What is in pet food?
Q
Do you know anything about the group - API -?
"His Serene Highness Po" <pr...@adelphia.net>
> This is just something I found on the internet. Thought you might be
> interested.
> http://www.api4animals.org/doc.asp?ID=79
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> What's Really in Pet Food
>
>
> Information on Reprints
>
> Plump whole chickens, choice cuts of beef, fresh grains, and all the
> wholesome nutrition your dog or cat will ever need.
diddy
This is sensationalism and long ago debunked as nonsense, at least for
your premium quality foods.
Someone sad this morning (I forget who .. sorry) that even people with
University addresses get websites and anyone can write up something that
sounds real with an authorative looking address with the purpose of
spreading panic and misinformation.
diddy
I might ad, the more sensational the news, the more their book sells.
The only one making money off this is the author of this book by
inducing panic and fears,
His Serene Highness Po
write sensational stuff and anyone can get a website, but these people
supplied a lot of references. They didn't really say anything too shocking.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if pet food companies put tumors and restaurant
grease in dog food.
I've got another question. I talked to my vet today to ask him about these
puffed and dried lamb lungs I give to my dog as treats. (They sell them at
pet supplies plus. They look like steaks, but it says right on the package
that it's lungs) The vet said that would be okay. Stay away from hooves,
puffed ears and pig snouts. He says the puffed ears and pig snouts are hard
to digest and the hooves are "just nasty". Ha ha, Lol. In his professional
opinion, I guess.
My dog loved the pig snouts. Once I bought him what they call a mastadon
bone. I think it's actually a horse leg bone or maybe a cow. It's huge and
it cost about 15 bucks. It was smoked and I must admit it looked delicious.
My dog wouldn't touch it. It laid in the yard til it got green with fungus
and then I tossed it over the fence. My dog prefers the two dollar greenies
to bones. My cat would rather chew a plastic bag than eat real tuna fish. No
really.
"Q" <QuintinS@RemoveThis_ConcordeCorp.Com> wrote in message
news:B%CE8.41667$G%3.187...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
GAUBSTER2
>grease in dog food.
>
Geez, give me a break! First of all, this is against the law. Second, why
would pet food companies purposefully try to risk their livelihoods by making
animals sick on their own food?? But it wouldn't surprise you??!!
diddy
what we need to do is transfer all these to rec.pets.dogs.health.snopes
or rec.pets.dogs.health.paranoia
Q
I would find it hard to believe it's not like they describe, actually.
I've personally talked to people in food industries and have heard real
gross stuff --
and that was processing food for *people*: who have legal protections.
Pets have almost none. I think pets are just chattel (property).
The quality control and/or guidelines have got to be lower.
"His Serene Highness Po" <pr...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:r7FE8.7536$Ok3.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Q
"GAUBSTER2" <gaub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020516000926...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Steve Burger
Q
>"diddy" wrote
shelly
> Geez, give me a break! First of all, this is against the law.
cite, please. i've done a pretty thorough search and i can find
*nothing* in AAFCO's definitions or on the FDA's website that lead me to
believe that it is illegal to include either cancerous tissue or
recycled restaurant grease in dog food.
> Second, why
> would pet food companies purposefully try to risk their livelihoods by
making
> animals sick on their own food?? But it wouldn't surprise you??!!
those same pet food companies you keep accusing of harming dogs by
making foods that are made for all life stages and are too high in
nutrients? you don't seem to have any trouble believing that they're
harming dogs then!
--
shelly and elliott & harriet
GAUBSTER2
>
>cite, please. i've done a pretty thorough search and i can find
>*nothing* in AAFCO's definitions or on the FDA's website that lead me to
>believe that it is illegal to include either cancerous tissue or
>recycled restaurant grease in dog food.
>
It's against AAFCO regulations--won't be in their definitions. Are you part of
the conspiracy theory?
More details may be found at: www.fsis.usda.gov under a search of "pet foods".
>> Second, why
>> would pet food companies purposefully try to risk their livelihoods by
>making
>> animals sick on their own food?? But it wouldn't surprise you??!!
>
>those same pet food companies you keep accusing of harming dogs by
>making foods that are made for all life stages and are too high in
>nutrients? you don't seem to have any trouble believing that they're
>harming dogs then!
It is a fact that a lot of companies make foods that are excessively high in
nutrients. It is not a fact that restaurants are trying to kill animals. As
for all life stage foods, that too is a fact--go look at a bag of IAMS chunks
or Nutro Natural Choice or Innova or Canidae,etc. etc.........
The subject is unsubstantiated allegations or undeniable fact.
GAUBSTER2
>foods".
Some other things to keep in mind...
Pet food ingredients are inspected and subject to federal rules.
"4D" animals are not allowed to be used for pet food, except where the disease
is limited to specific body parts which are then REMOVED AND NOT PART OF THE
FOOD.
Meat is rejected by inspectors, not slaughterhouses.
Rejected meat that is denatured is not allowed to be used for animal feed. The
meat that may be used is decharacterized with non-toxic markers.
By-products are not processed or rendered prior to delivery for use in pet
foods.
Meat meals are processed (making them an undesirable ingredient in many
people's minds since "processed" meats are something to be avoided)
There are no definitions for "natural".
His Serene Highness Po
they had red dye number two that caused cancer in almost everything.
"Q" <QuintinS@RemoveThis_ConcordeCorp.Com> wrote in message
news:qqGE8.43095$G%3.189...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
His Serene Highness Po
don't understand is why this would upset you. I'm not accusing you of
anything. In fact I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I just supplied an
article and a link written by someone else.
