E-mail from the "OTHER SIDE"

NOW - for those who are interested in taking a look at both sides of an issue, and reaching their own conclusions, I am showing the following E-mail messages in the order I received and sent them. Please excuse any typo's and misspelling's. They are uncut, and other than formatting them in HTML so that they can be read on the WWW, the E-mail messages have not been edited in any way.

E-mail message #1 Received by William D. Cusick - Mon, 16 Sep 1996 Isn't it great we live in a country where this is protected under the constitution. Mr. Cusick is a hoot. And he would be more than entertaining if he knew more about his subject. He is obviously misinformed about some of his "facts and fiction." Sometime if Mr. Cusick, or anyone else, is interested in correcting some of his facts to more acurately reflect the truth they may contact me.

E-mail message #2 (William D. Cusick's Reply to E-mail message #1) Sent on Mon, 16 Sep 1996 Your message was received. I find your general sweeping statements, interesting. These type of statements are difficult to discuss intelligently. In order to discuss a subject as complex as this in detail, we should focus on one segment at a time. If you would like to get back to me with specific questions I will try and answer them using knowledge gained after twenty years researching the morphologies of the subspecies canine. The facts presented at my web site are scientifically documented and I suggest you read the "documenting the claims" page at my web site before just writing me off as just a "hoot". William D. Cusick, The Animal Advocate

E-mail message #3 Received by William D. Cusick - Tue, 17 Sep 1996 Mr. Cusick, You are correct, these issues are complex and by taking information out of context you appear (whether on purpose or inadvertently) to have very much confused them. I also have 20 plus years in the field. Animal Nutritionist, kennel and cattery owner, former Chair of the AAFCO Pet Food Committee, former Feed Program Administrator for Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, current Head of Feed and Fertilizer Control Service for Texas, Current President of AAFCO. I helped develope the IFN numbers and how they are used and a number of the definitions you are referring to in your documents. I have read them. Are you interested at all in correcting you facts gone wrong ? If so, send me a phone number, I'll call on my nickel. Roger Hoestenbach, FFCS Head, r-hoestenbach@tamu.edu OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN! ;) ". . . so much more than a whisper" N. G./B. N.

E-mail message #4 (William D. Cusick's Reply to E-mail message #3) Sent on Tue, 17 Sep 1996 Dear Mr. Hoestenbach, Thank you for your response and your offer to correct the "facts gone wrong" at my web site. I am impressed with the credentials you list and would like to hear more from you. I would be interested in getting your list of corrections in writing. I have found that in using this method of communication a person can eliminate any emotional bias that could lead to verbal arguments where people do not always hear the opposing viewpoints. I firmly believe in my stand on the issues presented at my web site and have used direct quotes from AAFCO's 1994 Official Publication and the NRC's Nutrient Requirements of Dogs to substantiate any claims that I make. In your E-mail you said that I have used "information out of context." One of the tools of debate that I adhere is that of taking something out of context to make an otherwise unsubstantiated point. That is why I also provide the "Documenting The Claims" page for visitors to my web site. In that page I urge them to buy copies of AAFCO's or NRC's publications so that if I have taken anything out of context, just to make a point, it can be verified and easy for your association (AAFCO) or anyone else to discredit my stand. By using direct quotes that can be checked out I feel that I do not need to make the disclaimer you used at the end of your E-mail; "OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN! ;)" but can say: The facts presented at my web site are based on information that can be checked out through documents that are available to the general public. I can understand the posture you must take as "Current President of AAFCO" regarding the issues presented at my web site and If you feel you must present your views on these issues by phone, or just vent, my telephone number is 503-642-1014. It is a listed number in my name at the address shown in my Internet web site. Yours truly, William D. Cusick, The Animal Advocate

