency authorizartion for hydroxychloroquine, for CV-19, which was recended shortly thereafter; not to mention their over stated effectiveness of plasma therapy; which was also "modified" after they were called out by medical professionals the world over.

Bottom line: Sure, we the public, need a guiding force, but a force that is NOT beholden to anyone except the people that they are sworn to protect and serve.


These are a few dangerous drugs that were finally recalled, but notice the dates indicated where they allowed them to circulate..Again..$$ talks!
This is presented for the benefit of anyone that takes these "studies" seriously without doing their own research, for their pets (and themselves).
Knowledge is our best protection against apparent falsehoods, and happily the Internet and international community are there to help us decide.
====================================================================

*Valdecoxib (Bextra)*
_Time on the market: 2001-2005_
Valdecoxib is an NSAID that the FDA later determined worked no better than other NSAID pain medications on the market. The drug was recalled for adverse heart effects including death, heart attack, and stroke, as well as increased risk for serious skin reactions, such as epidermal necrolysis, erythema multiforme, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome. To boot, the drug had the potential to cause gastrointestinal bleeding. Yikes!
*Pemoline (Cylert)*
_Time on the market: 1975-2010_
This central nervous stimulant was used to treat ADD and ADHD. In 1999, the FDA added a boxed warning due to the drug’s potential to cause liver damage, which was later followed by a recall.
*Bromfenac (Duract)*
_Time on the market: 1997-1998_
This pain killer was effective in relieving pain, but it caused 4 deaths, 8 liver transplants, and 12 cases of severe liver damage in the year it was on the market. The drug was labeled to be taken for 10 days at most, but patients were often prescribed longer dosages. All cases of death and liver disease occurred in patients who took the drug for longer than 10 days.
*Levamisole (Ergamisol)*
_Time on the market: 1989-2000_
This drug was used to treat patients with worm infestation, rheumatoid arthritis, colon cancer, or breast cancers. It was recalled because it caused neutropenia, agranulocytosis, and thrombotic vasculopathy, leading to retiform purpura—a purple discoloration of the eye that requires surgery.
Of note, levamisole is still used in the United States to treat animals with worms. It is also cut into street cocaine to boost euphoria, which was definitely not its intended use.
*Rofecoxib (Vioxx)*
_Time on the market: 1999-2004_
This selective NSAID for arthritis infamously heightened the risks for heart attack and stroke, and was tied to nearly 28,000 heart attacks in the US population between 1999 and 2003. Researchers reported that the drug resulted in an estimated four heart attacks per 1,000 patients who took it. Its manufacturer, Merck, voluntarily pulled it from the market in 2004. In total, this drug was given to more than 20 million people.
*Isotretinoin (Accutane)*
_Time on the market: 1982-2009_
This acne medication was recalled due to its increased risk of birth defects, miscarriage, and premature deaths among pregnant women who used it, as well as suicidal ideation and inflammatory bowel disease. The drug's maker, Hoffman-La Roche, pulled Accutane from the US market in 2009. However, generic versions of isotretinoin remain available from various manufacturers. More than 7,000 lawsuits have been filed against Hoffman-La Roche with three verdicts thus far amounting to approximately $10 million each.
*Sibutramine (Meridia)*
_Time on the market: 1997-2010_
This appetite suppressant increased heart disease and stroke risk in those who took it. FDA reviewer Dr. David Graham called it “another Vioxx” during a Senate hearing in 2004.
*Terfenadine (Seldane)*
_Time on the market: 1985-1998_
This antihistamine was recalled due to fatal heart problems that manifested when taken with either erythromycin or ketoconazole. Although not designated an immediate threat, the drug was eventually pulled because its manufacturer Hoechst Marion Roussel (now Sanofi-Aventis) also sold fexofenadine (Allegra and Allegra-D), which was deemed to be a much safer alternative by the FDA.
*Troglitazone (Rezulin)*
_Time on the market: 1997-2000_
Treatment with this antidiabetic and anti-inflammatory drug resulted in 90 cases of liver failure and at least 63 deaths. It also resulted in 35,000 lawsuits against its maker, Parke-Davis/Warner Lambert (now Pfizer).
*Efalizumab (Raptiva)*
_Years on the market: 2003-2009_
This biologic was used to treat psoriasis, but was later recalled when it was found to cause progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy—a rare and lethal disease that results in inflammation and damage of the white matter of the brain and central nervous system.
Manufacturers typically initiate voluntary recalls at the FDA’s request and with the FDA’s cooperation, after receiving complaints or data warranting removal of the product from market. Manufacturers will then usually stop distributing the drug altogether. If a manufacturer fails to heed the “recommendation” by the FDA to recall the drug, the government can issue a mandatory recall. Although this action is rarely taken by the FDA, it encourages manufacturers to be proactive with the recall process.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Personally, I would prefer to know something appears to be problematic and not use it before studies are published.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

