Analytical Report - Pet food

Introduction

The composition and labelling of foods for animals is in some respects more restrictive and prescribed than for human foods. All feeding stuffs whether for pets or livestock must have a statutory statement, i.e. a declaration (in standard form) of the main nutritional qualities of the product.  Moreover, these statements must be correct within certain limits.  There is no such prescription for human food.

There are two main types of pet food which pet owners need to be aware of to ensure they give their pets sufficient nutrients. The product label will indicate which of these two categories it belongs to.

Complete pet foods – these are suitable to be fed as the only food over an extended period of time. 

Complementary pet foods – these have a high content of certain substances, but must be used in conjunction with other pet foods to provide adequate nutrition. 

The main items required to be declared on a statutory statement are the protein, ash (a measure of the mineral content), oil (or fat), fibre, Vitamin A and Vitamin E.

The survey tested the levels of these nutrients against those declared in the statutory statement. A range of both dried and moist pet foods for different pets e.g. cats, dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs etc were sampled. For cats and dogs, FEDIAF (the national pet food industry associations in the EU), has recently (February 2008) published guidelines on the nutritional content of both complete and complementary feeding stuffs.

Thirty six samples of pet food were submitted for analysis by Trading Standards. 
             

Summary of Results

Two of the thirty six samples did not have a statutory statement against which to judge the analysis.  The statutory statement can be provided on the package or where the food is packed on the premises or bagged up in front of the customer can be indicated on a notice near to the food. One sample of rabbit feed had higher fibre than declared but lower Vitamin A. Rabbits require a high fibre diet, it is not therefore considered to be a problem in this case. On another sample, both the protein and the oil were lower than declared. These issues will be raised with the relevant businesses.

April 2008