IAMS is owned by Procter and Gamble
kaeli
I just adopted a beautiful 2 year old male cat from a local shelter.
When I was taking him home, they told me he was used to IAMS dry.
Shocked an animal shelter would feed a P&G product, I inquired about it
and they were shocked to find out IAMS (and sister Eukanuba) were owned
by P&G. They will stop feeding IAMS immediately.
Just thought I'd share. I guess it isn't common knowledge that IAMS was
bought by P&G in 1997 or so.
Personally, I feed NutroMax.
--
~kaeli~
visit me at http://home.att.net/~infinite.possibilities
NY WRITER
writes
When I was taking him home, they told me he was used to IAMS dry.
Shocked an animal shelter would feed a P&G product, I inquired about it
and they were shocked to find out IAMS (and sister Eukanuba) were owned
by P&G. They will stop feeding IAMS immediately.
How very irresponsible of you to post this without stating WHY you are publicly
denouncing P&G.
Cathy Friedmann
news:20020731105143...@mb-fk.aol.com...
NY Writer - all of your posts are showing up (for me, anyway) with no
indicators such as > or : to show what is being quoted, & what you're saying
that is the newly posted reply; confusing.
If you look above, perhaps you'll see what I mean? kaeli's & your posts are
both indicated as being all one & the same, w/ only a space between the 2
posts, as in paragraphing.
Cathy
--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
Martini
We had a thread about P&G, Iams, and Eukanuba, not long ago - started
by Lauren (PawsForThought). I assume that most member of this group
know what kaeli´s reasons for not feeding Iams are, but I
unfortunately don´t have any links that Lauren posted - for those who
don´t know what we are talking about. Maybe someone else still has
them and will post them here.
M.
Phil P.
kaeli <infinite.po...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17b1a9a2...@nntp.lucent.com...
>
> I just adopted a beautiful 2 year old male cat from a local shelter.
> When I was taking him home, they told me he was used to IAMS dry.
> Shocked an animal shelter would feed a P&G product, I inquired about it
> and they were shocked to find out IAMS (and sister Eukanuba) were owned
> by P&G. They will stop feeding IAMS immediately.
> Just thought I'd share. I guess it isn't common knowledge that IAMS was
> bought by P&G in 1997 or so.
> Personally, I feed NutroMax.
The quality of Nutro products has deteriorated significantly over the past
few years to the point where its about equal to grocery brands -- just at
twice the price. The calcium and phosphorus levels have also increased,
much too high, which may predispose your cat to renal disease later in life.
As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or Science
Diet.
Phil.
kaeli
I did. You just didn't quote it. All reasons are at the website addy I
gave.
http://www.IAMSkills.com
Also, if you don't know why most animal lovers (at least that I know,
have met, talked to online, etc - YMMV) hate P&G, visit
http://pandgkills.com
I didn't know any animal lover *didn't* know about Procter and Gamble.
My bad, sorry.
kaeli
>
>
> The quality of Nutro products has deteriorated significantly over the past
> few years to the point where its about equal to grocery brands -- just at
> twice the price. The calcium and phosphorus levels have also increased,
> much too high, which may predispose your cat to renal disease later in life.
>
> As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or Science
> Diet.
>
> Phil.
>
Really? Thanks for the tip! I've been feeding Nutro for years, as my
cats don't like Science Diet. I fed IAMS until P&G bought them. I guess
I need to read more labels and choose another... *sigh*
I haven't tried Nature's Recipe. Maybe they'll like that.
Thanks :)
MAEPGH
>Diet.
>
>Phil
My kitties can back up Phil's recommendation; they love Nature's Recipe. Hope
nobody has a problem with Heinz!
Anna
FllSpdAhd1
Diet.
Phil.<
Phil - why S.D.? Just curious. I have done some cursory comparisons of their
basic food line, not the specialty line, and it seems they are close in quality
to Friskies and the like. Especially since Hills took over with their
affiliated company Colgate-Palmolive.
Again, I'm only curoius and certainly not looking to start a debate.
Sherry
>Diet.
