That is still pretty useful.
My main beef with NASC is that they have no break for small scale producers of “supplements” and they can’t afford to pay what the big corporate producers can in dues.
So a tiny company that produces an excellent product can’t give customers the assurance that the ingredients are as listed by using the NASC seal.
.
As for efficacy–if the company that produced a supplement had “proof” their stuff did something, then FDA would step in and call it an unapproved new animal drug. 
2 Likes
Definitely more useful than non-members! That’s the biggest issue with unregulated of any sort - NO idea if what’s in it is what’s supposed to be in it. And yes, it’s definitely not exactly looking out for the industry as a whole by pricing smaller companies out 
Yes! BUT, and I should have added this - many think the NASC seal means it actually does something useful
2 Likes
I am sorry I wasn’t more clear. Yes AAFCO is food and supplements but only supplements that fall into their approved ingredients for feed list. For instance, if you create a probiotic supplement that contains a bacteria such as L-rhamnosus that is not on AAFCO’s list, then you cannot call your supplement a probiotic and must label it as Structure/Function.
And where it gets really whacky is how an ingredient is classified or called. For instance Spirulina. By AAFCO rules it can only be labeled as Blue Green Algae. The moment it is labeled as Spirulina, it becomes Structure/Function.
Mineral chelates: In human supplements, an amino acid chelate is a cage chelate (6-8 bonds). In human supplements a proteinate is a chelate with 2 bonds (considered by many to be an inferior chelate).
In equine AAFCO definitions: an amino acid chelate has only 2 bonds, and a proteinate has 6-8 bonds. The exact opposite of human mineral chelation labeling.
Yes, NASC is absolutely voluntary, and has no definition or enforcement of efficacy…however, NASC has taken upon itself to fund research on CBD and animals which I think is just the beginning of their involvement in research on some raw materials. While not perfect I think it is a positive step for the organization and members.
Soy is hidden in a lot of equine and canine supplements as well…can you say d-alpha tocopherol, mineral chelates, protein isolates and some collagens?
They are in the game to make money. Many don’t make their own formulas, they use contract manufacturers just like some human supplement companies do. I have to say some of them are marketing geniuses. And because they aren’t members of NASC, are not held accountable for their labeling, ingredients, and claims.
For consumers, trying to navigate the supplement field is very challenging. I spend a fair amount time every week helping customers de-mystify and identify ingredients in various supplements.
5 Likes
True! Though on some level, the things extracted from soy like the d-alpha tocopherol, are much less an issue than, say, the mineral chelates and others listed, since the allergy deal is typically to a protein, and the d-a t isn’t a protein. The others are potentially a problem BUT, having seen so many horses who are obviously reactive to soy itself, hulls and meal both, who are fine with a forage balancer that contains these things, I think it’s such a low low low level trigger that it would take the very most sensitive horse to react (and I’m sure there are some!)
At least human FDA-approved foods have to say “contains soy” if it has any of those things, other than vegetable oil even if it IS soybean oil. I guess that’s because there’s no protein in oil, and it’s the protein which is almost always the issue. Almost…
Not related to supplements, but this piece made her an Aussie legend.
5 Likes
Forage balancers typically have very few minerals that are AA chelated or are proteinates…and the amount of the actual elemental mineral itself is very small. So way less of an issue for a soy-sensitive horse. Most of the macro minerals in forage balancers are not chelated at all (carbonates, oxides, etc).
I have no idea what large supplement companies pay in dues to NASC but I know my company pays $250.00 month in dues. Which should be doable for a small company.
Now to get the NASC seal: yes, that takes money. Money to certify employees in production, money to have facilities and procedures inspected. Now we are talking thousands of dollars. But to be a member in good standing with NASC is not expensive. You will still get audited on labels, ingredients, website, etc. and help if and when you need (for example: dealing with California!) You just can’t put the NASC seal on products or your website.
If you join NASC, then you will be expected to show up at the annual NASC convention…I send my Production Manager every year (she enjoys it) and they generally have a pretty good slate of seminars on various topics such as regulation, labeling, industry issues, specific ingredients, marketing, etc.
I don’t find the NASC seal of that much interest to customers. So for my company, deciding to join the NASC ten years ago was about protecting the company and making sure we adhere to their rules on production procedures, assays, lab testing, raw material handling and chain of custody, labeling and claims…while also maintaining our organic standards.
5 Likes
Yes, Mg is typically oxide due to having to use less to get the same amount into the horse since it has reasonably high bioavailability and elemental Mg % as a combination, AND it’s cheap. Most forage balancers don’t have other macro minerals, sometimes not even Mg. The trace minerals are sometimes an AA or proteinate (like Vermont Blend, Arizona Copper Complete, KIS Trace probably some others), though some use polysaccharide forms (California Trace, propably others). And yes, you’re right, the amount is so small, thankfully for those horses!
I don’t think most people even know what it is. It seemed to be a bigger deal when it was created, but maybe that was just the nature of a new thing. Now I rarely see someone suggesting others only go with NASC products, or comment that a product does/doesn’t have the label
1 Like
The Ponease Saga continues! Now they have falsified a “report” claiming how effective their ulcer supplement is, using a vet who was deceased prior to the “trial” being conducted.
And by all accounts, a lovely vet too.
7 Likes