*The FDA in the cases above (and many more), had already APPROVED the drugs mentioned, which is part of the point. That didn't work out so well for the victims did it. *

Those approvals paved the way for innocents to be injured, since people trusted that organization. Sure, OCASSIONAL mistakes will happen, which makes study by DISINTERESTED parties even more necessary. Foxes do not make good guardians for hen houses do they?.....

Then even after negative reports began to surface, the FDA did nothing meaniful for years to protect the public, until the *REALLY* bad things began to happen. Then they either put out warnings, or under pressure, told the Big Pharma companies to recall the "problems" or forced recalls themselves. Sure it's wise to be prudent; but it is also wise to fully *investigate just how and where the negative information comes from, before accepting it as fact. *

Any published "study" involving ONLY a 500-560 dog sampling is a joke perpetrated by the same organization that classifies a substance as having no medicinal value, despite the USA holding a patent on the very same substances for medicinal use.
The HHS patent on Cannabinoid uses (there are over 500 Cannabinoids) is self explanatory, and is obviously held for a time when BIG PHARMA is able to create the same substances artificially, which would enable their sale and patentability FOR PROFIT!
Only then will they get off their absurd position of "no medicinal value" for cannabinoids. Otherwise why spend* OUR taxpayer's $$* to create, hold and protect a patent on something with no medicinal value. (the very same classification as heroin.....schedule1!)

The point is that this classification makes it next to impossible for real studies to occur in the USA, (which I'm sure entered into the decision) so personally, I sought out UNTAINTED information before coming to my own conclusions for my own dogs and myself. Luckily information is plentiful and easily obtained in most parts of the globe these days. (start with Israel, South America and the relationship with US drug companies). Big Pharma has not been asleep with such a huge financial benefit on the horizon and does tons research beyond our borders, on the very same substances (and more) that the the FDA still holds to be illegal.

Even annecdotal evidence should be investigated to either confirm or deny something's efficacy. The FDA has made that next to impossible, with some of their absurd positions; while approving substances that appear to have been much more dangerous and produced by Big Pharma. (like Opoids)

MONEY talks with many government agencies, and it's a sad commentary that the same agencies entrusted with the health of our pets, (and US) are so hypocritical, and easily influenced by the cash, and other outside influences.

Those wishing to do THOROUGH due diligence on what your pets (and we) consume ..should also look to the rest of the world's experts for either conformation or denial of what the FDA says. The days of our government scientists being "better" than those in the rest of the world are OVER (if they ever really existed in the 1st place)
When armed with what you believe is the REAL DATA....then proceed on whatever path you have chosen.

If there is any additional PROOF of this correlation between grainfree, boutique diets etc and DCM..then the FDA has a fudiciary obligation to disclose said proof to the people (us) that pay their way.
My bet is that the attorneys are already warming up in the bull pen, should there be no confirmation from last yr's report by the FDA.


================================================================================

This particular paragraph should be a wake up call to pet owners in the USA (from the article below):
From: What the FDA allows in pet food that the USDA doesn’t allow in ANY food

_"Unfortunately, the FDA considers all of the above to be suitable for animal food; “we do not believe that the use of diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter to make animal food poses a safety concern and we intend to continue to exercise enforcement discretion.” Per this FDA belief, any of the above condemned meat material is allowed to be processed into pet food (with no warning or disclosure to pet owners)."
=======================================================================================
"The FDA and USDA have very different perspectives on what can become pet food."_
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are two different federal agencies with very different perspectives of what is safe for pets to consume.