>
>Phil.<
>
If anyone wishes to try Nature's Recipe, either the dog or cat food, just go to
this website and they will send you a coupon for a fulll-sized bag (value
$8.99). You'll get the coupon in a very short time, just a couple of weeks.
http://www.naturesrecipe.heinzpetproducts.com/trial/index.asp
Sherry
FllSpdAhd1
to
this website and they will send you a coupon for a fulll-sized bag (value
$8.99). You'll get the coupon in a very short time, just a couple of weeks.
http://www.naturesrecipe.heinzpetproducts.com/trial/index.asp
Sherry<
Unfortunately I believe the offer is over. I sent for a coupon and received it
a couple weeks ago. I looked on the coupon this morning and it expired 7/28/02
:(
Phil P.
FllSpdAhd1 <fllsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020731141120...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> >As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or Science
> Diet.
>
> Phil.<
> Phil - why S.D.? Just curious. I have done some cursory comparisons of
their
> basic food line, not the specialty line, and it seems they are close in
quality
> to Friskies and the like.
I don't know what criteria you're using for comparison, but Friskies'
quality isn't remotely close to SD's. Phosphorus and calcium contents are
crude, but fairly good indicators of quality; high P & Ca indicate poor
quality indredients (e.g., a lot of ground up bone, less & cheaper meat).
Friskies' P & Ca are nearly *twice*, and in some diets, *more* than twice
the levels of SD. High P & Ca also increase the risk of calcification of
soft tissue as well as mineral deposits in the kidneys.
The sodium content of most of Friskies diets are also *twice* that of SD.
High P & Na contents are what makes cheap (25-cents-a can), low quality cat
foods so palatable for cats. Unfortunately, many caring and
well-intentioned cat owners erroneously think if a cat gobbles up a food, it
must be good for them...
Comparing the three foods -- strickly -- by the virtues of their proximate
or typical analyses and leaving out personal opinion, Nutro is very similar
in quality to Friskies... only at triple the price!
Especially since Hills took over with their
> affiliated company Colgate-Palmolive.
I don't think Colgate-Palmolive manufactures any food products - I'm not
100% sure.. (Steve?). So, I don't think C-P uses Hills as a dumping ground
for their slaughterhouse waste.
> Again, I'm only curoius and certainly not looking to start a debate.
Not at all! It was a very good question! ;)
Phil.
--
"I can half-persuade myself into believing
the word "felonious" was derived from the Feline nature"
Feline Health Care & More: http://maxshouse.com
CatProtectionSoc
>Diet.
>Phil.
I read on a bag of Science Diet that its corp. hq is in South Africa.
CPS.
Antique
"Phil P." <ph...@maxshouse.org> wrote in message news:B7U19.132$rL6...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Sherry
Oh, no! Sorry, everyone :-(
Sherry
FllSpdAhd1
100% sure.. (Steve?). So, I don't think C-P uses Hills as a dumping ground
for their slaughterhouse waste.<
I know they are affiliated, but I don't know anything about their manufacturing
practices. I sure hope they don't recycle through Hills because I still buy
Colgate toothpaste every now and then.
Thanks for the reply Phil. Very informative. As I mentioned, mine was just a
quick comparison and I figured you would have more accurate information.
The biggest reason I have stayed away from Hills/SD is because they are
affiliated with the big corporations. When it comes to pet foods I generally
find that a large company like P&G will take a brand and ruin it before too
long.
For the record I feed Innova.
Anyway, thanks again :)
Harry
<infinite.po...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:]
> I just adopted a beautiful 2 year old male cat from a local shelter.
> When I was taking him home, they told me he was used to IAMS dry.
> Shocked an animal shelter would feed a P&G product, I inquired about it
> and they were shocked to find out IAMS (and sister Eukanuba) were owned
> by P&G. They will stop feeding IAMS immediately.
> Just thought I'd share. I guess it isn't common knowledge that IAMS was
> bought by P&G in 1997 or so.
> Personally, I feed NutroMax.
This discussion has come up many times in rec.pets.dogs.health. To
put it more bluntly, it has been beaten to death many times over.
In short, NutroMax is generally recognized a one of the better
foods.
But all this bullshit about Iams and Procter & Gamble doing invasive
testing and so forth is just that. It's for the tin-foil-hat people
who would rather jump right on some apparently "socially correct"
issue than check their facts. It is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
There are some people who gobble it down anyway. They evidently
like eating bullshit -- and puking it back up in public. That shows
everybody else how cool they are. Never mind that they don't know
their asses from their elbows.