One thing I don't like about pet food companies and this goes for any kind
of company is they came up with this "Science Diet" brand a few years back
and now I find out it's really proctor and gamble or Kal Kan or some other
company that's been around forever. They just dress themselves up with this
fancy name, give their cans this high tech, almost medicinal look and act
like they're better than everybody else. Have you ever stuck your fingers in
this food and really looked at it? It's really greasy. What in the world is
it if not restaurant grease?
On the other hand I'm not above pouring pan drippings onto my dog's kibble.
He loves it. My version of "fresh" restaurant grease.
"GAUBSTER2" <gaub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020516000926...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Q
they get creative and try to get away with stuff.
And when it comes to pet food they can even be a little looser I am sure.
I don't know why Gaubster is calling it a conspiracy though ... ??
"His Serene Highness Po" wrote
> Look at the crap they put in hot dogs for humans. And it wasn't long ago
> they had red dye number two that caused cancer in almost everything.
>
> "Q" wrote
> > I didn't even find it shocking, It's what I was picturing anyway.
> > I would find it hard to believe it's not like they describe, actually.
> >
> > I've personally talked to people in food industries and have heard real
> > gross stuff --
> > and that was processing food for *people*: who have legal protections.
> > Pets have almost none. I think pets are just chattel (property).
> > The quality control and/or guidelines have got to be lower.
> >
> >
> > "His Serene Highness Po" wrote
GAUBSTER2
>of company is they came up with this "Science Diet" brand a few years back
>and now I find out it's really proctor and gamble or Kal Kan or some other
>company that's been around forever.
Actually I've done tons of research on Science Diet and that's what I feed my
dog. They were the first company to introduce a premium food back in 1968. A
veterinarian founded the company back in the 40s (making Prescription
Diets--his work goes back to the 20s). Colgate bought Hill's Pet Nutrition in
1976. Hill's does the most research and has the most nutritionalists,
veternarians working for them than any other company.
It's still the #1 food that vets feed their own pets. Wouldn't you trust the
food that more vets feed their own pets than any other brand?
shelly
wrote:
>By-products are not processed or rendered prior to delivery for use in pet
>foods.
could you please explain this or give me a link to a page
that explains it further. my understanding was that it was
common practice for pet food manufacturers to purchase
rendered meal from rendering plants. are you stating that
they must render the meal themselves?
>There are no definitions for "natural".
actually, there is. check out AAFCO's website. there's a
link to a page of recent definitions, including both natural
and IIRC organic. if you can't find it, i'll be happy to
look it up tomorrow when i have a better connection.
--
shelly and elliott & harriet
i recommend that Jerry be ignored as an abusive, obnoxious
liar and a monumental pain in the arse.
shelly
wrote:
>It's still the #1 food that vets feed their own pets. Wouldn't you trust the
>food that more vets feed their own pets than any other brand?
now *that* is pure marketing if i ever saw it!
shelly
wrote:
>>> Geez, give me a break! First of all, this is against the law.
>>
>>cite, please. i've done a pretty thorough search and i can find
>>*nothing* in AAFCO's definitions or on the FDA's website that lead me to
>>believe that it is illegal to include either cancerous tissue or
>>recycled restaurant grease in dog food.
>>
>
>It's against AAFCO regulations--won't be in their definitions. Are you part of
>the conspiracy theory?
conspiracy theory? paranoid much?
>More details may be found at: www.fsis.usda.gov under a search of "pet foods".
thank you. i'll look at it tomorrow when i've got a better
connection.
>It is a fact that a lot of companies make foods that are excessively high in
>nutrients.
i've never denied that and i haven't seen anyone else do so.
however, because some companies may make foods that are
excessively high in some nutrients, does not mean that all
companies (besides Hill's, of course) do.
> It is not a fact that restaurants are trying to kill animals.
what do restaurants have to do with anything???
Q
that was my impression as well.
Q
"shelly" <scouv...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:rrbgeuc0660238iu9...@4ax.com...
GAUBSTER2
Why is that marketing if it is a true statement?
GAUBSTER2
It's a looney idea--sounds like a conspiracy theory to me! Problem is some
people are dumb enough to fall for.
>> It is not a fact that restaurants are trying to kill animals.
>
>what do restaurants have to do with anything???
>
It's alleged that restaurants give "their grease" to put in pet foods and that
it's a bad practice. It was referenced in an earlier post.
shelly
> More details may be found at: www.fsis.usda.gov under a search of
"pet foods".
okay, i've looked pretty thoroughly and can find absolutely nothing that
states that it's *illegal* to use used grease or cancerous meat in pet
food. please provide a citation for the specific regulation(s).
shelly
> It's alleged that restaurants give "their grease" to put in pet foods
and that
> it's a bad practice. It was referenced in an earlier post.
yes, i have been reading the thread. my point was that *if* used
restaurant grease is used in pet foods, then that is the "fault" of the
pet food manufacturer, not the restaurant. it would be pretty stupid to
state that restaurants are trying to kill animals.
kassa
> >Or dog sled teams?
>
> A lot feed SD.
Serious mushers tend to feed raw --- I've never read
anything about rabid SD fans in that camp :)
> >What about established long time breeders?
>
> Same here--SD.
Not in my breed, that's for sure. In fact, in
the admittedly short 10 years that I've been in
dogs, I've yet to hear anybody with more experience
than I have (in any breed) regard SD with anything
but a snort of derision. I've seen the eyes roll
in exasperation when they've relayed the same stories
of puppies or rescue dogs with dull, lifeless
coats -- the culprit is inevitably Puppy/Dog Chow or SD.
