Purina v Blue Buffalo Lawsuit

[Gertie]

Oh boy. Looks like all the folks that have been buying Blue Buffalo have been "mislead".

http://www.poisonedpets.com/blue-buffal ... consumers/

[luvthemud]

I predict a consumer class action lawsuit isn't far behind.

Edit: turns out, there are already a ton of lawsuits issued against them from consumers. Guessing this admission will pretty much seal the deal for those.

The internet is sure a buzz about this lol! Lots of not happy people on various forums, blogs, and comment sections!

[RayGubernat]

Just another example of the power of advertising. The truth is what you make it. If you tell a lie often enough and convincingly enough, eventually it becomes the truth...to most people.

Eisenhower told his media people to take reels and reels of film an as many stills as they could, when they uincovered the Nazi concentration camps at the close of WWII. He said that without voluminous and indisputable documented evidence, sooner, rather than later, someone would be claiming that the Holocaust did not happen or that is was very much overblown and overstated. And the deliberate extermination of twenty million Jews, Catholics, Gypsies and Russians(mostly UKranians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians), the greatest single mass crime against humanity, would be lost to history.

Eisenhower was a smart man. He knew about spin doctors and the power of disinformation and misinformation.

Blue Buffalo claims to be the best dogfood out there for your dog. Where is their proof? What clinical studies have they run? Where is the data?

It is in the cloud.

Say what you want about Purina...they put their money where their mouth is. They HAVE the proof.


RayG

[ezzy333]

I just can't feel real sorry for the people who have been using Blue Buffalo as it was quite evident what the marketing strategy was and still is. I think their food is OK but their advertising was all a bunch of lies that should have been evident to anyone with an ounce of common sense or any knowledge of animal nutrition. I agree with Ray, say something often enough and people start believing it even though there is not any evidence that it is true. There is a lot to be said about most old reliable companies and the products that have lasted over time.

[DonF]

I've done a few custom feed's and have never seen where they were noticeably any better than a lot of existing feeds. Haven't fed Purina in a lot of years but fed other grocery store feeds a lot of years, namely Pedigree. It get's slammed by a lot of people but somehow I think the vast majority of them never tried it in the first place. I don't feed it anymore but that is only because they kept raising the price and dropping the weight per bag. I still feed a grocery store feed and said it one time. I was told it's first ingredient was corn and that was terrible. Well I read on the bag and it say's the first ingredient it meat meal. Obviously there are a lot of people that never have tried it or read the ingredient's! Yet they still scream about how bad the feed is. Lot of people feed custom feed's, like Blue Buffalo, without a clue if it produce's better result's, advertising at it's best. if a feed doesn't let down my dog's when they are running and it's at a price I can afford, I feed it. i might feed a custom feed again but the price is gonna have to come way down. Price of most of that stuff, they must be putting sirloin steak in it!

[Spy Car]

This is a case of outright duplicity, but there is a larger industry-wide problem with dog food labeling laws.

Purina has the technology to determine exactly what is in Blue Buffalo, and know what goes into its own products, but do they list the exact percentages of ingredients (with-in a margin of error) on their bags? Do they list the percentage of carbohydrates in the formulas? No. And no.

it isn't just Purina. Or Blue Buffalo. The whole industry is built on hiding real nutritional information from consumers. Formulas are created specifically to drive a perception that grains and fillers are low on the ingredient list. When Purina puts corn gluten meal (second ingredient), whole grain corn, corn germ meal (in addition to rice, the third ingredient) in their so-called top of the line Pro Plan Sport they are practicing ingredient splitting, which is designed to make the grain content seem lower than it really is. There is a distinction between outright lying (which Blue Buffalo has done) and misleading the consumer by exploiting legal labeling laws that were designed to protect the industry, but in both cases the intent is deceptive.

One telling part of the linked article was this:

Animal by-products generally are thought to include organs — lung, spleen, kidney, brain, liver — blood, bone, fatty tissue, stomach and intestines. Which, under certain circumstances, could be perfectly fine ingredients, as long as they were not rendered. Unfortunately, meat meals are typically the result of rendering, a process involving one of the meat industry’s most revolting aspects of dealing with slaughterhouse waste.

One unfortunate irony is many so-called "animal by-products" (if they are fresh, wholesome, and uncontaminated) are outstanding sources of canine nutrition. But what is allowed under industry practices when ingredients are "rendered" is a scandal. Downed, deceased, dying, and drugged animals that are condemned for human use are all legal ingredients if they are sent to rendering plants. Same with grossly contaminated slaughterhouse waste.