There was one rather interesting post I read from a corn farmer who
sells directly to Iams. He lives just down the road from their
plant, and knows their operation first-hand.
He thinks the world of them. They will buy only the best, and they
are very responsible about how they conduct their business.
So, you tin-foil-hat people, you believe anything you want to
believe. I know you will anyway. Set up your bullshit websites and
circulate your rumors. Just be careful not to check your facts.
Harry
FllSpdAhd1
believe<
>There was one rather interesting post I read from a corn farmer who
sells directly to Iams. He lives just down the road from their plant, and
knows their operation first-hand.<
One of the reasons I don't feed Iams is because it's filled with way too much
corn...LOL!
Their ingredient and guaranteed analysis statements are the least impressive.
The animal cruelty issue aside I would never feed my pets Iams anyway.
Btw, the last person I am going to believe is the person such as the corn
framer who makes his mortgage from the company he is praising.
Karen
"Harry" <hc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7uggku4g16ets6frj...@4ax.com...
At what date did you talk to him? Do they still buy from him?
Karen
Phil P.
> In short, NutroMax is generally recognized a one of the better
> foods.
LOL! Only by people who don't know any better... Nutro *was* good years
ago... Now, its about equal to Friskies... at triple the price.
> Just be careful not to check your facts.
We can see where not checking your facts got you! LOL!
Phil P.
CatProtectionSoc <catprote...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020731170911...@mb-bk.aol.com...
All my cans and bags of Science Diet say Topeka, Kansas and "Made in the
USA"...
Phil.
Alison
"kaeli" <infinite.po...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17b1a9a2...@nntp.lucent.com...
>
Hi kaeli,
I have another link too
http://walk-wales.org.uk/Scandalofanimaltests.htm
Alison
PawsForThought
>Just thought I'd share. I guess it isn't common knowledge that IAMS was
>bought by P&G in 1997 or so.
Yes, I did know about it and even posted a story about it a while back. It's
awful how this company treats animals :( Thankfully, I never fed it to my
cats.
Lauren
_________
=^..^=
Sandpaper kisses on a cheek or a chin-that is the way for a day to begin!
See my cats: http://www.picturetrail.com/mickey4paws/703043
PawsForThought
>How very irresponsible of you to post this without stating WHY you are
>publicly
>denouncing P&G.
Why don't you go the website or do a Google search about P&G and you can see
for yourself. There was nothing wrong with her posting this. In fact, I found
it responsible, not irresponsible.
PawsForThought
>We had a thread about P&G, Iams, and Eukanuba, not long ago - started
>by Lauren (PawsForThought).
Thanks, Marta. I hadn't read your post and I just said that I had previously
posted a story about it. But then I started thinking maybe I hadn't, that I
just thought I did. Well you know, a long day, the mind goes... :)
Anyway, I'll see if I still have the links.
PawsForThought
>My kitties can back up Phil's recommendation; they love Nature's Recipe. Hope
>nobody has a problem with Heinz!
>
>Anna
I used to feed canned Nature's Recipe to my CRF kitty. It was the only kind
she liked for a while.
PawsForThought
>If anyone wishes to try Nature's Recipe, either the dog or cat food, just go
>to
>this website and they will send you a coupon for a fulll-sized bag (value
>$8.99). You'll get the coupon in a very short time, just a couple of weeks.
I got one of their coupons. The store I went to didn't carry Nature's Recipe
but they did let me use the coupon for some Wysong Archetype, which I preferred
anyway as I don't feed commercial food and just wanted something I could give
my cats as treats. They did send the coupon pretty quick.
PawsForThought
>For the record I feed Innova.
IMO Innova is a better choice than SD. SD uses too many chemicals in their
food for my liking. I tried it once with my last cat but she threw it up.
Lauren
Priscilla Ballou
catprote...@aol.com (CatProtectionSoc) wrote:
What's wrong with South Africa? Great country. I know many nice people
from there and still there.
Priscilla
--
"Love is not something wonderful that you feel; it is something
difficult that you do." -- Elizabeth Goudge
Harry
wrote:]
> LOL! Only by people who don't know any better... Nutro *was* good years
> ago... Now, its about equal to Friskies... at triple the price.