You will find a lot of serious breeders who swear by
Pedigree of all things, and while I don't, I certainly
consider it a step up from SD.
kassa
kassa
> >now *that* is pure marketing if i ever saw it!
>
> Why is that marketing if it is a true statement?
Anybody recall which cigarette was the choice of
more doctors back in the 50s? Camels, I think, but
I'm not sure.
kassa
kassa
> Some other things to keep in mind...
>
> Pet food ingredients are inspected and subject to federal rules.
>
> "4D" animals are not allowed to be used for pet food, except where the disease
> is limited to specific body parts which are then REMOVED AND NOT PART OF THE
> FOOD.
You honestly believe that "disease is limited" to the "specific body parts"
where tumors are located?
So if there's a big honking tumor on each leg, so long as you remove
the legs and don't throw them into the dog food, the rest of the meat
from that animal is perfectly disease free?
If that's not what you mean, can you explain which diseases are purely local
in nature?
kassa
Q
> >
> > Why is that marketing if it is a true statement?
>
> Anybody recall which cigarette was the choice of
> more doctors back in the 50s? Camels, I think, but
> I'm not sure.
>
> kassa
<laughter and applause>
Steve Crane
You are looking in the wrong direction. In order for any ingredient to
be legal in a pet food it must be defined by AAFCO. There is no rule or law
that prohibits the use of "road kill toads". There is also NO legal AAFCO
definition that would PERMIT the use of "road kill toads". No rule is
required to PROHIBIT "road kill toads", since there is no definition of what
exactly "road kill toads" are they cannot legally be used in the pet food.
The same goes for any other ingredient which is NOT defined by AAFCO.
The old ancient insinuations from the 70's that API drags up every now
and then must be understood in the same way. The ONLY possible way any of
the things API describes would be under the generic meat and bone meal
definition. Any food that listed lamb meal, chicken meal, salmon meal etc
CANNOT contain the things API alleges. This same issue has been tossed
around for years and every major premium food manufacturer has gone to
extreme efforts to insure no such things are contained within the foods.
The definitions of "natural" that you viewed in AAFCO are tentative
definitions that have NOT been approved nor accepted by AAFCO. They are
simply some possible ideas that have yet to be approved or accepted.
"shelly" <scouv...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:ac3cmh$lk1oj$1...@ID-39167.news.dfncis.de...
Steve Crane
You have a few misconceptions.
Hill's was started by Dr. Mark Morris Sr. in the late 40's. He developed
the first dietary product for kidney disease in "Buddy" the first Seeing Eye
dog in this country. In 1948 Dr. Morris contracted with Burton Hill of
Hill's meat packing to can the formula Dr. Morris invented. The demand by
other veterinarians for k/d was simply more than Dr. Morris' wife could cook
in the kitchen.
Morris Animal Foundation, which is the largest philanthropic
organization for animal health was founded by Dr. Morris Sr., and Dr. Mark
Morris Jr.
Hill's continued to package Prescription Diet products under contract
for Dr. Morris. In the 50's and early 60's various drug manufacturers
contracted with Hill's to produce special foods for drug and vaccine trials.
Under federal law these drug manufacturers had to prove that nothing had
changed during the period of time of the vaccine trial. Typically two groups
of dogs would be used. One control and one group given the vaccine. Both
were then exposed to the virus. These drug manufacturers had to be able to
prove that there was nothing different between these two groups of dogs
except the vaccine. At the time no food manufacturer produced a fixed
formula food. There was no such thing. Dr. Mark Morris began to produce
these specialized fixed formula foods for the scientific market place in
limited quantities. In a short time the scientists and others recognized the
advantages of such a diet for their own pets and the commercial Science Diet
product was born in 1962.
Colgate Palmolive purchased Hill's as a part of another company
conglomerate they wanted. Originally intending to divest themselves of
Hill's since it did not fit into the "package goods" venue they elected to
keep Hill's as a wholly owned subsidiary. Since that purchase Colgate has
invested millions upon millions of dollars in research in small animal
clinical nutrition.
Since 1948 Hill's has been the first to develop, create, and market
every single medical diet in existence. They employ more veterinarians than
all the rest of the pet food industry combined. They do more research and
publish more peer reviewed research papers than all other pet food companies
in the world combined. The company has a stellar history of developmental
success and learning's about small animal clinical nutrition. The quality
control done by Hill's is unmatched in the industry. The production and
warehouse facilities always score higher on the ABC inspections done in
human plants that produce human foods. If you take away simple palatability
research, which is the preponderance of many other companies work, Hill's
has done more research into basic understanding of small animal clinical
nutrition than all other pet food companies in the world combined. The use
of the word Science in the brand name is well deserved.
"His Serene Highness Po" <pr...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:sqBF8.875$fg3.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Steve Crane
I'm not sure what you mean here. It is a fact that more veterinarians
feed Hill's products than all other pet foods in the world combined. I'm not
sure if you are disputing this fact or simply have decided veterinarians are
not worthy of any trust.
"shelly" <scouv...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:rrbgeuc0660238iu9...@4ax.com...
Steve Crane
that *ALL* Hill's products sailed through the recent testing for the
presence of phenobarb with nothing but negatives. While Nutro and Neura,
both touted as being good natural foods both showed phenobarb present in the
food.
Some people just hate success. The Taliban comes to mind. And then their
is always Kassa who hates Hill's with a passion for reasons that are always
without any foundation in fact.
"kassa" <ka...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:dc0f5f69.02052...@posting.google.com...
Steve Crane
What part of Science Diet has EVER been linked to any disease issue?
Conversely your recommendations for high protein and raw foods have been
conclusively linked to diseases like renal failure by dozens of research
studies over the last thirty years.
