Beyond the Label: The Release of the 2026/27 Treat List and the Crisis of Transparency in the Pet Industry

In an era where pet owners increasingly view their animals as integral family members, the demand for transparency in the pet food supply chain has reached a fever pitch. On the heels of this growing consumer movement, Susan Thixton, a prominent pet food consumer advocate and founder of TruthaboutPetFood.com, has officially released the 2026/27 Treat List. This curated guide identifies 44 pet treat brands that have successfully navigated a rigorous, document-based verification process to prove their claims of quality and safety.

While the list serves as a practical purchasing guide for pet owners, its publication highlights a deeper, more systemic issue within the American regulatory landscape: the significant gap between marketing claims and the reality of ingredients allowed in pet products.

Main Facts: A Counter-Response to Regulatory Gaps

The 2026/27 Treat List is more than a simple recommendation engine; it is a document born out of necessity due to what advocates describe as a "regulatory vacuum." In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) provide the framework for pet food labeling. However, these organizations rarely verify the high-level marketing claims made on packaging, such as "human-grade," "organic," or "humanely raised," unless a specific legal challenge or safety crisis arises.

The Treat List identifies 44 brands that Susan Thixton personally trusts for her own pets. The selection process is notably stringent:

• Verification over Marketing: Brands must provide physical evidence (USDA inspection documents, organic certifications, and sourcing invoices) to back up their claims.
• Human-Grade Standards: Every brand included utilizes ingredients that meet "human-edible" standards or are sourced from USDA-inspected and passed animals.
• Independence: No brand pays a fee to be included, and no free products are accepted by the investigators. The list is entirely consumer-supported to maintain editorial independence.

The list covers a variety of formats, including dehydrated single-ingredient treats, biscuit-style cookies, and cheese-based snacks. While primarily focused on the North American market, the document serves as a global benchmark for what "clean" pet treats should look like.

Chronology: From the 2007 Recalls to the 2026/27 Standards

To understand the significance of the 2026/27 Treat List, one must look at the timeline of pet food advocacy over the last two decades.

The Catalyst: The 2007 Melamine Crisis

The modern pet food advocacy movement was largely galvanized by the 2007 melamine recalls, where contaminated vegetable proteins from China led to the deaths and illnesses of thousands of pets across North America. This event exposed the fragility of the global pet food supply chain and the lack of oversight regarding imported ingredients.

2010–2020: The Rise of the "Human-Grade" Movement

Following the recalls, Susan Thixton and other advocates began a decade-long push for clearer definitions. During this period, the term "human-grade" became a marketing buzzword. However, in 2017, AAFCO established stricter guidelines for the use of this term, requiring that every ingredient in a product—and the facility itself—meet human food safety standards. This led to a split in the industry: companies that could prove these standards and those that used the term merely as "marketing puffery."

2024–2025: The Documentation Phase

The preparation for the 2026/27 list involved a multi-year effort of correspondence with manufacturers. Throughout 2024 and early 2025, Thixton’s team issued exhaustive questionnaires to hundreds of companies. The 44 brands that made the final cut were those willing to provide "hundreds of documents" verifying the path of their ingredients from the farm to the processing plant.

Supporting Data: The Hidden Reality of "Feed-Grade" Ingredients

The core motivation for the Treat List lies in the legal distinction between "food" and "feed." Under federal law, "food" is generally expected to be safe for human consumption. "Feed," however, is a category that allows for lower quality standards, often including what the industry calls "4D" meats: animals that arrived at the slaughterhouse Dead, Dying, Diseased, or Disabled.

The FDA’s Stance on Waste Ingredients

A pivotal piece of supporting data cited by Thixton is a statement from the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), which notes: “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 continue to exercise enforcement discretion.”

This "enforcement discretion" means that while it is technically a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to include decomposed or diseased tissues in food, the FDA chooses not to penalize pet food manufacturers for doing so. This creates a market where a bag of treats can legally contain rendered waste while the front of the bag displays images of prime cuts of steak.