While I'm glad to see Purina blow the whistle on a competitor, their own practices would make one sick if the real truths about how dog kibble is made were well known.

Yuck.

Bill

[shags]

Anyone feeds BB because their dogs do well on it, good for them. But if they feed it because they want to be like the dog-mom in the ads, to be a good "pet parent" ( what an obnoxious term!) and to feed their animals like they feed the humans in their families, then they deserve to be robbed of their hard earned cash. Can't fix stupid.

I fed Purina for a while and the only problem I had with it is inconsistency in apperance and odor from bag to bag. We've been using Diamond products for years now with no problems, dogs doing great on it, and my wallet doesn't lose weight on it.

My dogs eat plenty of stuff that is revolting and that I wouldn't touch. Not a problem, as long as they do OK. There are delicacies enjoyed by other cultures that I couldn't force myself to consume but that doesn't mean they are bad or harmful. When someone shows harmful effects of by products rendered or not, I might rethink things. In the meantime my dogs can continue to enjoy the the various animal pieces parts they find, and all the fresh horse turds they want as well kibble containing grain or by product meal.

[Waterfowler21]

This entire topic just bugs the heck out of me. Apparently the only way to feed your pets is to cook them a fresh meal every night? Doesn't seem to be a good choice for dog food anywhere. I have zero clue what I will buy when I get my V in a month.

[ezzy333]

This is a case of outright duplicity, but there is a larger industry-wide problem with dog food labeling laws.

Purina has the technology to determine exactly what is in Blue Buffalo, and know what goes into its own products, but do they list the exact percentages of ingredients (with-in a margin of error) on their bags? Do they list the percentage of carbohydrates in the formulas? No. And no.

it isn't just Purina. Or Blue Buffalo. The whole industry is built on hiding real nutritional information from consumers. Formulas are created specifically to drive a perception that grains and fillers are low on the ingredient list. When Purina puts corn gluten meal (second ingredient), whole grain corn, corn germ meal (in addition to rice, the third ingredient) in their so-called top of the line Pro Plan Sport they are practicing ingredient splitting, which is designed to make the grain content seem lower than it really is. There is a distinction between outright lying (which Blue Buffalo has done) and misleading the consumer by exploiting legal labeling laws that were designed to protect the industry, but in both cases the intent is deceptive.

One telling part of the linked article was this:

Animal by-products generally are thought to include organs — lung, spleen, kidney, brain, liver — blood, bone, fatty tissue, stomach and intestines. Which, under certain circumstances, could be perfectly fine ingredients, as long as they were not rendered. Unfortunately, meat meals are typically the result of rendering, a process involving one of the meat industry’s most revolting aspects of dealing with slaughterhouse waste.

One unfortunate irony is many so-called "animal by-products" (if they are fresh, wholesome, and uncontaminated) are outstanding sources of canine nutrition. But what is allowed under industry practices when ingredients are "rendered" is a scandal. Downed, deceased, dying, and drugged animals that are condemned for human use are all legal ingredients if they are sent to rendering plants. Same with grossly contaminated slaughterhouse waste.

While I'm glad to see Purina blow the whistle on a competitor, their own practices would make one sick if the real truths about how dog kibble is made were well known.

Yuck.

Bill

We have had this discussion before but you know not of what you speak. Any company has the ability to lab test their feed as well as every other company and not only do they have the ability they have to use it by law before putting any information on their label. They do not and never will put their formula on the bag but they do list the important values that are required for all feeds and human foods. The industry is built on providing a product that the customer needs or wants. It is not built on someone's opinion that is convinced the whole dog food industry is based on lets see how many people and dogs can we fool or kill. As far as grain splitting, I have no idea where you get your idea of ingredient splitting from as the ingredients are listed in the manner they are required to list them in and that is again true with pet, livestock, and human food. Your example of different ingredient that are corn based are all completely different ingredients. If they use whole corn as an ingredient they do not have to split it up by listing oil, carb, protein, or mineral content though it is figured in when they guarantee the total content of the feed. But Corn Gluten is one of the most complete protein sources we have ever found and corn oil is a good vegetable oil that is used in many feeds. But of course neither can be listed as Corn since they are not corn. And they do use different grains so the y have to be listed separately. Their was a move afoot a few years back to just list animal protein and vegetable protein, which is legal but most have found the consumer wanted more knowledge so few list that way in the pet food industry as a consideration to their customers. And the reference to the ingredients not used in human food is poorer than the ingredients that are. Seldom is that the case as usually the only difference in human compared to animal is the difference in storing and handling and not in the ingredient itself. But there again, most knowledgeable people realize that people and dogs are different and many things we wouldn't or couldn't eat are great for dogs and are on their desirable list. It is just silly to compared a dog feed on the basis of is it safe for human consumption. I just don't often think of intestines, organs, or three day old road kill on my list of things I can't do without while your dog would rank them high on its lists of things it loves. And as far as one of the very best ingredients that go into a dog food, chicken by-product Meal probably ranks Number One as far as healthful nutrition.