Okay. I really haven't looked into Nutro myself. I have seen where
many people seem to like it, but that may be dated information.
Harry
(PawsForThought) wrote:]
> Yes, I did know about it and even posted a story about it a while back. It's
> awful how this company treats animals :(
And just how is it that you think they treat animals?
Frankly, I think people like you who make public statements that are
defamatory as well as incorrect should get your butts sued off by
the companies you so ignorantly yet so confidently defame.
Harry
Harry
wrote:]
> One of the reasons I don't feed Iams is because it's filled with way too much
> corn...LOL!
That's okay also. I realize there is a large, very legitimate
debate regarding ingredients. Smart people on all sides.
My original point was that the "invasive testing" thing that
frequently gets alledged about Iams is not true. It was true years
ago, but it has not been true since prior to the time when P&G
acquired the company.
P&G is very sensitive to this stuff. They may not be the perfect
corporation -- which one is? -- but they are hardly guilty of this
crap that the tin-foil-hat crowd so recklessly throws around.
Harry
Harry
(PawsForThought) wrote:]
> Why don't you go the website or do a Google search about P&G and you can see
> for yourself. There was nothing wrong with her posting this. In fact, I found
> it responsible, not irresponsible.
What it was, is downright stupid.
Here's an excerpt from the FAQ on Iams website (www.iams.com):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Iams Company policy on the development of pet food is based
on the following fundamentals:
- The Iams Company is committed to improving the health and
well-being of cats and dogs through the development of superior
nutrition.
- The Iams Company will not participate in any study requiring or
resulting in the euthanasia of cats or dogs, nor will we conduct the
veterinary equivalent of any tests on cats or dogs, which is not
acceptable in nutritional or medical studies in people.
- Our efforts have always been guided by a strict code of ethics
that meets or exceeds the standards of the relevant legislation,
e.g., Animal Welfare Act of the US, the US Department of Agriculture
and Directive 86/609/EEC of the European Union.
- This policy applies to all Iams research, whether conducted by our
scientists or others.
At Iams, we stand behind our research and our 55-year track record
of enhancing the well-being of dogs and cats by providing premium
quality nutrition. We are proud that our science has been available
and used by others and that we have led breakthroughs in companion
animal health.
Several independent, third-party organizations have recently issued
statements of support for research.
Click to see statements from:
- The Kennel Club (UK)/Crufts
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
- American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
- American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)
- The Animal Medical Center (AMC)
- The American Kennel Club (AKC)
- Canine Companions for Independence (CCI)
- National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)
[Links are provided in the orginal]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I'm sure, in your infinite wisdom, that you think that's all a
pack of lies.
You friggin' airheads really amaze me.
Please make one specific, verifiable, negative allegation about Iams
testing methods and sign your name to it. If you care to play. I
will be delighted to go to war with you.
Idiots...
Harry
d5
coupon ( mid-last week) and it will expire on 8/16/02.
Almost sounds like there sending different coupons, dated relative to the
person having a couple of weeks to use it perhaps?
P.S> I had to go to Petco to find Nature's Recipe. WARNING, the NR and some
other foods in that store where already expired ( a few items were even over
a year beyond date!) and a couple of others very close to expiration within
days. I didn't check out the store head to toe so who knows what else, I had
seen enough. And this is a Petco at a major/ high volume shopping mall.
Check your dates! ( I know we do but let others who may not know this).
"Sherry " <srid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020731171227...@mb-fr.aol.com...
S.D.
> quality isn't remotely close to SD's. Phosphorus and calcium contents are
> crude, but fairly good indicators of quality; high P & Ca indicate poor
> quality indredients (e.g., a lot of ground up bone, less & cheaper meat).
> Friskies' P & Ca are nearly *twice*, and in some diets, *more* than twice
> the levels of SD. High P & Ca also increase the risk of calcification of
> soft tissue as well as mineral deposits in the kidneys.
>
> The sodium content of most of Friskies diets are also *twice* that of SD.
> High P & Na contents are what makes cheap (25-cents-a can), low quality
cat
> foods so palatable for cats. Unfortunately, many caring and
> well-intentioned cat owners erroneously think if a cat gobbles up a food,
it
> must be good for them...