Sourcing and Manufacturing Tiers

The 2026/27 Treat List categorizes its 44 brands based on their manufacturing scale:

1. Small-Scale Artisans: Brands operating out of home-based, inspected kitchens or small local facilities.
2. Independent Manufacturers: Companies that own their own specialized facilities to ensure no cross-contamination with feed-grade materials.
3. Human-Grade Certified: Brands that have undergone the rigorous process of ensuring their entire supply chain is USDA-compliant for human consumption.

Official Responses: The Regulatory Stance vs. Consumer Advocacy

The release of the Treat List often puts consumer advocates at odds with regulatory bodies and large-scale trade associations.

The Regulatory Perspective

The FDA and AAFCO generally maintain that the current system of "feed-grade" ingredients is safe and provides a sustainable way to utilize animal by-products that would otherwise go to landfills. They argue that the rendering process—high-heat cooking that kills pathogens—renders these ingredients safe for animal consumption.

However, the Treat List argues that "safe" is not the same as "nutritious" or "high-quality." The advocacy position is that consumers have a right to know if their pet’s treats are made from "passed" USDA meat or from "salvaged" waste materials.

The Industry Response

While major pet food conglomerates often rely on the aforementioned "enforcement discretion," the 44 brands on the Treat List have taken a different approach. By opting into Thixton’s verification process, these companies are betting on transparency as a competitive advantage. These manufacturers often state that the cost of sourcing human-grade ingredients is significantly higher, but the resulting consumer trust justifies the price point.

The Role of the Association for Truth in Pet Food (ATPF)

The Treat List is a primary funding mechanism for the Association for Truth in Pet Food. As a stakeholder organization, the ATPF represents pet owners at AAFCO meetings and during FDA listening sessions. Their presence ensures that the "consumer voice" is heard in rooms typically dominated by industry lobbyists.

Implications: The Future of the Pet Treat Market

The publication of the 2026/27 Treat List has several long-term implications for the industry and the millions of pet owners who navigate it.

1. The Shift Toward "Radical Transparency"

As digital products like the Treat List become more accessible, the "black box" of pet food manufacturing is being forced open. Brands that refuse to disclose their sourcing may find themselves losing market share to smaller, more transparent competitors. The fact that the list includes brands available directly through websites indicates a shift away from traditional big-box retail toward direct-to-consumer (DTC) models where education is part of the sale.

2. Economic Pressures on Quality

The variable pricing of the Treat List ($5 to $50) reflects a "pay-what-you-can" model designed to support advocacy. This highlights the economic reality of the movement: independent oversight is expensive. As inflation impacts the cost of human-grade meat, the price gap between "feed-grade" treats and those on the 2026/27 List is likely to widen, potentially turning high-quality pet nutrition into a luxury tier.

3. Legal and Policy Pressure

By documenting the FDA’s "enforcement discretion" regarding diseased animals, Thixton and the ATPF are building a record that could eventually lead to legislative challenges. If public awareness of the "4D" meat allowance reaches a tipping point, there may be a renewed push for the "Purr Act" or similar legislation to modernize pet food labeling and safety standards.

4. Consumer Empowerment

Ultimately, the 2026/27 Treat List represents a shift in power. For decades, pet owners were forced to rely solely on the images and claims provided by manufacturers. Today, through the work of independent advocates and the cooperation of transparent brands, pet owners have access to a verified "white list."

As Susan Thixton notes in the document, she "ONLY gives [her] own pets food and treats made with human grade/human edible ingredients." The release of this list allows thousands of other pet owners to apply that same standard of care, regardless of the gaps in federal oversight.

About the Document: The 2026/27 Treat List is a digital PDF product available through TruthaboutPetFood.com. Proceeds from the list support the advocacy work of the Association for Truth in Pet Food, a 100% consumer-supported organization that accepts no funding from the pet food industry.