Royal Canin food doesn’t have AAFCO statement about animal feeding tests?

[crissyhennacy]

I’ve been wondering why Royal Canin kibble doesn’t have the AAFCO statement on their food that says “Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiates that NAME OF FOOD provides complete and balanced nutrition for X life stage”. They only have the statement that says it’s formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by AAFCO.

Specifically I’ve been looking at Royal Canin puppy for medium dogs, though most of their food don’t have it as well. For reference, Pro Plan and Hills Science puppy formulas have the animal feeding test statement.

I know it’s one of the WSAVA approved brands, so I thought they conduct feeding trials? Or perhaps I’m placing too much value on the statements?

 

[p4m3l4]

@crissyhennacy It’s uncommon for foods companies to do feeding trials. When the ingredients aren’t deviating from the standard stuff it’s also not particularly necessary. Say a food company wanted to construct a vegan diet or make a diet of chicken feathers (which royal canin has done on their veterinary diets) you’d want to know it’s been tested to make sure dogs are digesting and absorbing it fine and getting complete nutrition. A standard lamb and brown rice died has been tested. We know dogs can eat lamb and rice just fine. There’s really no reason to test it.

I wonder if the DCM issues could have been prevented if those grain free and boutique diets had done feeding trials but it’s really only the massive companies that do feeding trials.

In order to test anything, be it a food, medication or therapy, you need test subjects. Most of the big food companies use their own captive beagles as Guinea pigs. So if that step can be skipped (because the food is using common ingredients that have already been tested) it is better to skip it.

 

[drew2ube]

@crissyhennacy I don't know about Royal Canin specifically but the AAFCO statement generally applies to the specific formula, so if that specific food you have did not go through feeding trials (but most of their foods do) then it won't say that.

 

[crissyhennacy]

@drew2ube That would make sense, but I went through all their dry kibble and none of them have the feeding trial statement.

 

[drew2ube]

@crissyhennacy In that case it's also possible they've done feeding trials after the food was formulated to meet the nutritional requirements of dogs, as extra research, but the feeding trials themselves were not used to substantiate nutritional adequacy. This would be a good question to ask their customer service though!

 

[crissyhennacy]

@drew2ube I sent them an email and got a very long PR response that ultimately didn’t answer anything.

I’d be curious to know how all the feeding trials actually work.

 

[drew2ube]

@crissyhennacy Feeding trials might be done for a ton of reasons! If allowed, can you share some of the response you got from them and what you asked?

 

[crissyhennacy]

@drew2ube Sure! I don’t have a copy of what I asked exactly, but basically what I asked here and why their food doesn’t have the feeding trials label. I will say they responded very quickly. I once had questions for Purina and it took weeks to get a response.

Here is the response:

Thank you for taking the time to contact ROYAL CANIN Canada. We are glad to hear that you are thoroughly searching the best nutritional options for your dog.

We appreciate you sharing your questions with us regarding the AAFCO feeding trials & AAFCO approval and are happy to provide the following information to help answer your questions about our diets.

There are over 200 different products for cats and dogs in the Royal Canin portfolio, including dry, wet and treat formulas. Most formulas have been validated according to Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) nutrient profiles and/or feeding trials. Detailed analysis of the finished formula occurs at the Mars Global Services Lab to ensure nutrient levels meet the expectations.

There are some therapeutic formulas that do not meet AAFCO nutrient profiles. These formulations have undergone alternative product evaluation, such as long-term feeding trials, and many have been proven safe and efficacious for managing the disease process they are intended for through clinical trials. Some examples include ROYAL CANIN® Veterinary Exclusive
Hepatic and ROYAL CANIN® Veterinary Exclusive Renal Support formulations.

The nutrition adequacy statement can be found on the packaging of every Royal Canin formula available in Canada

We do not only meet AAFCO standards, but we also conduct tests on our products that go beyond AAFCO requirements, such as:
? Palatability trials
? Digestibility trials
? Blood parameters
? Relative Supersaturation trials
? Stool conformation
? Amino acid analysis
? Fatty acid analysis
? Toxicology studies and stability data
? Clinical trials for efficacy in conjunction with veterinarians and pet owners
? Peer reviewed research

You will find additional answers to the WSAVA “Questions to ask a pet food company” as an attached document to this email.

 

[drew2ube]

@crissyhennacy Great! Thanks for the extra info. So to me it sounds like what I thought before, that first and foremost, their foods are formulated by calculation (this is most common) and additional research is done using feeding trials, which is great!

Sorry for just now mentioning this, but it's actually pretty uncommon for a food to have its AAFCO statement say that the food meets nutritional requirements by using feeding trials. It's pretty well accepted in the pet food industry that the criteria for solely using feeding trails to substantiate a food's nutritional adequacy is lacking and very "behind the times."

While feeding trials are valuable because it's important to know how actual animals respond to a food, in order to use the "feeding trials" as an AAFCO statement, 8 animals must eat the food for 6 months, and two of the animals can fail the trial (so only 6 have to pass). The animals can't lose more than 15% of their body weight, and only 4 blood parameters are tested for before and after the trial. Still, the animals must remain in overall good health, but feeding trials provide very little information about the nutritional adequacy of the food. This is why the "calculation method" as it's called (typically using formulation software, though it can be done my hand too) is most common.