I will let you explain what you think rendering does to make a product unfit for animal consumption since I don't know where you are coming from except what you have read some place. As I have said before, we have gone over this same story a hundred times and the result has always been the same, our performance dogs are very nearly 100% fed the feeds you are trying desperately to run down and doing well while the idea you think are so much better just don't measure up well in that situation. But you have the right to feed what you want because you think it is good and the rest have the same right and do not need to continually hear from a very few that we don't know what we are doing. Think what you want and let us do the same. After all we have the proof on our side.

[ezzy333]

This entire topic just bugs the heck out of me. Apparently the only way to feed your pets is to cook them a fresh meal every night? Doesn't seem to be a good choice for dog food anywhere. I have zero clue what I will buy when I get my V in a month.

You can buy anyone of a hundred brands and you will be OK. Some are better for specific purposes than others but there is little wrong with any feed that is on the market and especially if they have been in business for a number of years. Just don't get caught up in all the marketing hype or the few that continually try to run a dog food down that has been used for years. It probably is an area that should worry you less than practically any other area of dog ownership. If you are truly stumped a good rule to follow is find a food that is readily available on a daily basis, one you can afford, and one your dog likes and you have probably found a great feed for your pup.

Ezzy

[Spy Car]

We have had this discussion before but you know not of what you speak. Any company has the ability to lab test their feed as well as every other company and not only do they have the ability they have to use it by law before putting any information on their label.

I know exactly of where I speak Ezzy. I know very well that companies know what is in their food—that is beyond obvious—what they fail to do is to inform the consumer precisely what's in the formula. Not only do they not inform the consumer, they engage in ingredient splitting that makes grains and fillers appear to be lower in the ingredient list than items consumers believe to be "quality products" (which are generally rendered meats of dubious quality). That is standard practice.

They do not and never will put their formula on the bag but they do list the important values that are required for all feeds and human foods.

They have the information and don't and probably never will (unless forced by legislation) to reveal exactly what is in the bag. You are correct about that, but that is a bad thing.

The industry is built on providing a product that the customer needs or wants.

That excuses any practice. Pet food companies =mother ads and food bags with photos of fresh nutritious whole foods, but that ain't what's inside. The consumer is deliberately mislead about the realities of how dog food is produced, and from what sources. Downed, diseased, dead, drugged animals and condemned/contaminated slaughterhouse waste is all legal to render and use in dog food, and it is standard practice. Which you know is the case.

As far as grain splitting, I have no idea where you get your idea of ingredient splitting from as the ingredients are listed in the manner they are required to list them in and that is again true with pet, livestock, and human food. Your example of different ingredient that are corn based are all completely different ingredients.

I know whole corn, corn gluten meal, and corn germ meal, are all "different ingredients" Ezzy. So are rice, brewers rice, wheat middlings, etc. So list how much of each are in the formula. Why not? Well, because now "Chicken" is first on the list. But say the formula was 12% Chicken, 11% corn gluten meal, 10% rice, 9% corn, and 7% corn germ meal, one now has 49% grains vs 12% Chicken. Looking at the bag, consumer thinks "Chicken" is the top ingredient, but the reality is food companies split grains very statically so people don't realize there might be 49% grain. It is done to create an impression the customer is getting more "quality" parts than a real listing of percentages would show.

If they use whole corn as an ingredient they do not have to split it up by listing oil, carb, protein, or mineral content though it is figured in when they guarantee the total content of the feed.

You're missing the point. Nowhere on the "guaranteed analysis" of the whole formula do manufacturers list the percentage of carbohydrates. They don't want consumers to know.

But Corn Gluten is one of the most complete protein sources we have ever found and corn oil is a good vegetable oil that is used in many feeds.

Corn gluten meal is a low quality by-product that is lacking in essential amino acids. Dog food manufactures like to put it in formulas like Purina Pro Plan because (on paper) it gives the protein percentages a boost. But please don't tell us corn gluten meal is comparable with meat.

