Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexbock | Hacker News Reader

The obvious next question then is how the protein and carbohydrate content is measured. That sounds like it would require more difficult analytical methods than bomb calorimetry and might not be worth the time and expense if it were not for the fact that those need to be reported separately on the label anyway.

Brief searching suggests that proteins are measured with a nitrogen content test and fats are determined by mixing the food with a non-polar solvent to see how much dissolves. Carbohydrates seem trickier and I haven't found a great explanation. Water solubility might work once the other components are removed.

View on HN

The protein test was famously faked with melamine in the Chinese dog-food scandal that killed dogs and resulted in a recall:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_recalls

I was following that case closely back in 2007 because of my pet (thankfully not affected). An astonishing thing I learned was that practically every brand of cat food and dog food in North America is/was manufactured by a single company called Menu Foods in Streetsville, Ontario, Canada.

The pet food "brands" don't have their own factories. They all contract it out to the same place. A few journalists remarked on this secret fact that came out because of the recall.

We agonize over which brand is healthier for our cats and dogs, but it's all an illusion. The majority of US and Canadian pet food is made at one factory with the same basic animal ingredients, same quality control, same employees, and the same machines. Maybe they adjust the proportions slightly and tweak the flavors. Then they slap on different labels like Purina, Iams, Royal Canin, whatever.

It's saddening to learn that we really don't have as much choice as we think. I'm much more skeptical and questioning than the average person, and yet I assumed that the pet food's "brand name" somehow made a difference.

>> The majority of US and Canadian pet food is made at one factory

This is true if you're talking about wet pet food - there are other makers of wet pet food and dry pet food (which is over half the market) is made by other companies. Mars/Nestle (the same people who make candy...)

the majority of pet food is meat not fit for human consumption. [1]

if you aren't feeding your pet meat that you eat, it's living on extreme crap.

[1]: http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/dog-food-industry-exposed/unfi...

People like fancy food. That doesn't make non-fancy food extreme crap.

"not fit for human consumption" is not a synonym for "unfancy". It describes the processes involved to arrive at the final food. Filet mignon can be unfit for human consumption, while pigs' feet can be processed correctly and be fit for consumption.

Check this out: http://www.alive.com/health/fit-for-human-consumption/

Animals that are sick or unhealthy are separated from the herd and slaughtered independently, then sold for pet food and livestock feed. This was partly what fostered the mad cow issue.

There is higher risk for illness with non-human grade food. If you don't want higher risk for your pet than child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food.

> if you care about your pet like you do your child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food.

This is... an interesting generational thing, I think. To most older people, the idea of caring as much for your pet as you would for a child seems viscerally wrong. They even economize on pet healthcare. but... among those younger than me, your view, as far as I can tell, seems to be the norm. The very idea that you might be unwilling to go bankrupt paying for medical care for your pets seems abhorrent.

Great point, I have definitely noticed this in my own family. The elders are not only against "wasting" money above the minimum required for sustenance, but they get openly and visibly angry about it when someone else does. For some reason, this particular issue crosses over from "well I wouldn't do it, but to each his own", to seeing it as a fundamentally immoral act. It surprised me in the beginning.

Personally I can't understand the logic. Who cares what species something is, it's just a question of level of consciousness. A dog is pretty much a 2 yr old child. Why have no concern for such a consciousness, whether it's an animal, android, human, or whatever.

>A dog is pretty much a 2 yr old child.

So is a pig, so this logic really only applies to vegetarians. There is still something else that motivates meat eating people to care more for their pets.

> So is a pig, so this logic really only applies to vegetarians.

The quality of life of farm animals should also be respected. If they live their lives in suffering, that shouldn't be taken lightly.

At the same time all animals will die at some point, with or without human intervention. If that death happens at a slightly different time for the reality of the way nature works, that's not inconsistent.

Keep in mind that wild animals don't generally die of old age gracefully on a golf course. More often than not they're ripped apart by some other animal, or starve to death from injury, or are consumed by disease, etc. Death by human hands is probably one of the less cruel fates.

A free-range animal on a cruelty-free farm (if that really exists), with the benefits of human medicine, and a precisely implemented death, is probably one of the happier existences an animal can have.

>that's not inconsistent

Only if you put down any pet immediately when it becomes sick with something non trivial (what we do with farm animals). However, that's not the case when people spend thousands on a pet to keep it alive with complex treatments.

It's pretty clear that the mental abilities or atributes of the animal is not the primary differentiation between 'something like family' and 'something like food.' The differentiation is in the emotional attachment a person has to other animals that belong to the same class as the animal in question.

I mean, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that this is how most people see the matter.

To provide the devil's advocate position, why does mere ownership suddenly imply a much higher duty of care? It would be morally abhorrent if we started euthanizing millions of toddlers who we couldn't find homes for yet we're fine doing the same to pets. What, morally, should be the difference between "pets we can find a home for" and "pets we can't find a home for"?

I think most people would be more repulsed if a child's own parents mis-treated them, rather than if an orphanage did. The whole scale is just shifted up for humans. Bias towards "ownership" still exists.