E-mail message #5 Received by William D. Cusick - Wed, 18 Sep 1996 Mr. Cusick, I'm not surprised that I didn't hear from you, but since I initiated contact I feel obligated to send you at least some of what I intended to discuss over the phone. IFN numbers are directly linked to AAFCO definitions and in fact were inspired by those definitions. The generic names following the IFN listing in the Official Publication are to facilitate translation into other languages, but they are the AAFCO definitions. The IFN numbers came about through the efforts of Dr. Lorin E. Harris, while he was Director of the International Feed institute at the University of Utah, and his work with AAFCO in the late 1970's. Your claims, "use IFN numbers along with the wording" and "that would give us all a way to know what is in their feed" would result in unnecessary redunduncy, as the AAFCO defined name is as unique as the IFN number. Your definition list from the "Wording of pet food labels" I find very misleading as many of the definitions are taken out of context and would not be allowed to be used in the labeling of pet foods. For example, you indicate feathers, as a by-product of poultry, could be shown as "Poultry By-products" in an ingredient statement. This is wrong. Even hydrolyzed feathers are not allowed by 9.15 Poultry By-Products. Also indicated as allowable, "blood soaked sawdust" and "wood shavings . . . 35% in one and 40% in the other" is not true, nor is the inclusion of "Dried Ruminant Waste" or Undried Processed Waste Products" in any of the meat by-products definitions including: 9.3 Meat by-products and 9.42 Animal By-Product Meal. "Mill Run" is an official term, but it cannot appear in an ingredient statement as you allude. The "Digestibility Test" is not a bench procedure. It involves the feeding of animals and analytical measurement of product going into the animal and measurement of feces and urine(sometimes calculated) excreted and subsequent derivation of digestibility. There is an "in vitro" procedure that models digestion with digestive enzymes/acids and grinder/tumblers that duplicate the chemical and mechanical process of digestion. But neither of these are the test as you have described. The membership of AAFCO includes only government regulators from North America. This includes each of the States, Canada, Puerto Rico, U. S. Federal offices including FDA, USDA, and EPA. Also available to AAFCO is input from the Federal Trade Commission, as needed. There are liaisons from a variety of sources and organizations including, but not limited to, the press, industry, academia, and public advocacy groups. AAFCO does not work for the pet food industry or any other industry. "Reagan's privatization"??? Where did you get that? It is ridiculous! The current members of the Pet Food Committee are: Rod Noel, Indiana State Chemists Office; David Dzanis, Center Vet. Medicine-FDA; George Latimer, Texas State Chemist Office; Steve Martin, Michigan Department of Agriculture; Steve Reymann, Montana Department of Agriculture. No industry affiliation in that list. There is more if you are really interested, but for now I will close with some statements I use in all my lectures, presentations, and classes on petfoods and petfood labeling, "Most human food would not be allowed to be marketed as animal feed because of inadequate labeling. Even with the new Nutrition Labeling and Education Act requirements, most labels are still inadequate by animal feed standards." There are reasons for this. Call me or send me a phone number and I'll call you. ***IMPORTANT*** NEW E-MAIL r-hoestenbach@tamu.edu Roger Hoestenbach, FFCS Head, r-hoestenbach@tamu.edu phone: 409/845-1121 FAX: 409/845-1389 OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN! ;) ". . . so much more than a whisper" N. G./B. N.