But of course neither can be listed as Corn since they are not corn. And they do use different grains so the y have to be listed separately.

Duh. But the percentages of each could be listed (but aren't). You again miss the point, the grains are split strategically so there can be a lot of various grains (or variations of corn, etc) and companies are careful to make sure they keep those grains as low as possible on the ingredient list.

Their was a move afoot a few years back to just list animal protein and vegetable protein, which is legal but most have found the consumer wanted more knowledge so few list that way in the pet food industry as a consideration to their customers. And the reference to the ingredients not used in human food is poorer than the ingredients that are. Seldom is that the case as usually the only difference in human compared to animal is the difference in storing and handling and not in the ingredient itself. But there again, most knowledgeable people realize that people and dogs are different and many things we wouldn't or couldn't eat are great for dogs and are on their desirable list. It is just silly to compared a dog feed on the basis of is it safe for human consumption. I just don't often think of intestines, organs, or three day old road kill on my list of things I can't do without while your dog would rank them high on its lists of things it loves. And as far as one of the very best ingredients that go into a dog food, chicken by-product Meal probably ranks Number One as far as healthful nutrition.

Well, I don't feed my dog three day old road kill, or intestines, but organs, lung, green tripe, chichen feet? You bet. As I say, one of the ironies is "by products" get slammed, when many of them (if they are fresh and from wholesome sources) are very fine ingredients for dog's meals. Organs are a vital source of vitamins.

I will let you explain what you think rendering does to make a product unfit for animal consumption since I don't know where you are coming from except what you have read some place.

it is what's allowed to be rendered. You've never denied that it is totally legal to use downer, diseased, and dying animals in dog food. You act like I'm a know-nothing boob, but I know the truth of that. Items that are condemned at the slaughter house can be shipped off to the rendering plant. I happens as standard routine. Say it ain't so.

As I have said before, we have gone over this same story a hundred times and the result has always been the same, our performance dogs are very nearly 100% fed the feeds you are trying desperately to run down and doing well while the idea you think are so much better just don't measure up well in that situation. But you have the right to feed what you want because you think it is good and the rest have the same right and do not need to continually hear from a very few that we don't know what we are doing. Think what you want and let us do the same. After all we have the proof on our side.

"Trying desperately to run down" Ezzy? I'd say these are practice you're desperately trying to defend. Why not let the consumer really be aware of what's in the bag? That does not happen now.

Purina is hardly a pillar of virtue in the way it markets and labels its food. Consumers deserve better information.

Bill

[Spy Car]

This entire topic just bugs the heck out of me. Apparently the only way to feed your pets is to cook them a fresh meal every night? Doesn't seem to be a good choice for dog food anywhere. I have zero clue what I will buy when I get my V in a month.

That was my dilemma when I got my Vizsla. I looked at every commercial option, didn't like any of the alternatives, and decided to feed a raw diet based around meat, fat, bones, organs, connective tissues, oily fish, eggs, etc.

I feel it was one of the best moves I've ever made for a dog. A bit of a PITA, but worth the effort. No cooking (other than the occasional sunny-side up egg).

Best wishes on your V!

Bill

[MNTonester]

but fed other grocery store feeds a lot of years, namely Pedigree. It get's slammed by a lot of people but somehow I think the vast majority of them never tried it in the first place. I don't feed it anymore but that is only because they kept raising the price and dropping the weight per bag

same here. my dogs did fine on Pedigree but priced themselves out of my market. I have used Ol' Roy Premium in the past and the dogs thrived on it but I haven't used it for years. I now feed a store Hi-Pro product that the dog does well on.

I do have a question. I was under the impression that rendered products were high pressure cooked and would be suitable for animal feed. So what is rendering?

[luvthemud]

I don't think that this topic should have anything to do with whether or not animal by-products are good, bad, or acceptable. In my opinion it simply about false advertising, and I think everyone, regardless of their thoughts on dog food can agree that people should get what they are told they are getting.

I don't feed either of these brands, so this whole thing is sort of funny to me. Looking back at the whole story, it has been a real back and forth. Sort of like two kids on the playground that you don't like duking it out.

I am sort of curious as to Purina's thought process and intent though. I don't see any large amount of people that are switching from BB because of this going to a Purina product. There are other dog food manufactures that will benefit for sure, but I just don't see Purina being one. If their true intent is to simply bring honesty to the pet food market, then kudos to them.

