Are Earth Animal No Hide Chews Safe
The Big Miss: Is No-Hide® Actually Rawhide?
This article was written for Undogmatic Inc. past Nicole Cammack and was initially published on Undogmatic Inc's website.
I'll warn you lot at present – this is i of my longer pieces, which is necessary to hash out the totality of the situation and to correspond all points without omission of cardinal facts. To appointment information technology appears that all of this data has not been compiled in one identify before – significant that both consumers and retailers have the odds stacked against them since they would need to do a meaning amount of research and know where to wait to get an authentic picture show. I have provided links and figures to all references below. Information technology is also important to note that I am not advocating for or confronting any of the involved parties – instead I'm presenting the facts for what they are so you can make your own decision.
A 'consumer advocate' recently stirred up drama from July 2017 re-circulating an article (effigy 1) challenge that Earth Animate being No-Hide® treats were rawhide, once more. This was on the heels of the announcement of a class-action lawsuit (figure two) against Earth Animal Ventures (EAV) questioning the ingredients and sourcing of No-Hide® products. I didn't recall I would have to address this issue, but apparently, I do since misinformation and cherry-picked information from the original chain of events keeps circulating (if information technology'southward on the cyberspace it must be truthful, right?). Consumers and retailers alike need to meet the situation for what it is, and so I'll also write this from both a retailer and consumer standpoint to provide the level of transparency I agree others to. As you read this, y'all'll sympathize that both sides have pregnant issues. In fact, No-Hibernate® being (or not existence) rawhide is inappreciably the outcome. Instead there is a pervasive lack of transparency and misinformation from both the consumer advocate side and EAV.
The background:
In July 2017 reports (effigy iii) surfaced after a large brood dog died after choking on a No-Hibernate® chew without direct supervision. Some of the reports omit the fact that the over 100lb dog was given a 4in. No-Hide® chew which is non an appropriately sized chew-treat for that size dog. In that location is some discussion about whether the domestic dog was left solitary, or the dog walked away from the owner while she was on a conference call. Ultimately information technology is irrelevant – considering the dog was unattended, even if by accident, at the time of the incident. This resulted in the pocket-size chew becoming lodged which led to respiratory complications where the dog, unfortunately, passed away. This is an unfortunate incident that besides could happen to Any ane of us as pet owners. That said, it is important to note that ALL pet food, treats and toys can get a choking hazard for whatever pet – specially when left unattended whether intentional or non. It is the pet owner's responsibility to know their pet, their chewing habits, provide appropriately sized treats and to monitor their pets while eating, playing and chewing products that may pose a risk.
The industry seems to be focused on the question, "Are No-Hides® rawhide?" when in reality there are a lot of other questions that demand answering because it'south rather a complex situation. At the same time, the 'scientific discipline' being used to persuade consumers and retailers that No-Hides™ are rawhide is non existent science. Unfortunately, information technology looks convincing to those who don't know what they are looking at and those circulating this info know that. In other words, they are knowingly taking advantage of people who don't know any meliorate which would mean they are intentionally misleading the consumer. It'south ever of import to retrieve that but because it looks like scientific discipline doesn't mean it is. In this commodity we'll discuss multiple examples of why that is.
Regardless, this incident prompted several concerned parties to question the prophylactic of these products besides as the ingredients making upward these chews. These are logical questions, both of which deserved to be asked and investigated. Several other questions could be posed, which I'll aggrandize upon subsequently. That said, the question of the safety and ingredients within No-Hide® chews were examined past iiird parties using unvalidated and unaccepted 'scientific' methods. Those who conducted these investigations knew this and chose to take reward of consumers and apply information technology to paint an inaccurate picture show to those who didn't know better.
Just because it looks similar science…
Later that month (October 2017), consumer advocate Susan Thixton publishes an article citing evidence that 'claims' that No-Hides® are rawhide (figure 1). Two major problems here: a leather chemist, Waldo Kallenberger, Ph.D. had analyzed a No-Hide via 'microscopy' to 'verify' that No-Hides® are rawhide even though this is NOT a validated and accepted scientific method (e.one thousand. fake science). Likewise, the chicken flesh and collagen ingredients independent inside the product would likely explain his conclusion. Nevertheless, the products were never sent out for formal laboratory analysis – so his findings are merely a gauge based on visual observation and personal opinion. Simply said – this means zero and does not prove or disprove that No-Hides® are rawhide. However – as a consumer or retailer that doesn't know any amend this sounds like damning evidence from a legitimate source.
