Animal Food Labeling; Declaration of Certifiable Color Additives
animal food labeling declaration of certifiable color additives Center for Veterinary Medicine 2015-247 OMB Control Number 0910-0721 2015-784
2018-03-30 2021-03-08 2010-01-04 2009-12-09 2021-03-08 2021-03-08 2021-03-08 2021-03-08 2021-03-08 2021-03-08
FDA-2009-N-0025-0012 FDA-2009-N-0025-0024 FDA-2009-N-0025-0004 FDA-2009-N-0025-0003 FDA-2009-N-0025-0026 FDA-2009-N-0025-0019 FDA-2009-N-0025-0025 FDA-2009-N-0025-0029 FDA-2009-N-0025-0032 FDA-2009-N-0025-0034
04:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00 05:00:00
https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0012 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0024 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0004 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0003 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0026 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0019 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0025 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0029 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0032 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/FDA-2009-N-0025-0034
Anonymous Adele Anonymous Anonymous Ronald Anonymous P Arian Angela Seth
Anonymous Gaskin Anonymous Anonymous Krikorian Anonymous Ianniello Heald Bertucci Levinson
The information collection is essential to the FDAs performance and the information may become important down the line.  The collection of information regarding the burden to manufacturers of pet food that are required to include the presence of color additives on their animal food product labels is necessary if the FDA ever wanted to re-write the rule after another notice and comment period. The information would be informative and beneficial to those who might want to comment on a proposed regulation to change the current requirement. However, as someone who purchases pet food, I find the regulation of the requirement of the informative labels to be important. Therefore, I find this particular collection of information to be trivial. I did review the numbers that the FDA estimated and the total burden to the manufacturers and I think that the burden to them is considerable low compared to the importance of the informative food labelsI assume that the FDAs estimations are correct based on the method they used to get to their final number. The only thing that I suggest would be that the information be a little less vague in that it explains a little more in depth how the FDA estimated the number of manufacturers with sales greater than zero to be 25,874 and how they estimated the flow of new products to be 10 percent, etc. A more precise estimation may be of greater help in the future.  I think it is more valuable to know the quality of ingredients in pet foods-to be assured the food is not made from diseased, degrading animals than to worry about dyes at this point. When that is taken care of then dyes can be dealt with. Very disappointed in the way pet foods have become a dumping ground for unusable animals. After some research into this topic, I have come to my personal opinion that this amendment should be approved for the following reasons: 1)Child food dye allergies  Children have been diagnosed with more and more food allergies in the past decade or so. Children may be exposed to the foods given to their pets and should be warned of the risk involved in handling or being exposed to the product. One may not know what their level of allergy is until it is too late. For some, a rash or perhaps respiratory problems, and death have even been the result in some cases. 2) The right to know  In general, consumers have the right to know what is in the products they are buying and consuming, whether it be for themselves, for their children, or for their pets. And for some people, pets are their children. The FDA would not deny a mothers right to know what is in her childs breakfast, so why would a pet lover not have the right to know what is in their pets meal? 3) Animals are not necessarily tested for allergies or intolerances as humans are. Basically they are just given food that their owner thinks is (or will be) good for them. An owner may make an educated decision to stay away from an ingredient that holds a higher risk to a reaction based public notification or outbreaks from certain products. In conclusion, the bottom line is that animals have rights and they should be treat like humans. The have the right to a nutrients meal and the owners have the right to know what is in  their animals food. I am not that fun of animals, but I believe that we owe it to them to feed them as best we can base on the knowledge we obtain through the manufacturers and governments that regulate. After some research into this topic, I have come to my personal opinion that this amendment should be approved for the following reasons: 1)Child food dye allergies  Children have been diagnosed with more and more food allergies in the past decade or so.  Children may be exposed to the foods given to their pets and should be warned of the risk involved in handling or being exposed to the product.  One may not know what their level of allergy is until it is too late.  For some, a rash or perhaps respiratory problems, and death has even been the result in some cases. 2)The vegan community is ever-growing.  Some pet owners only want the best for their animals, including the knowledge of what exactly is in their pets diet.  Some foods are tinted with the dye that is extracted from carmine, which a pigment is obtained from insects.  Vegans would not be happy knowing that they gave their animals contaminated products.  3)The right to know  In general, consumers have the right to know what is in the products they are buying and consuming, whether it be for themselves, for their children, or for their pets.  And for some people, pets are their children.  The FDA would not deny a mothers right to know what is in her childs breakfast, so why would a pet lover not have the right to know what is in their pets meal? 4)Animals are not necessarily tested for allergies or intolerances as humans are.  Basically they are just given food that their owner thinks is (or will be) good for them.  An owner may make an educated decision to stay away from an ingredient that holds a higher risk to a reaction based public notification or outbreaks from certain products. In conclusion, the bottom line is that animals have rights. As a fan of animals, I believe that we owe it to them to feed them as best we can based on the knowledge we obtain through the manufacturers and governments that regulate. Susan THIXTON has once again hit the nail on the head! Im not as concerned about the dyes as I am about the diseased  dying animal carcasses used in our pets food is rediculous! For the FDA to say they see nothing wrong in using this is asinine! I seriously disagree with the stance the FDA is taking regarding ingredients in pet foods. If it is helpful for a consumer to be knowledgeable about dyes and additives as they shop for their pets, then why wouldnt it be helpful for owners to know if ingredients sourced from diseased animals, condemned animals or animals that have died other than by slaughter are included in the pet food. The stance of the FDA not to disclose illegal waste ingredients to the pet consumer makes NO sense whatsoever. Pet owners pay for this food and deserve to know what they are feeding their pets. Along the line of full transparency, please, FDA, step up and do the job you are supposed to be doing. I want to know what is in my pets food!We ask FDA to consider  if color additives help pet owners to comparison shop and avoid substances they dont want their pet to consume, why wouldnt the disclosure of ingredients sourced from diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter provide consumers the same benefit? To refuse to require pet food labels to disclose this vital information to pet owners is unjust (at the very least). I agree with FDAs belief that pet owners will benefit from pet food label disclosures of color additives. However, I am dismayed that FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine does not require disclosure on pet food labels of illegal ingredients specifically allowed by FDA enforcement discretion.Dr. Steven Solomon stated in response to Citizen Petition FDA-2016-P-3578 we do not believe that the use of diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter to make animal food poses a safety concern and we intend to exercise enforcement discretion.I ask FDA to consider  if color additives help pet owners to comparison shop and avoid substances I dont want my pet to consume, why wouldnt the disclosure of ingredients sourced from diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter provide me, the consumer, the same benefit? To refuse to require pet food labels to disclose this vital information to pet owners is unjust (at the very least). We ask FDA to consider  if color additives help pet owners to comparison shop and avoid substances they dont want their pet to consume, why wouldnt the disclosure of ingredients sourced from diseased animals or animals that died otherwise than by slaughter provide consumers the same benefit? To refuse to require pet food labels to disclose this vital information to pet owners is unjust (at the very least). Greetings, while I agree that pet owners deserve to know if their pets food contains color additives I also strongly urge the FDA to clearly state when ingredients are sourced from diseased animals, condemned animals or animals that have died other than by slaughter. We deserve to know. 