Both agencies regulate food, but each has its own jurisdiction. The FDA regulates products that contain 3% or less raw meat and the USDA regulates products that contain 3% or more raw meat. But, for some unknown reason, the FDA regulates pet food (even though most products contain more than 3% raw meat). It’s very unfortunate that the FDA has been given jurisdiction over pet food.

Below are just some examples of what the USDA considers to be inedible – not considered safe in human food or pet food:


“Section 381.78(b) states that “when a lot of poultry suspected of containing biological residues is inspected in an official establishment, all carcasses and any parts of the carcasses in such lot which are condemned shall be kept separate from all other condemned carcasses or parts.”
“carcasses of poultry affected with tuberculosis shall be condemned.”
“carcasses of poultry affected with any one or more of the several forms of the avian leukosis complex shall be condemned.”
“carcasses of poultry showing evidence of any septicemic or toxemic disease, or showing evidence of an abnormal physiologic state, shall be condemned.”
“carcasses of poultry showing evidence of any disease which is characterized by the presence, in the meat or other edible parts of the carcass, or organisms or toxins dangerous to the consumer, shall be condemned.”
“any organ or other part of a carcass which is affected by a tumor shall be condemned when there is evidence of metastasis or that the general condition of the bird is found to have been affected by the size, position, or nature of the tumor, the whole carcass shall be condemned.”
“that carcasses of poultry contaminated by volatile oils, paints, poisons, gasses, scald vat water in the air sac system, or other substances which render the carcasses adulterated shall be condemned.”
“Organs or parts of carcasses found to be infested with parasites shall be condemned.”
Unfortunately, the FDA considers all of the above to be suitable for animal food; “_we do not believe that the use of diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter to make animal food poses a safety concern and we intend to continue to exercise enforcement discretion_.” Per this FDA belief, any of the above condemned meat material is allowed to be processed into pet food (with no warning or disclosure to pet owners).

The FDA’s perspective is if condemned material is cooked (heat treated) it miraculously becomes suitable for use in animal food; “_Because the rendering and canning processes adequately dealt with any microbiological contamination, FDA concluded that applying enforcement discretion to the use of tissues, including from animals that were diseased or died otherwise than by slaughter, for rendering and canning would not present any food safety concerns_.”

The USDA’s perspective on pet food is very different. USDA states all pet food meat/poultry ingredients should be inspected and passed (just like human food); “_Meat means the U.S. inspected and passed and so identified clean, whole-some muscle tissue of cattle, sheep, swine, or goats_.” The USDA’s perspective of inspected and passed material in pet food even includes by-products; “_Animal food meat by-product means the part other than meat which has been derived from one or more cattle, sheep, swine or goats that have been U.S. Inspected and Passed and is fit for use as animal food_.”

*How can two U.S. federal agencies have such a different perspective of what pets can consume?*

Perhaps the answer to that question can be found in their respective jurisdiction. The FDA’s jurisdiction – with the exception of pet foods – is only products that contain small amounts of meat (less than 3%). The FDA isn’t skilled or properly trained to understand the risks involved with condemned meat materials, meat isn’t FDA’s jurisdiction. But meat and the risks involved with condemned material is USDA’s jurisdiction. And the USDA makes it perfectly clear – pet food ingredients should only be sourced from inspected and passed meats.

Pet owners are encouraged to ask the FDA why they have such a dramatically different perspective of safe pet food ingredients than USDA; ask them to provide you the scientific evidence that condemned material is safe for pets to consume."


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

UPDATE!!!!
I guess the jury's in (somewhat)....just another major nothing burger from the FDA. Interestingly there was *no fanfare* like last year's tiny *"study" *of 500 dogs, implicating grainfree and boutique diets. Still wondering just who put them up to that! 









DCM and grain-free pet food: September 2020 FDA update


FDA’s recent, very quiet update on its grain-free pet food-DCM investigation showed that, no surprise, it’s a complex issue that can’t be pinned to one cause.



www.petfoodindustry.com





Scientific Forum for Causes of Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Dogs | Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory
=============================================================================
This is the same FDA that recently forced another recall of a diabetes drug that has been on the market since 1995! Apparently the meds from an Indian company (sold in the USA) had *more than the acceptable level of a known cancer-causing contaminant. (NDMA)
" acceptable level" *????????? 

