There's a query in today's DT pets column about colourings and additives in pet foods. The interesting answer is that food from members of the Pet Food Manufacturers' Association (PFMA) use only food which is fit for human consumption in their products, and that includes dyes and additives. That means reputable pet food should be as safe as human food (though as the article says, that depends on how safe you think human food is ;) ), and all the scare stories about euthanised pets etc etc can be ignored.

A list of PFMA members can be found here.
:)

The actual statement on the website is;
"The materials are from animals inspected and passed as fit for human consumption", this is quite a different context to your linked quote "food which is fit for human consumption".

Just because the materials are from animals inspected and passed for human consumption, it does not follow that it is palatable or desirable for humans to eat!

Snomaes

I'm not sure I understand the reason for your splitting hairs Snomaes, I understood JGs meaning perfectly well. I have never yet come across a dog food, wet, dry or raw, that I was prepared to eat myself. As far as I can see dogs find palatability in vastly different things from human beings.

Dawn R.

Snomaes, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not people find it palatable. It's dog food! I don't fancy eating pigs' ears, for example, myself - but what matters is that it's safe to eat.

Most things dogs eat I would not relish!

cat poo & sick spring to mind - lol

Dogs & humans clearly have different tastes! - unless I am just fussy ;-)

That may be the way it is now J/G.
*and all the scare stories about euthanised pets etc etc can be ignored.*  But this HAS happened in the past & maybe still happening in other parts of the world. After all if a banned , known cancer causing dye can find its way into the human food chain just a couple of wks ago (but did I hear right & they knew of it months ago but it was kept quiet?) then like you say, it depends how safe you think human food is......

Christine, Spain.

Yes, bad things may have happened in the past, and may still happen in other parts of the world. But I've read posts on here (can't recall who by - there have been a few) that imply that all commercial pet foods everywhere (including the UK) include euthanased pets that have been dumped on the doorstep, we need to tell them that it's a lie.

If you`re that confident it`s so safe J/G then tell them whatever you want.

Christine, Spain.

Yes, I'm happy to tell them that they lie when they say that UK commercial dog food all contains 'the four Ds', the quotation they gleefully spout.

Why be happy to say they lie J/G? As I`ve said before these rules are relatively new, some of the countries haven`t even implemented them yet & as I`ve also said before it did happen & maybe still happening in the countries that UK imports from. And just maybe because of the outcry of people who were/are concerned about it the new rules & regs came into place???
I was one of the people who has said it happened & it did, I wasn`t lying. Now I know of the new implementations I will say it`s not supposed to/shouldn`t happen instead.

Christine, Spain.

The rules came in in 2003, so the false information has been perpetuated for over a year. :(

Christine, if I have read all the information about Sudan 1 correctly it has only been found to cause cancer in animals during testing, there has been no known case of it affecting humans at all and is therefore a thoretical risk which I feel rather confirms the high level of standards in the modern food industry and at the time it seemed to me the media where creating something more out of it than strictly necessary given that we were talking about something used in tiny amounts in a chilli powder, used in tiny amounts in a sauce and then used in tiny amounts in some foods that few people would use on a daily basis :)

So if it causes cancer only in animals but doesn`t in humans you are saying it`s safe? Afraid I look at things rather differently Isabel.
And the government, because of what you call a *theoretical risk* pulled all those foodstocks off the supermarket shelves??
It`s a bit more than those tiny amounts being ingested, the dangers are when those tiny amounts are ingested every day & then become large amounts. It was in so many things that a lot of people were/are ingesting on a daily basis & it would have caused a build up of a known cancer causing substance.

Christine, Spain.

No I'm not saying it is safe and obviously it is a good thing that it is not generally used in food stuff but the risk is clearly very minimal probably something like smoking one packet of fags in your lifetime rather than twenty a day :).  I was rather impressed that it could be tracked so effectively and all the products were identified and removed which I felt was very reassuring about the way modern food stuffs are regulated but as you say we all tend to look at things in a different way :)

Did anyone watch "Jamies School Dinners" last week (first one I have seen) and I bet all the food generally served up to the kids is passed as fit for human consumption as well but I liked the comment that was quickly passed over about the children being more settled in the afternoons with the new regime and no inhalers being necessary.

Just because something is fit for human (or animal) consumption does not mean that it does no harm or that it is actually good for you.

I quite agree school dinners are a disgrace.  I don't know how they get away with it as it is totally against the government health department advise of 5 veg and fruits a day, low levels of salt and fat etc.  The children seem to be mostly affected, in the way you discribe, by high sugar levels and colourings which, apart from some supermarket brands, is not generally found in complete dog foods.  Of course some dogs may be affected by various other components but outside the internet I have not owned or met any so I am not sure as to how prevalent that is I suspect it looks more prevelent on the net as those with problems will congregate there seeking information for instance.  However I am not sure that a unwelcome reaction by a small proportion counts as being unfit for consumption on that basis you could say peanuts or prawns are unfit for consumption :)