"kassa" <ka...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:dc0f5f69.02052...@posting.google.com...
Steve Crane
I must assume you know absolutely nothing about the musher community.
They feed tons of commercial food, any kind they can get a deal on. They
supplement with beaver fat, salmon, moose fat etc. Having spent nearly two
months in Alaska this year alone, I have spoken to dozens of Iditarod
participants. They ALL feed commercial, whoever gives them the best deal
today. Libby Riddles who was the first woman to win the Iditarod feeds
Science Diet exclusively. I worked with George Atla Sr. a couple years ago
on fat levels and energy levels in various fats he was adding to his diet.
George is the "Grandfather" of the Iditarod.
Rocky
> Some people just hate success. The Taliban comes to mind.
Wow.
You've gone way too far.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
GAUBSTER2
>Pedigree of all things, and while I don't, I certainly
>consider it a step up from SD.
>
And that goes to show you what I think about breeder's recommendations for food
(generally speaking)! Most dog breeder's are only into who will pay or give
them the most. I do know a handful of breeders that do recommend Science Diet.
I know some that don't.
As for Pedigree being a step up from SD, you've got to be kidding. You don't
have to like Science Diet, but you aren't being intellectually honest with
yourself if you think it's worse than Pedigree.
>I've yet to hear anybody with more experience
>than I have (in any breed) regard SD with anything
>but a snort of derision.
Last summer, I was at an event where the majority of folks didn't like SD but
they sure wanted free samples and Tshirts from Hill's even though they don't
feed the food.
GAUBSTER2
>"pet foods".
>
>okay, i've looked pretty thoroughly and can find absolutely nothing that
>states that it's *illegal* to use used grease or cancerous meat in pet
>food. please provide a citation for the specific regulation(s).
It's been a while since I've checked the site and I'll check it again. BTW,
just because it isn't listed on the web doesn't mean it is or is not permitted.
As for using cancerous meat in pet foods, I've been told by several
veterinarians that it is not permitted by the FDA or by AAFCO and I defy you to
find any company that does just that.
GAUBSTER2
>more doctors back in the 50s? Camels, I think, but
>I'm not sure.
>
Were you even alive back in the 50s?? If you're equating Science Diet to
cigarettes you are engaged in a foolish pursuit!
GAUBSTER2
You would appreciate a weak attempt like that?
GAUBSTER2
>
>> Some people just hate success. The Taliban comes to mind.
>
>Wow.
>
>You've gone way too far.
What's the difference? Kassa compared Science Diet to cigarettes. I believe
that Steve is comparing Kassa's hatred of the success of Science Diet to the
Taliban's hatred of the USA's success. I don't think Steve went far at all.
The bias in this newsgroup (by the regulars) is anti-Hill's. Too many people
have jumped on the anti-Hill's bandwagon w/ nothing to back up their venomous
allegations but emotion and knee-jerk reactions. Steve is quite adept at
swatting aside the various baseless allegations that are made against the
company that he works for and a lot of the regulars here don't like it. About
the only person here who defends Hill's (besides me and Steve) would be
Diddy--and I don't want to put words in Diddy's mouth. I have a great deal of
respect for her. Why do the regulars here hate Hill's? Beats me!
Rocky
>>Steve Crane wrote in rec.pets.dogs.health:
>>
>>> Some people just hate success. The Taliban comes to mind.
>>
>>Wow.
>>
>>You've gone way too far.
>
> What's the difference?
[snip]
> Why do the regulars here hate Hill's? Beats me!
I can't believe you two.
Q
"GAUBSTER2" <gaub...@aol.com> wrote
Yes, it make a point that brings doctors (the authorities)
down from god status back to earth. Some others:
Eat eggs, don't eat eggs, no wait eggs are okay without the yoke <or
whatever>.
switch to margarine, oops margarine is worse, nevermind.
weak heart-don't exercise, oops! yes exercise is actually good
And the Food triangle of the 60's got turned upside down.
After living with a doctor for part of my life
I just learned not to worship them; vets too.
They have a ton of knowledge, but aren't god.
I give someone like Steve more weight than any random vet.
Steve Crane
I don't think so. Kassa has one track mind. She repeats the same old
diatribes against Hill's whenever she gets a chance and never mind the
facts.
"Rocky" <PeTAsaysDri...@rocky-dog.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9214CFC41D070au...@130.133.1.4...
buglady
buglady
take out the dog before replying
Steve Crane wrote in message ...
buglady
for promoting your employer's food.
Gee, I can tell when you've lost an argument - you start bashing people.
buglady
take out the dog before replying
Steve Crane wrote in message ...
buglady
Steve Crane wrote in message ...
>conclusively linked to diseases like renal failure by dozens of research
>studies over the last thirty years.
Raw foods have not been linked with diseases like renal failure in dozens of
research studies. We always get to this point with you, where you start to
distort the facts to sell dog food. A well prepared raw food diet is not
excessively high in protein.
sighthounds etc.
>As for Pedigree being a step up from SD, you've got to be kidding. You don't
>have to like Science Diet, but you aren't being intellectually honest with
>yourself if you think it's worse than Pedigree.
Have to agree here. I'm not a Science Diet fan, but Pedigree? It's
maybe a step up from Old Roy or generic.
Sally Hennessey
sighthounds etc.
wrote:
> Here you go again Kassa, bashing Science Diet. It is interesting to note
>that *ALL* Hill's products sailed through the recent testing for the
>presence of phenobarb with nothing but negatives. While Nutro and Neura,
>both touted as being good natural foods both showed phenobarb present in the
>food.