> This is... an interesting generational thing, I think.

Totally. Not too long ago, pets, and livestock, would be fed table scraps and glad of it.

Like we've been taught - actually shamed - into using soap, deodorant and sundry other 'essentials' to the soap manufacturers well-being, so with pet care.

Curious about what else they'll come up with next to mop up wealth and productivity. It's bound to be amusing.

Are we talking human grade table scraps? :)

Are dogs able to safely digest some foods that humans aren't? I mean, does it really need to be pointed out that dogs have different nutritional and hygiene requirements than human children?

> does it really need to be pointed out that dogs have different nutritional and hygiene requirements than human children

The most common dangers are onions (or things cooked in onions) and chocolate. They contain chemicals that are toxic to dogs and should always be avoided.

Similarly, many humans are allergic to many foods, and not every human can eat all "human-grade" food.

"human-grade" is only a measure of risk of unexpected contents (disease) in the food - not a recommendation that all humans should always eat it.

I was going to say. A number of friends have had their dog chow down on a rotten deer corpse to no ill effect.

My dog will eat other animal feces. His standards for "food" are pretty low.

Lulz

Apparently this trait evolved as a way to keep the nest clean and safe during nursing of pups.

No one is talking about standards. I'm talking about food that might make your dog sick or malnourished.

But to each his own.

I am a veterinarian with an interest in nutrition. While it is true that the vast majority of the brands are virtual brands who have another manufacturer making their food, it is not true for the three brands you have mentioned whose owners sell most of the food sold. Purina (Nestle), Iams (Mars) and Royal Canin (Mars) manufacture their own food, as does Hill's (Colgate-Palmolive) and Pedigree (Mars). Mars, Nestle and Colgate-Palmolive represent over 80% of the market share in pet food. [1]

[1] http://www.slideshare.net/Euromonitor/state-of-the-pet-care-...

One roster:

http://aplusflintriverranch.com/define-menufoods-petfoodreca...

Ok, I was unaware of these SKUs. I will have to ask if they learned their lesson.

> We agonize over which brand is healthier for our cats and dogs, but it's all an illusion.

The fact that one factory makes the food doesn't mean brands are illusion. One factory can make different kinds of food. True, machines and employees are the same, but that does not mean food content is the same - in fact, different companies may very well order very different mixes to be packed on the same equipment.

In fact, the same factory produced Chevrolet Prizm and Toyota Tacoma - but they are hardly the same car.

Out curiosity, is (relatively) unprocessed meat for pets available in supermarkets in north america?

In Australia you can buy packets of kangaroo meat for consumption by pets as kangaroos are essentially pests in many areas. This results in a large supply of meat that has limited commercial value so most supermarkets will stock frozen packets of what is (I believe) 100% kangaroo mince for people to feed to their pets.

Curious if there is an equivalent option elsewhere.

This is the most unique and fun thing Ive seen shared on HN in a while! It makes a ton of sense. I can speak for all of North America, but nothing like that is available in Ontario (the most populous province in Canada). We have dry food and canned meat for dogs and cats, and a new thing showing up in grocery stores in Canada, and walmarts in the US are refrigerated, 'fresh' meat pellets. They are expensive, and spoil quicker than my cat can eat it. I would jump at the chance to have 100% pure shredded meat for my pets. I bet there are lots of happy dogs and cats in AU that dont even know how good they have it :)

> We agonize over which brand is healthier for our cats and dogs, but it's all an illusion.

Does manufacturing the product at the same location imply that the content is the same?

The linked-to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal was way more scandalous.

When bought in bulk, milk isn’t priced by the liter because it is too easy to water it down. Instead, it is priced by kilograms of protein.

Measuring protein is hard, so they measure nitrogen instead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kjeldahl_method#Conversion_fac..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumas_method#Advantages_and_li...). Melamine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine) is cheap, rich in nitrogen, and, unfortunately, poisonous.

This scandal is the reason Dutch supermarkets still limit the amount of baby formula that can be bought per customer, so many Chinese trying to buy up large amounts that there was a risk many stores would run out.

Hong Kong even restricts export of baby formula (and smugglers are regularly arrested on the border to mainland).

I always wonder why they don't just order more from the factory and sell to the Chinese? (Or raise prices.)

Why don't they want to make more money?

I don't know if the factories are manufacturing enough, or capable of ramping up to do so. It's a huge increase in demand. I heard of similar problems in Australia.

Sure, but why not just charge more and sell to the highest bidders?

Because it's baby formula, produced here, and rather vital. Government is _not_ going to stand idly by if it disappears from stores because some other country bids more.

It's called "civilisation"

Civilization is to deny milk powder to people who want to pay for it, just because they are from another side of a border?

From what I know, it is because of export control and regulation.

Nutricia, the Dutch milk powder company, cannot easily sell Dutch milk powder to China because import/export regulations don't easily allow them to do so. So they opened a store in China. But because of Chinese food regulations they cannot use the original formula. But consumers distrust the Chinese store because the formula has been altered. So people keep buying "real" Dutch milk powder fron smugglers.