From a personal perspective, there is NO ACCEPTABLE level of a *known carcenogen that I want in anything that I take! (or give to my dogs)*
=====================================================================================
From CNN: (October 9, 2020)

(CNN)
A widely-used diabetes drug has been recalled after manufacturers found it contained unacceptably high levels of a cancer-causing contaminant.
Indian pharmaceutical company Marksans Pharma Limited is recalling metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets because their levels of NDMA, a "probable human carcinogen," were higher than the acceptable daily intake limit of 96 nanograms per day, according to a recall published this week by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Metformin tablets are used to treat type 2 diabetes and are designed to lower glucose levels.
The recall applies to metformin tablets between 500 mg and 750 mg, sold under the brand name Time-Cap Labs, Inc.


The recall expands an earlier recall of the same product from this summer. But it's just one of several metformin products that have been found to contain NDMA in the last year. Seven other pharmaceutical companies have issued recalls for metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets due to their carcinogenic contents.
The FDA is still investigating where NDMA comes from and how it ends up in metformin products. Most levels found in medications are generally low and fall within the FDA's accepted daily intake, but recently recalled medications exceed that. Marksans Pharma Limited, India, however, did not reveal how much NDMA its recalled products contained.
The recall applies to the following products, which can be identified by their National Drug Code numbers listed below (National Drug Codes can be used to search and identify products online through the FDA). The tablets are either embossed with 101 or 102 on one side and are plain on the other.
*Metformin Hydrochloride Extended-Release Tablets, USP 500mg:"*
"


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

As suspected; the END of another FDA nothing burger..*.AFTER hurting a bunch of smaller dog food companies!*



https://www.petbusiness.com/industry-news/fda-finds-no-evidence-that-grain-free-diets-cause-canine-heart-disease/article_6c907756-229e-11eb-b387-530c76dca466.html?utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR31pTbVPZUJ_7JZxlWxsi__ghq96IHjN0T8Wnl1Lgp6E8Q0dt0NmvcXE8U


----------



## cwag (Apr 25, 2017)

If you click on the link in the article to the actual comments by the FDA, it is not the end of the research into what if any role diet plays:
"Historically, DCM has been primarily linked to genetic predisposition in certain breeds, but in the context of these atypical cases, emerging science appears to indicate that non-hereditary DCM is a complex medical condition that may be affected by the interplay of multiple factors such as genetics, underlying medical conditions, and diet. 
FDA has not taken regulatory action against or declared any specific pet food products unsafe or definitively linked to DCM. As the scientific community looks further into the role that diet may play in these cases, we hope to explore additional avenues about ingredient levels, nutrient bioavailability, ingredient sourcing, and diet processing to determine if there are any common factors. We have asked pet food manufacturers to share diet formulation information, which could substantially benefit our understanding of the role of diet."


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

Reality lies within the HEADLINE itself. The FDA should have waited for a larger sampling before drawing conclusions in 2019 with that tiny chart that led people to make incorrect assumptions; while hurting small dog food companies. (and of course ...BLUE! )

Key words below = NO EVIDENCE!


*"FDA Finds No Evidence that Grain-Free Diets Cause Canine Heart Disease*
*Evidence shows that risk factors for DCM relate to a dog's unique health situation and is not related to a grain-free diet."*


and this from : Pet food and pet treat manufacturing news | Pet Food Processing

*"MANHATTAN, KAN. — On Sept. 29, scientific experts from academia, industry and veterinary medicine came together to participate virtually in a scientific forum hosted by Kansas State University (KSU) examining potential causes of non-hereditary canine dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued what the agency referred to as an “inflection point” Nov. 3, in which the FDA confirmed it has no definitive information indicating that certain diets are inherently unsafe. Specifically, the statement issued from the FDA said the agency “has not taken regulatory action against or declared any specific pet food products unsafe or definitively linked to DCM.”*


----------



## cwag (Apr 25, 2017)

That's the headline from a possibly biased source, not a headline from the FDA. Big print does not make it more true. The FDA is waiting for more scientific studies not declaring it a non-issue. We know your bias against the FDA so you would quote sources that support that opinion. I hope in time true scientific studies will make the issue and causes clear but in the meantime I personally would avoid any potential risk that might be associated with a grain free diet.


----------