> Some people just hate success. The Taliban comes to mind. And then their
>is always Kassa who hates Hill's with a passion for reasons that are always
>without any foundation in fact.
Why would there be phenobarbital in dog food? That's used to treat
seizures. Are you guys talking about pentobarbital, used to
euthanize?
Can you give references to testing that showed drugs present in Nutro?
Sally Hennessey
Steve Crane
"buglady" <bugl...@bigfootdog.com> wrote in message
news:ueka35e...@corp.supernews.com...
Steve Crane
www.wkyc.com/news/national/020513dogfood.asp
"sighthounds etc." <greypi...@ncweb.com> wrote in message
news:o7lkeu8t772ho5h6v...@4ax.com...
Steve Crane
I have seen reviews of four published recipes, Pitcairn's, Billinghursts
are ones that come to mind. All were too high either in protein, phosphorous
or calcium. More importantly none of the proponents of the BARF method have
yet to have any analysis of anything done. They are feeding unknown levels
of dozens of micronutrients, because none of them have the equipment to
measure anything. It is a Luddite fad method of rebelling against the norm.
There are dozens of cases of stuck bones requiring surgery, dozens of
cases of salmonella poisoning, and dozens of other medical problems brought
about by well meaning individuals who simply prefer the internet fantasy to
real medical science.
"buglady" <bugl...@bigfootdog.com> wrote in message
news:uekack9...@corp.supernews.com...
Steve Crane
Hill's accused of everything under the sun and in each and every case it
proved to be completely wrong. Dead dogs was touted here multiple times. The
allegations were simply internet fantasies that some people used to support
wild claims without any foundations. When the facts come out each and every
time, Hill's ends up being a company that doesn't do whatever has been
claimed.
"buglady" <bugl...@bigfootdog.com> wrote in message
news:ueka6lf...@corp.supernews.com...
Danae
"kassa" <ka...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:dc0f5f69.02052...@posting.google.com...
> gaub...@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) wrote in message
> > >Or dog sled teams?
> >
> > A lot feed SD.
>
> Serious mushers tend to feed raw --- I've never read
> anything about rabid SD fans in that camp :)
I really know next to nothing about mushing, but the only exposure that I've
had to what mushers feed their dogs agrees with your experience as well.
They all fed raw.
Of course, that may not reflect the entire mushing community. I also have
the feeling that regional differences plays a big part. I really doubt
mushers in my neck of the woods (Southern/Central Alberta) are adding a lot
of moose fat, beaver fat, and salmon ;)
-- April
GAUBSTER2
>And then their
>>is always Kassa who hates Hill's with a passion for reasons that are always
>>without any foundation in fact.
>
>Gee, I can tell when you've lost an argument - you start bashing people.
Buglady, he's not bashing people. He's just pointing out what Kassa does.
There is no argument here. Do YOU agree that Science Diet is worse than
Pedigree??
GAUBSTER2
>
>I can't believe you two.
>
and why is that?
shelly
>
> > Some people just hate success. The Taliban comes to mind.
>
> Wow.
>
> You've gone way too far.
*way* too far. maybe Steve and Jack were separated at birth???
shelly
"GAUBSTER2" <gaub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020520233844...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> I believe
> that Steve is comparing Kassa's hatred of the success of Science Diet
that you would say that is proof-positive that you haven't a clue.
> Why do the regulars here hate Hill's? Beats me!
if i didn't dislike SD before encountering you and Steve, i sure would
now.
shelly
> It's been a while since I've checked the site and I'll check it again.
BTW,
> just because it isn't listed on the web doesn't mean it is or is not
permitted.
i asked for a citation, not a URL. so, if you can't find an on-line
citation, please provide a print citation.
> As for using cancerous meat in pet foods, I've been told by several
> veterinarians that it is not permitted by the FDA or by AAFCO and I
defy you to
> find any company that does just that.
and you think vets would necessarily know the law? you stated that it
was *illegal*. please provide a citation.
shelly
"Steve Crane" <rose...@televar.com> wrote in message
news:%PZF8.260$5J.2...@bcandid.telisphere.com...
> Shelly,
> I'm not sure what you mean here. It is a fact that more
veterinarians
> feed Hill's products than all other pet foods in the world combined.
I'm not
> sure if you are disputing this fact or simply have decided
veterinarians are
> not worthy of any trust.
neither. Gaubster using the claim that more vets feed SD to their own
dogs is right up there with 9 out of 10 dentists using Crest. it's
marketing pure and simple and has nothing to do with whether or not the
food is a good-quality food.
Bonnie Jean
provided canines is better than what humans think they ought to eat. Do you
think nature provides food too high is calcium, phosphorus and protein. My
dogs have had blood tests (including renal function) and do not have
elevated levels of these things. They are BARF fed. They are healthier now
than they have ever been. With that said, people should feed their dogs with
what they feel comfortable with. Parents do that with their kids, no reason
not to do it with their pets.
Bonnie in NJ (stepping off soap box)news:liuG8.21$HP.2...@bcandid.telisphere.com...
Rocky
> *way* too far. maybe Steve and Jack were separated at
> birth???
Yup. Steve's comment and then Gaubster's attempted redirection
have finally put them on my ignore list. The killfile is for
people like Jerry Howe, though these two have came pretty damn
close this time.
Too bad. I believed that Steve had contributed some good stuff
to this group.
Steve Crane
Now I think I understand what you mean. In your opinion veterinarians
know nothing about food, are never faced daily with the results of bad
feeding, have never been required to attend hundreds of hours of continuing
education, and are no more capable of determining what food is best than the
local mechanic. You are thus saying that veterinarians are a poor source if
information and have no credible education that allows them to make good
solid scientific choices in regards to their own pets.