So what it sounds like is Royal Canin, like most companies, have nutritionists or other nutrition professionals formulate a diet using calculations, which is where the AAFCO statement comes from. But, also like most or many companies, feeding trials are done in addition but this isn't on the AAFCO statement because trials were not the *only* way the food was substantiated.

I'm not familiar with this podcaster but Linda Case is an actual canine nutritionist (like with a degree) and she's s guest on this podcast - Case kind of summarizes feeding trials in the first part of this podcast! Look for episode 88. It's only 20 minutes long total.

 

[sevilodorf]

@crissyhennacy They don’t have feeding trial on every single variety, but do for diets that are substantially similar. Likely they do for other puppy formulas and other medium dog formulas but not that specific variety.

This is not a thing experts are particularly concerned with, especially in the case of RC who conduct robust research.

 

[sheba92766]

@crissyhennacy Often times those feeding trials are a little more biased and misleading. I would look into how they are preformed and how these companies cherry pick results.

 

[sevilodorf]

@sheba92766 AAFCO feeding trials are nothing of the sort and have relatively strict protocols that can’t be cherry picked or deviated from.

 

[joeylanc]

@crissyhennacy AAFCO feeding trials are not all they're cracked up to be. Only 6 dogs are required to pass. They can't lose more than 15% body weight (although there is no limit to what they can gain) and they check 4 blood panels over 6 months.

Also, I'd rethink royal Canon based on ingredients alone.

 

[crissyhennacy]

@joeylanc Can you expand on what issues you have with the ingredients? What other brands should I be looking at then?

 

[martinted]

@crissyhennacy They have very sketchy ingredients listed such as chicken by products (other foods specify what kind of chicken products they have), and with all the different specific types of food royal canin carries, its all the same ingredients. They also use corn which almost no other pet food brand has. This comes from a vet student and a full time pet store employee

 

[sevilodorf]

@joeylanc If you think AAFCO feeding trial standards aren't up to snuff, good thing Royal Canin actually produces feeding trials that go above and beyond those requirements.

Why why why would you go with a brand that doesn't even meet a bar you already think is low? The alternative is diets that don't test on dogs with a control group at all. YOUR dog is the test subject for those brands that don't conduct any feeding trials.

Ingredients lists tell you absolutely nothing about how balanced a diet is. Dogs need nutrients, not feel good ingredients.

 

[mily]

@crissyhennacy I know this is an old post, but I came across it, and wanted to add some points.

They do perform feeding trials on their diets, but they're not exactly AAFCO feeding trials which makes them legally not allowed to state "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures..."

I asked them about their feeding trials, and this is what they answered:

"We perform internal studies that meet or exceed AAFCO trials. We do digestibility and palatability trials on all of our foods.

Royal Canin chooses not to use AAFCO feeding trials specifically. AAFCO feeding trials are not as stringent as the trials we conduct. Our trials are done not only to ensure that they are consistent with AAFCO’s nutrient profile recommendations for a given life-stage, but also to measure the digestibility of the product and palatability of the product."

It seems they do more rigorous testing than just undergoing a typical AAFCO feeding trial. What are you currently feeding?

 

[crissyhennacy]

@mily Thanks for the info. Very good and interesting to know.

I’m currently feeding Purina Pro Plan Sensitive Skin salmon and rice because my pup has developed chicken allergy. Unfortunately royal canin doesn’t have any non chicken formula, plus purina is much more affordable.

 

[mily]

@crissyhennacy I really do wish RC would produce chicken free diets. My cat developed food allergies, so we started him on an elimination food trial using RC hydrolyzed protein. Apparently he is allergic to chicken and possibly salmon. He's currently on RC Anallergenic (Ultamino). This diet took RC 10 years of research to develop! I wanted to try Rabbit, but my vet said we could keep him on the RC diet since it's been 2 years of trial and error and we finally got him stable on RC Anallergenic.

 

[lrs6]

@crissyhennacy There are various reasons for this but they're not always obvious.

Some prescription brands aren't designed to be complete and balanced because they're for temporary feeding to address a condition. Often vets don't realise this, and pet owners even less so, so end up feeding such a food long term because it seems to work.

Feeding trials and nutrient profiles are different, so a food can adhere to AAFCO nutrient standards but not necessarily have undergone lab tests or trials.

Sometimes bigger manufacturers with a range of formulas won't conduct feeding trials on all of them, or if a formula has recently changed this may still be pending. For some companies it's about cost and practicality, or minimising expenditure which isn't considered necessary. For Mars who make RC it won't be lack of funding, but may be deemed unnecessary for the formula.

Other quality control may be in place as well, and this may have some assurances with safety. At least safety against toxins or to ensure ratios and balance rather than whether ingredients are healthy or not.

AAFCO most of the time is voluntary. More so in some regions. In Australia for example pretty much adhering to anything is voluntary in the pet food industry (the Senate Inquiry into the safety of pet food a few years ago showed us that - worth Googling).