>
should we be looking for in a good quality food? Thanks for the
info....I've been feeding Nutro thinking it was good quality stuff. Some of
the mentioned brands are hard to find out here, so I'd like to be able to
make my own judgement, rather than just looking for a specific brand.
Sally
Karen
hc...@ix.netcom.com wrote on 7/31/02 5:55 PM:
this new turn only just began happening the last few months. Unless, you
hang out in the cat groups, I really doubt you *would* know. It's a real
shame, because truly, it is hard to trust the makers of cat food! And they
are so darned picky! and everytime I do find a quality food they like the
companies change the formula. Even *I* can tell when I open the cans, let
alone the cats.
Karen
Karen
little girl cat began having very bad intestinal problems. We got her off of
IAMS and it stopped. SHe had eaten IAMS her whole life and not had a problem
until then. I had to conclude they were changing ingredients or the
ingredient sources. That's what bothers me. The companies change their
ingredients or where they get them, and it can cause real problems.
Karen
Karen
cat had urinary problems, who are now finding a lot of male cats having
urinary problems on IAMS and previously they thought it was a fine food.
Grant is not on IAMS anymore but it came up that that food seemed to be
causing "sludge" in urine, where previously they had not found their FUS
cats to be more on one or another food.
Grant's problem seems to have come from some change in the apartment and he
was "holding" his pee, because he didn't like going in the room where the
box was. We've fixed that since.
Karen
Elizabeth Blake
> LOL! Only by people who don't know any better... Nutro *was* good years
> ago... Now, its about equal to Friskies... at triple the price.
I had been feeding Nutro dry food to my cats for awhile now. Two years ago
I bought them some Wellness canned food, which they loved, so that's been
their wet food for some time. Just last week someone at work asked me why I
didn't feed them Wellness dry, since that's the canned food they get. I
needed more dry food so instead of Nutro I bought a bag of Wellness adult
dry food. The next morning I put out the cats' wet food and then put out
dry food as well. In one bowl I put some of the Nutro I had left and put
the Wellness dry in the other. Tiger was busy gobbling up her wet food (her
entire universe becomes that bowl when wet food is placed down) and after a
minute I guess she noticed something was different in the other bowl. She
stopped eating her wet food and because downing the Wellness dry. After she
had her fill, Otto came over and finished up the rest of the Wellness dry
food. These cats rarely eat dry food while I'm still home in the morning.
The eat the wet, then go off for a nap and start eating the dry food later.
Since last week, they have been devouring the dry food in the morning. it's
like putting down a bowl of candy in front of some children.
What I'm saying is... I really hope Wellness really is one of the better
foods. I have no idea what to look for on the labels.
My two cats at work currently eat Nutro Lite dry food, and Science Diet Lite
canned. They will not eat any other canned food - I've tried so many, even
regular (non-lite) brands/flavors. They don't seem as picky about the dry
food so maybe I'll try Wellness on them (they won't touch the Wellness
canned).
Liz
Harry
wrote:]
> And they are so darned picky!
This is one of the reasons why I will never adopt a cat.
They aren't simply "picky". When it comes to food, they are
absolute, complete, total assholes.
There is nothing quite like going out your way to buy them 56 packs
of the exact sorts of foods that you think they will like, then
having them immediately turn their noses up at what you've just
offered them. Which is the same thing that they liked so much just
yesterday.
They start meowing and whining. Feed me!
Goddammit, I did feed you.
I don't want that.
You liked it yesterday.
It's disgusting. It stinks.
Listen, you little bitch, either you eat that or I cut your balls
off.
Meow
Antique
"Harry" <hc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:poqgku4m9sipp68q2...@4ax.com...
Karen
hc...@ix.netcom.com wrote on 7/31/02 9:43 PM:
This was pretty funny. The deal is though, when it's YOUR cat (and they
aren't ALL picky, just some of them) the rest of it makes up for that. They
are SO entertaining and when they are bonded with YOU (baby sitting is not
the same thing) you look at them and just see total devotion. People say
dogs are devoted (and I like dogs) but cats are devoted in a much different
way. It's a more...mmm..picky devotion ;) over the mindless "pant, pant, I
luv you uh huh" way dogs have with almost everyone they meet, cats are
devoted just to YOU. They quietly need to be where you are. No matter what
room you go to, you eventually notice, they've made a spot somewhere near.