[luvthemud]

Another thing.....I would bet that BB feed wasn't the only one tested. Is there more of these cases on the horizon?

[ezzy333]

will let you explain what you think rendering does to make a product unfit for animal consumption since I don't know where you are coming from except what you have read some place. ]/quote]

it is what's allowed to be rendered. You've never denied that it is totally legal to use downer, diseased, and dying animals in dog food. You act like I'm a know-nothing boob, but I know the truth of that. Items that are condemned at the slaughter house can be shipped off to the rendering plant. I happens as standard routine. Say it ain't so.

I have no reason to say it isn't so because we all know it is how most animal fat and meat meal is separated plus sterilized to kill any bacteria that is in it. This has been a procedure that has been used since the beginning of feed manufacturing and animal protein has been used. Why would we want to deny it? No one has ever thought that dogs who naturally eat all of the things you seem to think aren't fit for a dog to eat shouldn't be allowed to consume those products once they are rendered safe. Sure would be an environmental hazard if we couldn't find a use for all of that meat.

Would you explain for all of us what old, downer, and diseased really are and what is wrong with using them? Dogs care very little how old their meat is or if the cow dies of bloat or a shot between the eyes. Think we have always found those are the preferred animals for predators in the wild.

And can we assume you think we are all so stupid we can't tell like you do that the 1st and 3rd ingredients are all vegetable or animal based ingredients? It always bothers me when someone tells us things need to change so all of us peons will be able to understand the things you already know.

And I am yet to hear you or any other crusader tell us ill-informed how we can buy dogs from backyard breeders, feed them garbage from dishonest companies that contain reprehensible ingredients that are hidden in unknown formulas, and end up with healthy dogs that live longer and perform better than dogs ever have. We just have to do something to turn this whole despicable scenario around. Might it be a lot like Blue Buffalo thinking if you say something often enough it will become fact or at least you can fool enough people that you think you are doing someone a real favor while in actuality you are doing what we all do.

Enough of this as it is a silly argument that has been proven what works and what doesn't.

[Spy Car]

will let you explain what you think rendering does to make a product unfit for animal consumption since I don't know where you are coming from except what you have read some place. ]/quote]

it is what's allowed to be rendered. You've never denied that it is totally legal to use downer, diseased, and dying animals in dog food. You act like I'm a know-nothing boob, but I know the truth of that. Items that are condemned at the slaughter house can be shipped off to the rendering plant. I happens as standard routine. Say it ain't so.

I have no reason to say it isn't so because we all know it is how most animal fat and meat meal is separated plus sterilized to kill any bacteria that is in it. This has been a procedure that has been used since the beginning of feed manufacturing and animal protein has been used. Why would we want to deny it? No one has ever thought that dogs who naturally eat all of the things you seem to think aren't fit for a dog to eat shouldn't be allowed to consume those products once they are rendered safe. Sure would be an environmental hazard if we couldn't find a use for all of that meat.

Would you explain for all of us what old, downer, and diseased really are and what is wrong with using them? Dogs care very little how old their meat is or if the cow dies of bloat or a shot between the eyes. Think we have always found those are the preferred animals for predators in the wild.

And can we assume you think we are all so stupid we can't tell like you do that the 1st and 3rd ingredients are all vegetable or animal based ingredients? It always bothers me when someone tells us things need to change so all of us peons will be able to understand the things you already know.

And I am yet to hear you or any other crusader tell us ill-informed how we can buy dogs from backyard breeders, feed them garbage from dishonest companies that contain reprehensible ingredients that are hidden in unknown formulas, and end up with healthy dogs that live longer and perform better than dogs ever have. We just have to do something to turn this whole despicable scenario around. Might it be a lot like Blue Buffalo thinking if you say something often enough it will become fact or at least you can fool enough people that you think you are doing someone a real favor while in actuality you are doing what we all do.

Enough of this as it is a silly argument that has been proven what works and what doesn't.

"bleep" Ezzy, I hoped we were past these tactics. I never said anyone was stupid, but you keep claiming otherwise. I'm completely able to speak for myself. Please stop making up things I've never said and attributing them to me, please.

Name calling is not cool. I'm not a "crusader." I don't call you an industry-flack. If I did you might like like it.

Thank you for confirming that it is standard practice for pet food companies to use diseased, dead, and dying animals in their food, along with condemned contaminated slaughterhouse waste. Bravo for truth-telling!

I wish Purina was as honest about that truth.