They went hard on the justice atleast:

"Two people were executed, one given a suspended death penalty, three people receiving life imprisonment, two receiving 15-year jail terms,and seven local government officials, as well as the Director of the Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), being fired or forced to resign"

Stupidly enough, that scandal was partially to blame on the government price caps on milk.

Farmers' inputs were getting more expensive but they were prevented from raising prices. So some farmers were more likely to resort to such poisonous fraud.

Of course, the foreign milk products they import these days are even more expensive.

The same cheat was used in milk in China in '08. Baby formula was effected and babies died. Many companies were doing it and something like 50,000 babies were hospitalised. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

Considering how cheap protein is, you must be the greediest person ever to fake baby formula.

Also this is interesting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_oil

Are these Chinese companies getting rich, or just getting by? Quality food is expense.

The Chinese government capped prices of milk products in a bid to tame inflation.

Isn't the simpler & more plausible explanation that most individual foods aren't measured like that, but rather just by summing up the protein/carbohydrate/fat etc. amounts that go into making the food?

E.g. if you're making frozen pizza just add up flour, the pepperoni etc. you put in and divide it by portion size.

Pizza in particular is an interesting example because I would expect leavened bread products to be one of the cases where summing the components would cause more problems than usual (because you're going to lose sugar and other nutrients to the yeast). I'm not sure how many calories worth of carbs yeast consume during normal bread making, but I would expect it to be measurable. When making wine, yeast can easily consume pounds of sugar within days.

Couldn't things like yeast be handled by some standard pre-computed approximate lookups?

Definitely. You might not even have to consider baking time or temperature to get a good enough number to cover the calorie difference from lost carbohydrates and produced ethanol to meet the level of accuracy required for food labels.

I only brought it up in the first place because whenever a simple solution to a complicated problem is put forward, it will inevitably turn out that it's either not general enough or special cases need to be handled to keep it simple. There's nothing wrong with needing special cases, but it's always nicer to figure out what the special cases will be before someone does a bunch of architectural work that hasn't considered them.

I suspect it's not a large effect for bread. My family bakes our own bread, and I would say without having measured it on a scale, that there's not a noticeable loss of weight from one end of the process to the other. Also, you'd notice the stuff bubbling if there were a significant production of CO2.

I've also made beer, and it bubbles like crazy once it gets working. One possible difference is that bread is made from (mostly) starch, whereas beermaking converts starches to sugars before fermentation, and the yeasts can work more efficiently on sugars.

Of course you can also load up commercial pizza with sugar... one of the reasons why we make our own pizza.

If anyone can find a reference on the amount of CO2 produced during bread making it would be easy enough to calculate. I haven't been able to find any relevant sources except this old one [1] which mentions that the alcohol content in bread can be as high as 1.9 percent (which sounds quite high to me, but it's hard to critique when they don't explain their methodology).

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1709087/?page=1

Well, all I can offer is... tonight is baking night. I will weigh the ingredients, equipment, the risen dough, and the final product.

You could also seal the dough in a large bag, and measure the volume of gas produced.

Won't the yeast get less oxygen that way?

How do you distinguish between evaporated water and respirated CO2?

As an aside: My understanding was that most breads don't vent all that much CO2. Bread doughs are not risen in processes that leave the opportunity for rapid bubble formation and dissolution; If they did, baking after that first rise would give you a layer of thick dense bread, and another layer of fluffy bubble-bread on top.

So far...

Flour 765 g, some white and some whole wheat

Yeast 18 g, probably too much

Water 611 g, eyeballed 600 ml in old glass measuring cup

After kneading 1408 g

After first rising 1416 g

After "punch down" and second rising 1406 g

Formed into loaves, waiting to rise before putting in oven

Edit: After baking, 1271 g

I'm using a creaky old Ohaus dual pan balance, surplus from an industrial lab. The process is not entirely "quantitative" in chemistry terms because there are some minor gains and losses. I have to flour the kneading cloth to prevent sticking, some dough may get lost on my bowl, and so forth.

Presumably that gain after first rising is experimental error? What could cause it to gain weight there?

Probably experimental error.

CO2 is but one of the products of the metabolism via oxygen. Water is another one.

The CO2 escapes, taking C out of the bread. The water (mostly) stays, adding extra O2 into the bread. I don't know which process has the bigger impact on weight of the dough, though. Especially as the dough also dries out over time.

Probably not very much impact, as you say.

I know some smaller brands estimate using the USDA Food Composition Database (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/), which in turn gets its data under the National Food and Nutrient Analysis Program (http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=9446).

This is what I could find about their data:

"Data have been compiled from published and unpublished sources. Published data sources include the scientific literature. Unpublished data include those obtained from the food industry, other government agencies, and research conducted under contracts initiated by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS)." (http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Place/80400525/Data/SR/... <- page 2)

I found this URL that explains different methods of carbohydrate analysis in food: http://people.umass.edu/~mcclemen/581Carbohydrates.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com