Of import to note is that Dr. Kallenberger is a leather chemist – not a food scientist, animal nutritionist or otherwise contributor or scientist in the field. This is a meaning issue since these points are being positioned as pieces of 'evidence' to convince the public that No-Hides® are rawhide. The utilize of 'fake science' is another example of taking advantage of people who otherwise don't know whatsoever ameliorate.
Rawhide 5. No-Hide® soaked in h2o:
Water alone does not dissolve or digest ingredients. Solutes (such as salt or sugar) CAN dissolve in water, but this is not known as digestion – rather it indicates the substance is soluble. That said, but soaking No-Hide® in water and comparison it to soaked rawhide (both of which bully and take on moisture) tells the states null – and this is not science that proves or disproves the presence or rawhide. This is essentially mimicking what happened within the airway of the canis familiaris that passed away. Although saliva was present, the enzymes contained with saliva are not lone responsible or capable of breaking downwards most material. Information technology makes sense that the No-Hide® behaved the way that it did since it is a dry care for that was exposed to wet. Once again, looks convincing if y'all don't know what y'all are looking at – but is not an accustomed method to brand any conclusions every bit to the makeup of No-Hide®, or any food substance for that matter.
Terminology & context affair:
Further a DNA analysis (figure 4) was used to testify that 'beef' was in salmon No-Hide® chews. Over again, this sounds as if it may be convincing evidence that No-Hibernate® may be rawhide. However, here is where knowing two very important definitions are critical to understanding the totality of circumstances:
- Qualitative – relating to, measuring, or measured by the quality of something rather than its quantity (e.g. does not measure the percentage of substance that makes upwards the whole).
- Quantitative – relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something rather than its quality.
Simply said, but because a substance is detected from a qualitative assay does not indicate that the item is made entirely of that substance, it just means that that substance was detected. Past now well-nigh retailers are aware that No-Hides® are made in a facility, and on the aforementioned equipment that processes beef, chicken, pork, salmon, venison and peanut butter – therefore cantankerous-contamination is inevitable. Because of this it makes logical sense that beef was detected in the salmon product, simply the way it is being portrayed is misleading to consumers and retailers who otherwise are non experienced in the sciences to be able to tell the difference.
What does the existent science say?
While there is always room for more research and investigation, the following points were plant in an independent investigation into the composition of No-Hide® products. There are several points inside this report which I highly recommend you lot examine for yourself. All the same, the main ones are equally follows; the presence of rice Dna was confirmed, which is non a elective of rawhide. It is also made abundantly clear that Dr. Kallenberger was unaware that No-Hide® products were coated with fauna protein (eastward.g. chicken, beef pork etc.), nor did he send out the product(due south) in question for formal laboratory assay as discussed earlier. Formaldehyde was likewise NOT institute within the No-Hibernate® products. This is significant since formaldehyde is a known constituent of rawhide, this also suggests that the No-Hides® are non rawhide.
Interestingly, the results of the aforementioned investigation have a link within an article (figure v) on Susan Thixton's site – yet at that place is critical information that is conveniently omitted in articles detailing her interpretation and conclusion. For example, in referring to the Salmon No-Hibernate® product she states that, "Deoxyribonucleic acid analysis found the majority of the product analyzed as "Bos taurus" – beef"(effigy 6). The problem is that the link to the written report (figure 4) she provides to back up this claim is a qualitative (not quantitative as she suggests) exam – it does not measure the amount of beef DNA present, only that it was present. Misleading to the public and consumers? You lot bet. Unfortunately, consumers trusted her conclusion and did not click the link to verify her determination. If they did, they may accept picked up on this – another reason why information technology is and then important to practice your own homework!
Further testing & validation
Later on the initial article published questioning the ingredients in No-Hide® a 2017 contained investigation suggested that No-Hides™ be farther studied via laboratory analysis. Dr. Jerry Ritchey, DVM, Ph.D., Dipl. ACVP is a board-certified pathologist who reviewed the histological differences (figure 7) between both rawhide and No-Hide™ chews which showed significant and obvious differences (you can review this via the link provided). These facts indicate that No-Hide® products are not rawhide material. Information technology'south also important to note that Dr. Ritchey, a pathologist, is by default much more qualified to make determinations on the makeup of the No-Hide® than Dr. Kallenberger, a leather pharmacist. These results were made publicly available for you to review. That considered, why didn't the questioning parties have the No-Hides® evaluated by a pathologist in the commencement place? Is it because the results would not have fit their narrative? Information technology's probable.