Does that about cover it?
"shelly" <scouv...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:aceghp$okufu$1...@ID-39167.news.dfncis.de...
Q
"Rocky" <PeTAsaysDri...@rocky-dog.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9215C6C1578Fau...@130.133.1.4...
Steve Crane
This was explained to at least once before. There is no law required to
PROHIBIT anything. The laws are designed to PERMIT things. The laws
determine what things can be used in pet food. Every legal ingredient is
defined carefully in the AAFCO manual. If it is not defined in the AAFCO
manual it cannot be used in the food. An ingredient becomes ILLEGAL if there
is no definition that defines it in the AAFCO system. There is no definition
for "road kill horny toads", therefore they are not permitted in a pet food
and are ILLEGAL.
"shelly" <scouv...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:acege6$npht8$1...@ID-39167.news.dfncis.de...
buglady
Steve Crane wrote in message ...
>know nothing about food, are never faced daily with the results of bad
>feeding, have never been required to attend hundreds of hours of continuing
>education, and are no more capable of determining what food is best than
the
>local mechanic.
.....Most vets do not even ask what you feed. If you ask a vet to help you
prepare a homemade diet, most don't have a clue how to do it. If you don't
know what constitutes *good* food, how can you evaluate what's in the bag?
Steve Crane
Vets are not going to want to recommend home made foods because they
have seen the studies that illustrate how incredibly difficult it is to
accomplish such a thing. In an older study some years ago, several hundred
home made diets were analyzed. These were diets developed by Hill's and
printed recipes provided by Hill's. Even with clear directions and very
specific recipes about three quarters of the diets were improperly made and
either deficient or excessive in one nutrient or another. Home owners failed
to follow directions, substituted ingredients or failed to properly measure
ingredients. As a result the diets were formulated in error.
Most veterinarians recognize that mistakes will be made, and are not
particularly interested in the liability of creating a pet food. They get
sued often enough as is. Why would a vet make such recommendations, risk the
liability and still end up with a poorly constructed food?
"buglady" <bugl...@bigfootdog.com> wrote in message
news:uen4b1o...@corp.supernews.com...
Steve Crane
that for your pets? Comments upon parents raising kids may not be such a
great argument, obesity in this country is a HUGE problem. Welcome to
McDonalds, Kentucky Fired Chicken etc. I don't think falling back on the
tired argument that we feed our kids this way is a very positive thing to
say most of the time.
"Bonnie Jean" <Bon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0OzG8.80501$e66.7...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
kassa
> Here you go again Kassa, bashing Science Diet.
This is in response to the following question I asked, to which
you and GAUBSTER evidently choose not to respond.
> > > "4D" animals are not allowed to be used for pet food,
>>>except where the disease is limited to specific body parts which
are then REMOVED AND NOT PART OF THE FOOD.
> >
> > You honestly believe that "disease is limited" to the "specific body
> parts" where tumors are located?
> > So if there's a big honking tumor on each leg, so long as you remove
> > the legs and don't throw them into the dog food, the rest of the meat
> > from that animal is perfectly disease free?
> >
> > If that's not what you mean, can you explain which diseases are purely
> local in nature?
I was responding to a direct statement that the flesh of diseased
animals CANNOT be used in dog food -- except if the diseased parts
are removed first. I simply expressed my amazement at the notion that
removing visible signs of disease renders the rest of the flesh of the
animal healthy and acceptable for consumption. The overall point,
of course, is that I guess it does to commercial dog food
manufacturers.
What's intriguing is that you guys openly admitted it, though
your refusal to clarify that position (if it isn't your own) leads me
to
believe that it was a careless error and you're hoping nobody noticed.
> Some people just hate success. The Taliban comes to mind. And then their
> is always Kassa who hates Hill's with a passion for reasons that are always
> without any foundation in fact.
Thank you for the courtesy of at least distinguishing me from the
Taliban :)
The foundation for my dislike is that it's grain based and despite
the laudable efforts of company employees, it's hard to override
thousands of years of evolution no matter how many coupons you give
to veterinary students. That, coupled with seeing dogs blossom
in appearance and health once they're taken off it, has led me to this
position. The topic comes up often in various dog-related venues, in
person and on line, and I am hardly on the radical fringe of thinking
it's a poor food for the price. (And would be a poor food at half the
price.)
For what it's worth, I checked the Pedigree label and retract what I
said about preferring it to SD. Whether I was remembering the label
wrong or they've changed their formulation from the last time I
checked
(5-6 years ago), I can't say it's superior. I would not feed either
food.
I really would like Steve and GAUBSTER to agree with or correct my
interpretation that it's permissable to use the flesh of diseased
animals so long as the visible signs of disease are removed.
kassa
kassa
> >Steve Crane wrote in rec.pets.dogs.health:
> >
> >
> >
> >You've gone way too far.
>
Correction. I simply pointed out the inherent flaw of the marketing
technique of "More doctors use Science Diet" by pointing out that the
EXACT SAME
marketing technique was used decades ago by one of the big cigarette
brands.
For those who are interested, I found a page that has one of
the old ads on it -- it was, indeed, Camels.
http://www.old-time.com/commercials/camels.html
kassa
kassa
> Nah,
> I don't think so. Kassa has one track mind. She repeats the same old
> diatribes against Hill's whenever she gets a chance and never mind the
> facts.
My mind runs on many tracks, actually -- I just enjoy asking pointed
questions that never get answered.
kassa
kassa
> >I've yet to hear anybody with more experience
> >than I have (in any breed) regard SD with anything
> >but a snort of derision.
