In partnership with
Hey friend,
Last time, we learned how the Pet Food Institute scared a nation away from their dinner plates and into the arms of commercial kibble.
Grand. Mission accomplished for them.
But that left the industry with a slightly awkward scientific problem:
How do you prove that the brown pellets puffed out of a breakfast cereal machine are a complete and balanced diet for a living, breathing wolf-descendant?
To answer that, we need to talk about the two most important and most confusing acronyms in your dog's food bowl:
NRC and AAFCO
One of them is science.
The other is… something else entirely.
The "Gold Standard" That Wasn't Profitable Enough
For decades, the true scientific authority on what dogs need to eat was the National Research Council (NRC).
The NRC is an independent, nonprofit group of actual animal nutrition scientists. Their job was simple in theory, messy in reality:
Study the research, look at the biology, and define the nutrient requirements of dogs at every life stage.
For many years, if a food was labeled "complete and balanced," it meant it met NRC standards.
But meeting the standards on paper wasn't enough.
To truly earn that claim, the NRC insisted on something the pet food industry found… inconvenient.
Feeding trials.
Real dogs.
Real food.
Real outcomes.
A manufacturer had to feed a group of dogs only the diet being tested and then ask:
• Do the dogs maintain healthy weight?
• Do they grow normally?
• Can they reproduce and raise healthy puppies?
It was the closest thing we had to real-world evidence.
But here's the problem…
Feeding trials are expensive.
Back in the 80s, they cost around $7,000 to $10,000 per formula.
And even worse: they might reveal the food wasn't actually good enough.
You can imagine how that went down in boardrooms.
They wanted something cheaper… and easier to pass.
The Fox Guards the Henhouse: Meet AAFCO
So the industry built a new authority, new rules, and a new escape hatch:
AAFCO - the Association of American Feed Control Officials.
The name sounds government-y and official.
It is neither.
AAFCO is a private organization with deep industry involvement. Not a federal body. Not a scientific institution. A rulebook shaped by the same companies who sell the food.
And in the 1980s, AAFCO gave the industry its favorite present:
The Formulation Method
Instead of having to prove a diet works by feeding it to dogs, a company could now:
• Run a chemical analysis
• Compare the numbers to AAFCO's minimums
• If the spreadsheet looks right… boom, "complete and balanced"
That's it.
No dogs required.
No observation of digestion.
No check for bioavailability… meaning, can a dog's body actually use those nutrients?
It's like claiming you baked a perfect cake because you weighed the flour and sugar… without ever putting it in the oven to see if it rises.
Cheap.
Tidy.
Convenient.
And completely disconnected from biology.
Then the NRC Fought Back… and the Industry Revolted
In 1985, the NRC updated its guidelines and said, plainly:
"Users are advised to obtain evidence of nutritional adequacy by direct feeding to dogs."
Translation:
Show us the data from real dogs, not just a spreadsheet. The proof is in the feeding.
Industry reaction?
Absolute fury.
Within a few years, AAFCO stopped following NRC standards entirely.
They created their own nutrient tables, their own looser rules, and even added their own "safety margins" - literal fudge factors - to cover for the imprecision of the formulation method.
The science didn't change.
The standards did.
Because the standards were now written by the companies selling the food.
And Here's the Truth No One Says Out Loud
AAFCO standards are not the gold standard.
They are the industry minimum.
A cheap bag of kibble and a high-end bag can both say "complete and balanced"... but the phrase itself is a low bar set by the industry, for the industry. It guarantees survival, not thriving. It means "not deficient," not "optimally healthy."
Under AAFCO, a manufacturer can claim nutritional adequacy without ever feeding a dog a single bite. Let that sink in.
So here's the big question…
Should the rules for your dog's bowl be written by:
A. Independent scientists who study canine health?
or
B. The corporations who profit from it?
For the last forty years, it's been B. And our dogs are paying the price.
Sláinte,
Linda & Blue 🐾
P.S. Stay tuned. The next email answers the big question: “So if the rules are weak… what’s actually in my dog’s food?”
Want to make sure you don't miss the next chapter in our kibble investigation? Subscribe to Dog Blueprints for free and get the truth delivered straight to your inbox.
The best HR advice comes from people who’ve been in the trenches.
That’s what this newsletter delivers.
I Hate it Here is your insider’s guide to surviving and thriving in HR, from someone who’s been there. It’s not about theory or buzzwords — it’s about practical, real-world advice for navigating everything from tricky managers to messy policies.
Every newsletter is written by Hebba Youssef — a Chief People Officer who’s seen it all and is here to share what actually works (and what doesn’t). We’re talking real talk, real strategies, and real support — all with a side of humor to keep you sane.
Because HR shouldn’t feel like a thankless job. And you shouldn’t feel alone in it.