The visitor which articles No-Hide® also imports rawhide from China
Articles (figures 1,iii & 5) circulating also focus on the fact that in that location is rawhide imported onto the same property which also is home to the No-Hibernate® manufacturing facility. This however is not a hole-and-corner or something EAV has denied.
It is not surprising that the rawhide products look similar to the No-Hides® in shape and size, but over again that is not proof that they are rawhide. In that location are several experts, along with the FDA and PA Dept. of Agriculture who have visited and inspected the Pony Express facility to observe the No-Hibernate® manufacturing procedure and have indicated that the process does non involve rawhide, nor does rawhide enter the edifice in which No-Hides® are fabricated.
These facts aside, one could argue that since EAV positions themselves as an ethical company with a focus on transparency and animal welfare it is less than desirable for them to utilize and back up a facility and company that imports rawhide from China for beast consumption in the U.S. Once more, these are some questions and considerations that may matter to some pet owners, retailers, and veterinarians – but not all. This is something you lot must determine for yourself.
FDA and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture investigations
In 2018 multiple visits were made to the No-Hide® manufacturing facility to review the manufacturing procedure. This involved inspection of records, procedures, raw ingredients, invoices and the manufacturing process. Manufactures distributed currently seem to propose that this was not the instance – when these investigations were airtight with "no action indicated" (effigy 8).
I would question what Susan Thixton's truthful motive is in this investigation. It would announced that digging upward onetime wounds because she didn't like the reply she was given is non doing retailers and consumers any favors since it doesn't fix the underlying issue at hand. Farther, claims that she is advocating for independent pet stores (effigy nine) who do their best to educate consumers and stock quality products. How is she helping independents by creating another battle for them to fight? The Unabridged industry seems to forget that the independent retailer is left on the forepart lines fighting anybody'due south battle.
Manufacturers and consumer advocates can create a storm of upset consumers who and then plow to the retailer blaming them for stocking, selling and recommending products. While I Practice believe that retailers should be held accountable for the standards, they set for themselves – I don't believe that retailers should exist left to fight battles that manufacturers create due to negligence (Vitamin D, Aflatoxins and Dilated Cardiomyopathy). Nor practice I believe that retailers should accept to fight a battle that is based on a misinformation, or incomplete information entrada from 'consumer advocates.' Information technology would take been easier and more respectable for her to just acknowledge that she was wrong, or that she didn't know. She could be advocating for relevant topics that could actually make a significant industry difference rather than continue bringing up quondam wounds to stay relevant.
What EVERYONE is missing:
These points considered I am not advocating for or arguing against the apply of No-Hide® in pets. I do understand and respect that each pet owner has their own set of standards that they apply to the products they utilise with their pets, and the same applies to retail store owners. I also believe that there are strengths and weaknesses apply to nigh every product on the market – and those strengths and weaknesses further depend on the individuality of the animal and situation at paw. Ultimately my job is to assist educate others, so they are empowered to brand their own decisions.
The big miss from the manufacture is that the noise from the No-Hibernate® Class Action Lawsuit (effigy two) actually does a disservice to the pet manufacture because it overshadows other critically important issues that we SHOULD be focusing on instead. For case, does EAV provide u.s.a. with the country of origin for each of their ingredients? Are they testing for the adequacy/rubber of their raw ingredients? Are their treats truly digestible? Have they repeated digestibility studies for all flavors, and since the ingredient update? These questions are not specific to EAV because most companies get out a lot to be desired in terms of real and transparent information.
And then, is the industry as transparent as they claim to exist, or is this only another example of why information technology is so important to ask questions? It would have been nice if consumer advocates advocated for change and transparency that actually prevented the pervasive safety issues and lack of transparency we see today. Certain, ingredient sourcing is prissy to know – nevertheless what about product safety for contaminants, accuracy, and pathogens? What well-nigh nutritional validation? What about digestibility? What about ensuring pet foods were formulated past someone qualified (due east.thousand. not a livestock nutritionist)? These questions go a lot further to improving the quality of products on the market place.
Ingredient challenges, changes and testing?
1 fact to annotation is that at the time these experts visited the facility they were using gelatin in the No-Hide™ manufacturing procedure. Gelatin is a collagen is an animal-based protein that can be used as a binder, especially in pet treats. Since that time EAV has replaced the utilize of 'gelatin' with 'agar-agar'. 'Agar-agar' is a constitute-based substance that is used as a substitute for gelatin which is made from red algae-based seaweed per the USDA. In other words, the product at the fourth dimension of the 2017 incident and 2018 investigations was a different production than what is on the market place today.