Bill

[Mountaineer]

Oh boy. Looks like all the folks that have been buying Blue Buffalo have been "mislead".

http://www.poisonedpets.com/blue-buffal ... consumers/

Consumers who are "hurt or angry" are the ones who would buy Blue Buffalo.
Most consumers with birddogs saw no need to chase that Buffalo...or any buffalo, racing to a mesa jump with a flashy label.
However, consumers with an agenda of pushing a personal preference will happily gallop alongside any buffalo, as the particulars matter less than the opportunity presented as an opening to toot their tune....yet again.
This later gets old and offers nothing but a chance at a parking spot near a car wreck.

It's a shame when birddog owners create confusion and angst where history shows hard-working field or trial dogs prosper and perform when given a quality kibble, exercise and attention....and bird contacts, of course.

[Gertie]

Personally, I don't mind if they use by products from human food processing plants (some of that stuff is considered a delicacy in other cultures, just sayin') and I'm not even opposed to a little corn here and there ( ). What does concern me is the presence of drugs like phenobarbital in pet foods. That a) makes me wonder where they're getting their "meat-meal" from and b) how much of a drug like that am I willing to tolerate feeding? I feed Pro-Plan Sport and the dogs have done well on it but I think if I were to find out that Purina or their suppliers were using euthanized shelter animals or something like that I think I'd be looking for a new dog food. I found this article some of you might be interested in checking out.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffi ... 129135.htm

[Spy Car]

Personally, I don't mind if they use by products from human food processing plants (some of that stuff is considered a delicacy in other cultures, just sayin') and I'm not even opposed to a little corn here and there ( ). What does concern me is the presence of drugs like phenobarbital in pet foods. That a) makes me wonder where they're getting their "meat-meal" from and b) how much of a drug like that am I willing to tolerate feeding? I feed Pro-Plan Sport and the dogs have done well on it but I think if I were to find out that Purina or their suppliers were using euthanized shelter animals or something like that I think I'd be looking for a new dog food. I found this article some of you might be interested in checking out.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffi ... 129135.htm

Using euthanized dogs and cats in rendered dog food is completely legal when listed as meat and bone meal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuoSxSJ94RY

Bill

[Gertie]

Personally, I don't mind if they use by products from human food processing plants (some of that stuff is considered a delicacy in other cultures, just sayin') and I'm not even opposed to a little corn here and there ( ). What does concern me is the presence of drugs like phenobarbital in pet foods. That a) makes me wonder where they're getting their "meat-meal" from and b) how much of a drug like that am I willing to tolerate feeding? I feed Pro-Plan Sport and the dogs have done well on it but I think if I were to find out that Purina or their suppliers were using euthanized shelter animals or something like that I think I'd be looking for a new dog food. I found this article some of you might be interested in checking out.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffi ... 129135.htm

Using euthanized dogs and cats in rendered dog food is completely legal when listed as meat and bone meal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuoSxSJ94RY

I never said it wasn't legal. Just said it would be something that would make me seriously consider changing feed.

Bill

[luvthemud]

Personally, I don't mind if they use by products from human food processing plants (some of that stuff is considered a delicacy in other cultures, just sayin') and I'm not even opposed to a little corn here and there ( ). What does concern me is the presence of drugs like phenobarbital in pet foods. That a) makes me wonder where they're getting their "meat-meal" from and b) how much of a drug like that am I willing to tolerate feeding? I feed Pro-Plan Sport and the dogs have done well on it but I think if I were to find out that Purina or their suppliers were using euthanized shelter animals or something like that I think I'd be looking for a new dog food. I found this article some of you might be interested in checking out.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffi ... 129135.htm

Very interesting link, however that link shows "pentobarbital" testing, which does differ from "phenobarbital". Both are things that I don't want in my food, but just wanted to point out the ddifference

Pentobarbital is commonly used for executions according to wiki. Not good.

[Spy Car]

Pentobarbital is commonly used to euthanize shelter animals. The reason it turns up in dog food samples is pretty obvious.

Bill

[Gertie]

"Very interesting link, however that link shows "pentobarbital" testing, which does differ from "phenobarbital". Both are things that I don't want in my food, but just wanted to point out the ddifference

Pentobarbital is commonly used for executions according to wiki. Not good."

Good catch. Did a quick google search and missed that detail. Either way, ya, not exactly enticing.

[art hubbard]

This is for "EZZY". I have read a lot of comments from you about dog foods, my question for you is, what brand of dog food do you feed?