>
> Last summer, I was at an event where the majority of folks didn't like SD but
> they sure wanted free samples and Tshirts from Hill's even though they don't
> feed the food.
I'm confused. If *I* of all people am on the lunatic fringe for
not liking SD, where was this gathering where the majority didn't like
SD and why wasn't I invited?
Maybe my paranoid conspiracy dues aren't paid up for the year. Better
go check.
kassa
shelly
> This was explained to at least once before.
not to my satisfaction. rendered fats and meat meals are allowed in pet
foods. i can find nothing in the AAFCO definitions that states that
those rendered products cannot contain used fats from restaurants.
shelly
> The ONLY possible way any of
> the things API describes would be under the generic meat and bone meal
> definition.
which many pet foods use, which precludes them being illegal, dontcha
think?
shelly
> Does that about cover it?
um, no, that's not what i said. please don't put words in my mouth.
shelly
> .....Most vets do not even ask what you feed.
true! i have *never* been asked what i feed my cats or dogs. i finally
brought up the subject of food with my old vet, telling her that i fed
Canidae (at the time). she said it was a good food and was *very*
impressed with the improvement in harriet's allergies and general
condition.
and, yes, this is a vet who sells SD products.
Q
you know, ... this is true, ...
it actually seems like they avoid the subject.
Maybe it's that they don't want to make
the people that feed the 'bottom of the line' stuff feel guilty or cheap,
and the people that feed super premium that they were wasting their money.
Who knows ... they *do* have a public relations commitment to their clients
and don't want to alienate them.
I question how much better than the average dog owner
the average vet would be at knowing about foods --
probably not a whole hell of a lot better.
The bigger clinics probably have reps from dog food companies
parading in to give the big sales pitch from time to time.
And vets must get 'vet magazines' where the pet food companies advertise.
But ads and presentations are completely biased.
Hopefully they read objective articles about pet nutrition now and then,
but they do seem to be a busy sort.
So after all this discussion I've got to wonder, ...
who *would* be an excellent source of opinion on pet diets?
Maybe terminated employees from feeding trials?
An inspector from the AAFCO?
Meanwhile, I'll just have to let my Weltanschauung guide me.
Q
"shelly" <scouv...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:acgni8$pk796$1...@ID-39167.news.dfncis.de...
Bonnie Jean
about doing that for a dog?
Bonnie in NJ
"Steve Crane" <rose...@televar.com> wrote in message
news:0PNG8.77$HP.7...@bcandid.telisphere.com...
Bonnie Jean
because of better health care for pets. People live longer than 100 years
ago for much the same reason. I agree that peoples diets are awful these
days but I would compare that to kibble, not a diet of fresh food. If people
(even myself) ate the fresh non-processed foods my dogs eat, we'd all be a
lot healthier.
Bonnie in NJ
"Steve Crane" <rose...@televar.com> wrote in message
news:tSNG8.78$HP.7...@bcandid.telisphere.com...
dahammel
There's your secret. There are too many people that DON'T feed their
families properly or nutritiously.
BT&Redbone&Samoyedguy
Bonnie Jean
nutritional needs of dogs and work from that. I also have the support of my
vet who does both traditional and "holistic" medicine. Unfortunately for my
fat arse, I have taken the health of my dogs a lot more seriously than my
own. There are a lot of folks who will just throw their dogs scraps and
such, and think it's OK. My dogs eat a diet of raw meat, bones, vegetables
and occasionally fruit. I try to vary what meat and veggies they get. They
eat no grain. I suppliment with Vitamin C, and fish oil for Omega 3 fatty
acids. All other suppliments are for specific medical conditions they have.
Bonnie in NJ
"dahammel" <daha...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AY8H8.127149$GG6.10...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
Steve Crane
"kassa" <ka...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:dc0f5f69.02052...@posting.google.com...
staf...@webtv.net
From: gaub...@aol.com (GAUBSTER2)
<Last summer, I was at an event where the majority of folks didn't like
SD but they sure wanted free samples and Tshirts from Hill's even though
they don't feed the food. >
The country music fair, with the agility demo? The one where Hill's
provided prize money, but required handlers to wear their shirts and
'recommend favorably' Hill's products? I hated to give up a good PR
opportunity for my dogs, but hell will freeze over before I help sell
SD.
Debbie
GAUBSTER2
>have finally put them on my ignore list. The killfile is for
>people like Jerry Howe, though these two have came pretty damn
>close this time.
>
>Too bad. I believed that Steve had contributed some good stuff
>to this group.
Are you trying to be politically correct?
GAUBSTER2
>
>if i didn't dislike SD before encountering you and Steve, i sure would
>now.
Just because you don't like what I have to say equals Science Diet is not a
good pet food? Boy have you got your wires crossed!
>> I believe
>> that Steve is comparing Kassa's hatred of the success of Science Diet
>
>that you would say that is proof-positive that you haven't a clue.
That's my take on it--what's yours?? Haven't heard anyone here yet try to
defend what she said. Just more attacks on Steve and me.
GAUBSTER2
>> veterinarians that it is not permitted by the FDA or by AAFCO and I
>defy you to
>> find any company that does just that.
>
>and you think vets would necessarily know the law? you stated that it
>was *illegal*. please provide a citation.
>
The vets I've talked with were given a lecture by AAFCO and FDA officials and
took notes on the subject matter. There are websites also that talk about what
is permitted and what isn't. Try: www.fda.gov/cvm and surf around.
I'd still like you to name any dog food company that puts cancerous meats in
it's foods. Why would you think this is done, unless you have some evidence?
