Pet Food Politics: Why Our Pets Still Aren't Safe

In 2007, American pet owners found out about a large-scale experiment the food industry carried out on our pets. What happens if you streamline, centralize and outsource food production with no goals other than profit? In the case of pet food, the system worked until it didn't. And when it didn't, thousands of dogs and cats died due to eating more than 100 brands of pet food contaminated with melamine and cyanuric acid. Like a dead canary used to alert miners of methane and carbon monoxide, our dead pets are a warning about our own food safety.

Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, recognized the significance of the 2007 pet food crisis immediately. She did what our government should have done: She researched how melamine and cyanuric acid could have entered the pet (and human) food supply under the guise of wheat gluten and chronicled the story from start to finish in her newest book, Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine.

Nestle points out in previous books that it can be hard to prove the effects of any one food because humans eat diets of many foods, making it almost impossible to identify the effects of any specific one. Pets serve as our canaries because they do eat diets consisting almost entirely of one food. Also, the pet food business is even more centralized than the highly consolidated human food supply. With difficult nutrition and taste specifications and expensive manufacturing equipment required to make pet food, companies find it most economical to outsource production to specialized operations like Menu Foods, the company responsible for importing the tainted wheat gluten. When the Chinese supplier substituted wheat flour dressed up with melamine and cyanuric acid for wheat gluten, pets died on a mass scale.

Pet Food Politics reads like a gripping murder mystery, exposing how the pet food crisis happened, what it means for the human food supply, and why the current system of government oversight is insufficient for pets, farm animals and humans. I've enjoyed each of Nestle's books more than the last, and I found Pet Food Politics the most entertaining of all. I also appreciate Nestle's compassion for animals, as she understands that we parents of furry children love our cats and dogs as more than "just pets." I asked Nestle a few questions about Pet Food Politics; you'll find her answers below.

Jill Richardson: At what point did you know you needed to write about the pet food crisis of 2007? What in particular about the story made it a compelling topic for you?

Marion Nestle: This is a long story. My book What to Eat came out in 2006. It's not really a book about what to eat; it's about how to think about what to eat using supermarkets as an organizing device. I went through supermarkets, aisle by aisle, trying to answer every question anyone might have about the issues related to food choices, from nutrition to environmental impact. I kept seeing this huge aisle devoted to dog and cat foods and would look at the products but couldn't understand their labels. If I didn't understand them, I suspected other people might not either. My partner, Mal Nesheim, is a retired animal scientist. He had no trouble understanding them. Aha! Let's do a book together! We signed a contract with Harcourt in February 2007 to write What Pets Eat. And then, one month later, came the recalls. I knew we would have to talk about the recalls in our book. I started working on what I envisioned as a 10-page appendix to What Pets Eat about the recalls, but I totally got into trying to figure out what had happened. The piece got ridiculously out of hand. Fortunately, University of California Press picked it up as a separate book.

JR: What was the top reason that allowed the pet food problems to reach the magnitude they did? Was it preventable?