[ezzy333]

I am feeding one of the Diamond feeds, Hi-Energy and have for several years. It is a good feed like many others but not necessarily better as there are a lot of good feeds on the market, What I have found is that along with a few others, that it is one of the very best compared to cost. I think you can make a case for Sportsmix also. The Diamond line and Sportsmix have continued to try and keep the cost reasonable while producing good nutrition for the active dog. Another reasonably priced feed is Tuffys and I am sure there are some others. Pro Plan is good but is a little on the pricy side but there are a lot of others that fit that category. There are many companies that have the problem of shipping long distances which in todays world is a major cost item, plus others are located in an area where most of their ingredients come in with considerable freight rates on them. The companies that have these problems take a completely different marketing strategy and they work on higher price per ton while keeping their volume low. And normally these are the feeds that over priced but it is the only way they can survive. There are probably more healthy dogs fed the cheapest feeds and get along very well with them. I do think you canl have a problem with some of them if you try to use them with high performance dogs. You need to realize though that most house pets will be good with them but they may be a little short when the dog needs a higher energy feed.

There are los of good feeds.

There are lots of over-priced feeds.

There are a few really good feeds that are trying to remain cost effective and that is where I try to stay as long as they are working well for me and my dogs at their level of activity.

[oldbeek]

I have seen first hand what goes into a meat rendering plant. My father hauled cow guts at 25 tons at a time from several slaughtering plants around So California to California rendering in Los Angeles. Tons and tons of clean intestines are brought in each day. Bones cone in different loads. Feathers are ground into a fine meal. The stomach contents and fecal material is squeezed out at the slaughter house. An occasional dead cow or horse does come in whole but they are a very small percentage of the daily intake and are handled separately. As a whole the process is horrid but still fairly clean. Only a 12 year old boy could enjoy such a tour.

[shags]

I don't think that this topic should have anything to do with whether or not animal by-products are good, bad, or acceptable. In my opinion it simply about false advertising, and I think everyone, regardless of their thoughts on dog food can agree that people should get what they are told they are getting.

I don't feed either of these brands, so this whole thing is sort of funny to me. Looking back at the whole story, it has been a real back and forth. Sort of like two kids on the playground that you don't like duking it out.

I am sort of curious as to Purina's thought process and intent though. I don't see any large amount of people that are switching from BB because of this going to a Purina product. There are other dog food manufactures that will benefit for sure, but I just don't see Purina being one. If their true intent is to simply bring honesty to the pet food market, then kudos to them.

IIRC Purina objects to BB's advertising that they only use wonderful wholesome ingredients while other major brands 'fool' people by using yucky meat meals and by products, implying that BB is thus superior while the Brand Xs are low quality; casting aspersions if you will. Well now BB has been caught with its hands in the rendering tank while still advertising no by products. Purina's calling them on it. A whitened sepulcher sort of deal

[MNTonester]

I have to admit, this is a very interesting thread. I'm actually learning a bit here.

[Sharon]

I have seen first hand what goes into a meat rendering plant. My father hauled cow guts at 25 tons at a time from several slaughtering plants around So California to California rendering in Los Angeles. Tons and tons of clean intestines are brought in each day. Bones cone in different loads. Feathers are ground into a fine meal. The stomach contents and fecal material is squeezed out at the slaughter house. An occasional dead cow or horse does come in whole but they are a very small percentage of the daily intake and are handled separately. As a whole the process is horrid but still fairly clean. Only a 12 year old boy could enjoy such a tour.

LOL Too funny! Thanks for my smile for the day.

[ezzy333]

I don't think that this topic should have anything to do with whether or not animal by-products are good, bad, or acceptable. In my opinion it simply about false advertising, and I think everyone, regardless of their thoughts on dog food can agree that people should get what they are told they are getting.

I don't feed either of these brands, so this whole thing is sort of funny to me. Looking back at the whole story, it has been a real back and forth. Sort of like two kids on the playground that you don't like duking it out.

I am sort of curious as to Purina's thought process and intent though. I don't see any large amount of people that are switching from BB because of this going to a Purina product. There are other dog food manufactures that will benefit for sure, but I just don't see Purina being one. If their true intent is to simply bring honesty to the pet food market, then kudos to them.