GAUBSTER2
>
>not to my satisfaction. rendered fats and meat meals are allowed in pet
>foods. i can find nothing in the AAFCO definitions that states that
>those rendered products cannot contain used fats from restaurants.
Nothing is ever explained to your satisfaction!
Why would you think that restaurants send their grease to premium pet food
companies anyway? Because there isn't anything that you can find in writing
that states that they do not?? ?? ????????
diddy
>
> shelly wrote in rec.pets.dogs.health:
>
> > *way* too far. maybe Steve and Jack were separated at
> > birth???
>
> have finally put them on my ignore list. The killfile is for
> people like Jerry Howe, though these two have came pretty damn
> close this time.
>
> Too bad. I believed that Steve had contributed some good stuff
> to this group.
>
> --Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
Too bad. I always thought Matt was a fairly intelligent dog owner. I
guess he just hit my killfile under ignorance.
GAUBSTER2
>
>um, no, that's not what i said. please don't put words in my mouth.
Shelly, then what exactly did you say? More vets do recommend/feed Hill's
products than any other brand. Hill's has an over 70 share of the vet market
with their products. It's not because vets are stupid and don't know what
they're doing. Hill's has been around over 50 years. There is a legacy there
of proper nutrition and products that work. You don't have to agree with that,
but it's the truth.
GAUBSTER2
>provided canines is better than what humans think they ought to eat. Do you
>think nature provides food too high is calcium, phosphorus and protein.
Wild dogs don't live as long as domesticated dogs.
GAUBSTER2
ALL DRY DOG FOODS ARE GRAIN BASED!!!
>it's hard to override
>thousands of years of evolution
??? Domesticated dogs live much longer and better quality lives than wild
dogs.
>That, coupled with seeing dogs blossom
>in appearance and health once they're taken off it, has led me to this
>position.
I've seen exactly the opposite. I've seen dog's skin and coat improve
immensely (and cats, for that matter), loose excess weight and become more
lean, more active, etc.
>The topic comes up often in various dog-related venues, in
>person and on line, and I am hardly on the radical fringe of thinking
>it's a poor food for the price. (And would be a poor food at half the
>price.)
That's probably because most dog owners don't know how to read a pet food label
and transpose their human emotions on their pets.
>For what it's worth, I checked the Pedigree label and retract what I
>said about preferring it to SD.
I thought so!
>Whether I was remembering the label
>wrong or they've changed their formulation from the last time I
>checked
>(5-6 years ago), I can't say it's superior.
Are you saying that Pedigree "downgraded" their formula?
>I really would like Steve and GAUBSTER to agree with or correct my
>interpretation that it's permissable to use the flesh of diseased
>animals so long as the visible signs of disease are removed.
>
Call your AAFCO representative (each state has one) and check for yourself!
GAUBSTER2
>but
>> they sure wanted free samples and Tshirts from Hill's even though they
>don't
>> feed the food.
It was a group of folks (neighbors, I think) that entered their dogs in an
impromptu agility competition.
GAUBSTER2
>provided prize money, but required handlers to wear their shirts and
>'recommend favorably' Hill's products?
The one in Portland, OR?? Nobody was required to wear Science Diet shirts OR
recommend favorably Hill's products. I asked the Hill's people about that!
They partnered up with Petco and Petco provided the prize $$. You sure assume
a lot of things.
buglady
And all this is because you feed Hill's?
go figure...
buglady
take out the dog before replying
diddy wrote in message <3CEFF5F2...@nospam.diddy.net>...
Rocky
> Too bad. I always thought Matt was a fairly intelligent dog
> owner. I guess he just hit my killfile under ignorance.
I'm annoyed at Steve's bringing the Taliban into a discussion
about dog food. I thought that it was highly inappropriate.
shelly
<bugl...@bigfootdog.com> wrote:
>Well, I'll bet Matt's just crushed!
no kidding!
>And all this is because you feed Hill's?
>
>go figure...
tolerance isn't Diddy's strong point. i objected to her
anti-cat spewage, so she told me i needed anti-depressants
(WTF???), and i objected to that, too. then she killfiled
me for being offended. i'm *still* boggling over it!
shelly
<PeTAsaysDri...@rocky-dog.com> wrote:
>I'm annoyed at Steve's bringing the Taliban into a discussion
>about dog food. I thought that it was highly inappropriate.
it was a stoopid thing for him to say and *way* out of line.
and, i *really* don't understand Diddy's "you don't like my
friend so i'm not going to play with you" mindset. sheesh!
Rocky
> and, i *really* don't understand Diddy's "you don't like my
> friend so i'm not going to play with you" mindset. sheesh!
Especially since I think Steve's got some good things to say,
generally; there's no way I'd killfile him for *one* statement.
As I said before, there's only one poster in my killfile.
shelly
wrote:
>loose excess weight and become more
>lean, more active, etc.
purely anectdotal. the two fattest dogs i've *ever* met are
fed SD. it's a weight reduction formula prescribed by their
vet and fed in accordance with the vet's recommendations.
it's not working. these dogs haven't lost a single ounce in
over a year, though their portions are ridiculously small.
and, yes, these dogs are exercised daily.
i know morbidly obese cats who are fed SD, as well.
that doesn't mean that SD is the cause of their obesity, but
it does make me suspicious. if i know that an animal has a
health problem that might be linked to their food, i'm not
about to feed that food unless i do a hell of a lot of
research on it, *if* then.
shelly
wrote:
>Shelly, then what exactly did you say?
why don't you Google for the post and read it yourself? i
was pretty clear in stating that using endorsements (whether
that be by vets, doctors, dentists, whatever) is pure
marketing. it has no bearing on whether the pet
food/margarine of the day/tooth paste is good or bad.