To my knowledge EAV has not provided whatsoever public assay of all ingredients, or a country of origin for all ingredients, only some. This does exit doors open questioning where ingredients in No-Hides® come from. It's likewise of import to note that the original gelatin source was not named in the original formula (eastward.g. chicken, beefiness etc.) pregnant it could have changed periodically based on cost and/or sourcing. Again – a consumer, retailer and/or veterinarian should not take to asking this information – it should have been publicly available without barrier.
Further, have digestibility tests been repeated since the ingredient change from gelatin to agar-agar? Based on information available on their website it would appear that the reply is no. In add-on to that, were consumers and retailers formally notified of the formula change for No-Hide®? When exactly did that change accept place?
In vitro digestibility 'study' questions
EAV does merits that their No-Hides® are eighty% digestible, although information their website seems to suggest otherwise. From the two screenshots below from EAV website we can see digestibility claimed at 80% and 56% – this is a meaning departure (figures x & xi). Was the digestibility decreased when gelatin was replaced with agar-agar? Or was the digestibility testing not repeated at all? I would likewise argue that a digestibility of 56% does not support the claim of the production existence 'nutritious'. Regardless, it does non appear that EAV has enough data on the digestibility of No-Hides® to claim 'average' digestibility.
That said, this laboratory exam EAV utilized is known as in vitro, and is not indicative of true digestibility. Instead, in vitro digestibility consists of two phases, a gastric and intestinal phase to assist verify product safety and potential for digestion.ane In vitro studies take place in a test tube, or elsewhere exterior a living organism. In vitro testing is a highly controlled environment which means that variables such equally temperature, pH, enzymes, and other influences are not necessarily representative of how the food may be ingested or metabolized in dogs. In short, why is this method claimed to prove digestibility in canines (in vivo) when in vitro doesn't validate actual digestibility in dogs? At that place is an obvious gap in information in the in vitro testing – so why haven't steps been taken to fill those gaps with in vivo testing? If they followed up with a true in vivo digestibility study that may actually end the suspicion that many have.
One must also question whether this study has been reproduced, and for all flavors and versions of No-Hide®? Having digestibility data sounds good if you lot don't know what you are looking for. But with digestibility ranging between 56% and fourscore% which is information technology? If it's 56%, this is a much more significant issue since that means that just over 50% of the production is digestible which translates to a lot of waste material (feces)! Interesting coming from a company that is invested in the Pet Sustainability Coalition which aims at reducing the ecology touch of the pet industry.
Taking it a stride further – bachelor literature cites a broad range of in vitro digestibility results for available pet treats. To put this into context, when tested in vitro, meat-based treats showed an average 41% digestibility inside the gastric phase. Pig ears (made primarily of collagen and cartilage) showed approximately xiv% digestibility. Nevertheless, intestinal stage testing showed approximately 90% digestibility of all meat-based treats – including pig ears.1 Opposite to popular conventionalities, rawhide does have varying levels of digestibility. Literature shows that digestibility can range from approximately 14-73%, based on the product.one In short, this means that the ingredients, processing, and other factors can have a meaning impact on digestibility – hence the need for total testing and transparency on all products.
These things considered – the digestibility can also be impacted past the animal'south tendency toward chewing products into small pieces or swallowing larger chunks. Therefore, in vitro testing does non offer whatever conclusive bear witness into the actual digestibility of the product in vivo. In other words, in one case in vitro testing is conducted it should be followed upwards with in vivo testing to ensure safety and digestibility of the product in question.1
More incomplete information
EAV cites in vivo digestibility testing for their Wisdom® domestic dog food, and so why would they not carry in vivo testing for their No-Hide® products as well? Based on the information available it would seem that this is another instance of the industry not being equally transparent as they claim to be. That considered, if you expect into the data (figure 12) that EAV provides on the digestibility of their Wisdom® pet food, that is also not a validated method of determining digestibility, nor do they provide all the metrics for the consumer, retailer, or veterinarian to truly evaluate the food. Problem is that energy efficiency, the term EAV uses to describe Wisdom® digestibility is a livestock term use for average daily gain and feed: bodyweight conversion. Why exercise I mention this? Because it looks skillful if you don't know what you lot are looking for – just in reality, information technology is meaningless and/or misleading.
Nevertheless once more, it underscores the reason it is so important for both consumers and retailers to ask the correct questions when information technology comes to evaluating the transparency and adequacy of products on the market today. The right questions get in hard for companies to evade answering the question. Information technology also allows you lot to hands see when they are non giving the full respond or the correct answer.