E-mail message #6 (William D. Cusick's Reply to E-mail message #5) Sent on Wed, 18 Sep 1996 Dear Mr. Hoestenbach, At 10:50AM 9/17/96 I successfully sent you an E-mail message: I do not know why you did not read it. Here is a copy. _________________________ Dear Mr. Hoestenbach, Thank you for your response and your offer to correct the "facts gone wrong" at my web site. I am impressed with the credentials you list and would like to hear more from you. I would be interested in getting your list of corrections in writing. I have found that in using this method of communication a person can eliminate any emotional bias that could lead to verbal arguments where people do not always hear the opposing viewpoints. I firmly believe in my stand on the issues presented at my web site and have used direct quotes from AAFCO's 1994 Official Publication and the NRC's Nutrient Requirements of Dogs to substantiate any claims that I make. In your E-mail you said that I have used "information out of context." One of the tools of debate that I adhere is that of taking something out of context to make an otherwise unsubstantiated point. That is why I also provide the ÒDocumenting The ClaimsÓ page for visitors to my web site. In that page I urge them to buy copies of AAFCO's or NRC's publications so that if I have taken anything out of context, just to make a point, it can be verified and easy for your association (AAFCO) or anyone else to discredit my stand. By using direct quotes that can be checked out I feel that I do not need to make the disclaimer you used at the end of your E-mail; "OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN! ;)" but can say: The facts presented at my web site are based on information that can be checked out through documents that are available to the general public. I can understand the posture you must take as "Current President of AAFCO" regarding the issues presented at my web site and If you feel you must present your views on these issues by phone, or just vent, my telephone number is 503-642-1014. It is a listed number in my name at the address shown in my Internet web site. Yours truly, William D. Cusick, The Animal Advocate ________________________ Now to respond to your 9/17/96 E-mail message. I am re-sending my 9/16/96 E-mail to you at this time so that you can have a copy of all corespondense for your file. I would like to show all of the E-mails between us at my web site. I believe that it would be interesting for people visiting there. In my E-mail of 9/16/96 I made the following statement: The facts presented at my web site are based on information that can be checked out through documents that are available to the general public. Therefor I will answer the issues you have brought up in today's E-mail by referring to documents where my answers can be checked out, by yourself or any of the visitors to my web site. In the E-mail I received today you addressed the following issues: 1) Your statement: Your claims, "use IFN numbers along with the wording" and "that would give us all a way to know what is in their feed" would result in unnecessary redundancy, as the AAFCO defined name is as unique as the IFN number. 1) My response: I have brochures by Science Diet and Purina that make this statement: "Information on your pet food package can be revealing - and misleading. The "Guaranteed Analysis" statement, for instance, offers no information on ingredient source or quality." Maybe you should let some of the largest members of your industry know that their advertising statements about this issue are wrong. 2) Your statement: "Your definition list from the "Wording of pet food labels" I find very misleading as many of the definitions are taken out of context and would not be allowed to be used in the labeling of pet foods. For example, you indicate feathers, as a by-product of poultry, could be shown as "Poultry By-products" in an ingredient statement. This is wrong. Even hydrolyzed feathers are not allowed by 9.15 Poultry By-Products." 2) My response: I am not the only one that has made this claim. In 1994 and 1995 Purina carried on a multimedia advertising campaign that used this as the reason to buy one of their foods. The front of a brochure for PURINA O.N.E. has a picture of a single feather with the statement "A LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE SOURCE OF PROTEIN FOR DOG FOOD" 3) Your statement: "Also indicated as allowable, "blood soaked sawdust" and "wood shavings ... 35% in one and 40% in the other" is not true, nor is the inclusion of "Dried Ruminant Waste" or "Undried Processed Waste Products" in any of the meat by-products definitions including: 9.3 Meat by-products and 9.42 Animal By-Product Meal." 3) My response: Please read page 220 and 221 in the OFFICIAL PUBLICATION 1994 Association of AMERICAN FEED CONTROL OFFICIALS INCORPORATED. 4) Your statement: "Mill Run" is an official term, but it cannot appear in an ingredient statement as you allude." 4) My response: This term has been used in brochures or on labels for dog foods by: PURINA, SCIENCE DIET, and IAMS. I am sure there are more but those are the only ones I have a copy of. 5) Your statement: "The "Digestibility Test" is not a bench procedure. It involves the feeding of animals and analytical measurement of product going into the animal and measurement of feces and urine(sometimes calculated) excreted and subsequent derivation of digestibility. There is an "in vitro" procedure that models digestion with digestive enzymes/acids and grinder/tumblers that duplicate the chemical and mechanical processes of digestion. But neither of these are the test as you have described." 5) My response: Page 346 of my copy of BLAKINSTON'S NEW GOULD MEDICAL DICTIONARY supports the definition that I used at my web site. I ran thousands of "Digestibility Test" in the laboratory when I worked in the food and pharmaceutical industry. Here I will concede a point: IDEALLY, the test could ALSO be run the way you described. But do you realy think that the companies are doing it the "hard way?" 6) Your statement: "The membership of AAFCO includes only government regulators from North America. This includes each of the States, Canada, Puerto Rico, U. S. Federal offices including FDA, USDA, and EPA. Also available to AAFCO is input from the Federal Trade Commission, as needed. There are liaisons from a variety of sources and organizations including, but not limited to, the press, industry, academia, and public advocacy groups. AAFCO does not work for the pet food industry or any other industry. "Reagan's privatization"??? Where did you get that? It is ridiculous! The current members of the Pet Food Committee are: Rod Noel, Indiana State Chemists Office; David Dzanis, Center Vet. Medicine-FDA; George Latimer, Texas State Chemist Office; Steve Martin, Michigan Department of Agriculture; Steve Reymann, Montana Department of Agriculture; and Bob Vandal, North Dakota Department of Agriculture. No industry affiliation in that list." 6) You refudiate the claims at my website with a list of the current members for an AAFCO committee and concluded with: "No industry affiliation in that list." In my web site I list the members of the 1994 committee. In the AAFCO book for 1994 they are listed EXACTLY AS SHOWN at my web site. It is public record that 4 of the 6 were employees of pet food companies at the same time they were on the AAFCO committee. Keep in touch, I think that our ongoing E-mail will help with the number of "hits" I get at my web site and can only help get my message to more people. Yours truly, William D. Cusick, The Animal Advocate

Our E-mail corespondence continues CLICK HERE to view it