IIRC Purina objects to BB's advertising that they only use wonderful wholesome ingredients while other major brands 'fool' people by using yucky meat meals and by products, implying that BB is thus superior while the Brand Xs are low quality; casting aspersions if you will. Well now BB has been caught with its hands in the rendering tank while still advertising no by products. Purina's calling them on it. A whitened sepulcher sort of deal

This thing about Pheno or Pentobarbital you have to remember. They are testing down to 1 PPB. They even admit that there has to be more than that to really be sure it is there. To put that in perspective, that means one bag out of a billion, or one bag out of 500,000 tons. There was a time when dog and cats were used but those days are pretty well gone but that I PPB might just mean an animal of any kind had been treated with a dirty syringe or had a drop spilled on them during treatment at some time. Or it just might occur in nature like so many things we are finding when we developed testing equipment that could test to those levels. Sometimes a little knowledge keeps one from reasonable thinking or as the old saying I remember is a little knowledge can make you dangerous.

[luvthemud]

I don't think that this topic should have anything to do with whether or not animal by-products are good, bad, or acceptable. In my opinion it simply about false advertising, and I think everyone, regardless of their thoughts on dog food can agree that people should get what they are told they are getting.

I don't feed either of these brands, so this whole thing is sort of funny to me. Looking back at the whole story, it has been a real back and forth. Sort of like two kids on the playground that you don't like duking it out.

I am sort of curious as to Purina's thought process and intent though. I don't see any large amount of people that are switching from BB because of this going to a Purina product. There are other dog food manufactures that will benefit for sure, but I just don't see Purina being one. If their true intent is to simply bring honesty to the pet food market, then kudos to them.

IIRC Purina objects to BB's advertising that they only use wonderful wholesome ingredients while other major brands 'fool' people by using yucky meat meals and by products, implying that BB is thus superior while the Brand Xs are low quality; casting aspersions if you will. Well now BB has been caught with its hands in the rendering tank while still advertising no by products. Purina's calling them on it. A whitened sepulcher sort of deal

I understand that, but just don't see Purina coming out ahead here. I spend a lot of time on numerous dog food forums because of my RAW feeding days, and it seems that all this is doing is once again bringing up the "by-product" conversation as it has done here. That won't equate to Purina gaining customers as they use byproducts. I have the "cost vs benefit" type mindset. I understand the lawsuit and think it is great, just don't see the benefit part for Purina? Would like to have been in some of the meetings leading up to the lawsuit.

[Mountaineer]

...Or it just might occur in nature like so many things we are finding when we developed testing equipment that could test to those levels....

Testing always makes me think of the River Po in Italy and cocaine.
Nature is not always what she once was....she has to live with our decisions.

[Grommet]

Not to size track the discussion but does anyone else feed Orijen? I'm not looking for input from those who don't use it because they think it is a ripoff. :roll: I have used it for the last five years and have been very pleased with it. Just wondering if anyone else has used it.

[reba]

I think of all the nasty things my dogs have eaten over the years :roll:

Then I think of all the stuff people put on their dogs for fleas, ticks and other vermin

Never tried Blue Buffalo, to expensive, and never had a dog that did well on Purina.

My wife is the nutritionist and reads the labels.

I still use the bright shinny coat and firm stool test

[luvthemud]

Not to size track the discussion but does anyone else feed Orijen? I'm not looking for input from those who don't use it because they think it is a ripoff. :roll: I have used it for the last five years and have been very pleased with it. Just wondering if anyone else has used it.

I fed both orijen and acana, the cheaper version of orijen, to my last dog. Was happy with it. If my current brand would ever have a recall, I would probably switch to orijen again.

[markj]

I once worked in a rendering plant, many dead animals come in daily, usually from farms. They get ground up and added to animal feeds. I also worked at the stock yards for awhile in the pig side of things. They often sent pigs to rendering if they couldn't be bought on the auction block. We sledged hammered them in the head, then loaded them into the rendering plant truck. When a calf dies, I call them up, put a check in a zip lock bag in the mouth, rendering plant truck comes and loads calf up and off to become food for some animal. Been this way for a hundred years or so. Problem is too many folks are far separated from nature and don't know death like a farm kid does. It is a part of life, some animals just don't make it and it is a good thing to let them die rather than spending a huge amount on them and keeping them in any breeding program. In meat shops where they remove the meat from the bone, the bones are put into a trailor and sprayed with a chemical to keep the smell down, then off to become a food additive. It is the way it is.

Dogs can survive on most anything they can eat. Don't need high faluting feed, it is more for the owner than the animal. Nose up and all that....

[MNTonester]

I think of all the nasty things my dogs have eaten over the years :roll:

Then I think of all the stuff people put on their dogs for fleas, ticks and other vermin

Agreed. Feed the most expensive food you can buy and then out in the field, it's munching on some well fermented carrion (after rolling in it).