In short, these digestibility tests should be formally conducted, and the results published on their website for both Wisdom® and No-Hide® products. A consumer, retailer and/or veterinarian should not have to request this information – it should be publicly available without barrier, defoliation or manipulation. That is the definition and do of transparency.
Lack of Transparency
Ultimately it is clear that EAV inverse the source of gelatin from an unnamed beast source to agar-agar. However, it is unclear if EAV conspicuously communicated the change in formulas of No-Hibernate® products clearly with consumers, retailers and/or distribution and veterinarian partners. While the ingredient decks are updated in the FAQ on their website, the lack of articulate and direct communication underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability when it comes to communication such as this.
Further, on the Truth About Pet Food website, there are different reports indicating that No-Hides® may not be what they are claimed to be. These include reports and FOIA documents from the PennState laboratory, Illinois Veterinary Diagnostics Laboratory and PA Dept. of Agronomics (just to name a few). A full list of these documents can be found hither (figure 13). From reviewing all of these documents what sews seeds of doubt is that several unvalidated methods and opinions that are used to compare results to validated methods – despite the fact that there are multiple people and agencies who have verified both the ingredients and process of making No-Hides®.
In essence, the totality of circumstances underscores the necessity of companies to do their homework. Homework means conducting both digestibility and nutrient analysis studies alongside ingredient validation. These processes fill up the knowledge gap that currently exists within animal nutrition and would take alleviated a lot of the questions backside these products.
Champion for Contained Retailers?
While about consumers won't be concerned with this point – the retailers should be. EAV has always claimed to exist a champion for the independent pet retail channel. Through the COVID-nineteen pandemic they pledged back up at multiple times, as well as conducted and released information from a survey they conducted aimed at helping pet retailers better connect with pet owners. Essentially the survey establish that independents had a reputation problem, which was the reason for declining sales and increasing online sales. Both EAV and a major distribution partner posed a phone call-to-action to unite and repair the independent pet reputation. However, since then we oasis't seen whatever tangible efforts from either of them toward this.
Farther, in Oct 2020 we learned that EAV was to begin offering their No-Hide® products on Chewy.com – this inappreciably indicates back up and loyalty to the contained retailers. In fact, it takes advantage of the disadvantage that they pledged to help repair.
Part of the recipe to supporting independent pet retailers involves offer independent channels protection confronting predatory practices that Chewy.com engages in. For example, they often undercut pricing to poach customers by offering products at prices lower than retailers can buy from distribution, offer sales on short-dated (near expired) product, and/or geotargeting and geofencing independent pet stores. As an independent pet store who has been a supporter of EAV information technology saddens me that a young man CT retailer (also World Animal) would support Chewy and their practices.
That said, this is another instance as to why independent retailers should never lean into any 1 make to the betoken where a call up, scandal or otherwise bad press could impairment their business. While Chewy'due south tactics, pricing and inventory used to concern me – I have found much more than success in helping to educate my team, consumers and focusing on brands that meet the standards I have fix for NorthPoint®. If yous're constantly going to hunt Chewy'south products and pricing or put all your eggs in one or 2 baskets y'all're continually going to lose and expose yourself to continued liability.
'The Big Miss'
The renewed interest in this topic in 2020 does not bring up whatever new information or evidence to suggest that No-Hides® are rawhide. Instead, I believe that this is actually doing a disservice to retailers equally they are beingness shielded from larger bug. For instance, the fact that retailers are having to fight this battle for consumer education, and in the procedure, nosotros volition have our reputation eroded further. This erosion of reputation is largely due to manufacturers making unsubstantiated claims without adequate data to back up their products. It is also due to the majority of products on the marketplace are lacking in data to support their safety and nutritional adequacy. In addition, we're too missing that EAV essentially backtracked on their promise of existence loyal to independent pet in both business concern and upstanding standards. Based on these considerations there is not one 'big miss' – at that place are several – and it has nothing to practice with No-Hides® existence or not being rawhide. It'due south up to independent retailers and consumers to decide how they are going to react and if that reaction is advisable based on the totality of circumstances.
Regardless of what you believe – we can probable all agree on this: more research, transparency and accountability are needed in the pet industry.
- de Godoy MRC, Vermillion R, Bauer LL, et al. In vitro disappearance characteristics of selected categories of commercially available canis familiaris treats. J Nutr Sci. 2014;3. doi:x.1017/jns.2014.40
Source: https://northpointpets.com/npp-journal/the-big-miss-is-no-hide-actually-rawhide/
Posted by: mccluskeyvarty2001.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Are Earth Animal No Hide Chews Safe"
Post a Comment