They know when you are ill and just where to be to make you feel better.
They run around like mad and show off when you've been gone. They're just
.... cool.
Karen
Cathy Friedmann
"Karen" <kchu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B96E150C.27F9C%kchu...@earthlink.net...
> in article 9v6hkuc12k18em5ro...@4ax.com, Harry at
> hc...@ix.netcom.com wrote on 7/31/02 9:43 PM:
>
> > [On 31 Jul 2002 20:35:08 -0500, Karen <kchu...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:]
> >
> >> And they are so darned picky!
> >
> > This is one of the reasons why I will never adopt a cat.
> >
> > They aren't simply "picky". When it comes to food, they are
> > absolute, complete, total assholes.
> >
> > There is nothing quite like going out your way to buy them 56 packs
> > of the exact sorts of foods that you think they will like, then
> > having them immediately turn their noses up at what you've just
> > offered them. Which is the same thing that they liked so much just
> > yesterday.
> >
> > They start meowing and whining. Feed me!
> >
> > Goddammit, I did feed you.
> >
> > I don't want that.
> >
> > You liked it yesterday.
> >
> > It's disgusting. It stinks.
> >
> > Listen, you little bitch, either you eat that or I cut your balls
> > off.
> >
> > Meow
> >
>
> This was pretty funny. The deal is though, when it's YOUR cat (and they
> aren't ALL picky, just some of them) the rest of it makes up for that.
One of my cats, Debbie (well, before the liver disease showed up), was the
most un-picky of eaters imaginable. Debbie liked everything. Her motto
was, "Is it edible?"
They
> are SO entertaining and when they are bonded with YOU (baby sitting is not
> the same thing) you look at them and just see total devotion. People say
> dogs are devoted (and I like dogs) but cats are devoted in a much
different
> way. It's a more...mmm..picky devotion ;) over the mindless "pant, pant, I
> luv you uh huh" way dogs have with almost everyone they meet, cats are
> devoted just to YOU. They quietly need to be where you are. No matter what
> room you go to, you eventually notice, they've made a spot somewhere near.
> They know when you are ill and just where to be to make you feel better.
> They run around like mad and show off when you've been gone. They're just
> .... cool.
>
> Karen
Agreed. :-) Well, except when they occasionally quietly go off in another
room for a few hours & don't mind being alone. Quite a dichotomy, with
cats. Makes them all the more interesting. ;-)
Cathy
--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
Cheryl
I'm so glad Grant is doing so much better. What we will do for our kitties.
I have a box in my bedroom now too. When I bought this house I thought how
great it was going to be to keep litter boxes downstairs. OOoooo wanna hear
what I caught Shamrock doing today? He's NEVER sprayed before but since the
box in my room I saw him lift his tail and spray (not pee) the side of it..
well the dog carrior bottom I put under the box. He was marking it! After
that I can see why some cats in multi-cat households get a litterbox
aversion.
Phil P.
S.D. <spa...@spammersmustdie.com> wrote in message
news:ukh2hm9...@corp.supernews.com...
> Phil, what's considered "high" for P, Ca and Na?
More than .90 - 1.00% P & Ca; > .30% Na (DM)
What kind of numbers
> should we be looking for in a good quality food?
< .70 - .80 % P & Ca; .30% Na (all DMB)
Thanks for the
> info....I've been feeding Nutro thinking it was good quality stuff.
Nutro used to be very good food. But I've noticed a steady increase in the
P & Ca over the last few years. Also, Nutro no longer uses feeding trials
to determine nutritional adequacy, digestibility and palatability of their
foods. Chemical analysis only determines the nutrient content of the food -
not how much the cat can actually digest and use. Shoe leather will analyze
as protein - but the cat won't digest or use very much of it.
Right after I questioned Nutro about the P & Ca increases, they removed all
the proximate analyses from their site
Maybe Nutro had a change in mgt? The kids took over???
Some of
> the mentioned brands are hard to find out here, so I'd like to be able to
> make my own judgement, rather than just looking for a specific brand.
The next time you're in the pet store, write down the phone & address of the
pet food mfgers off the labels; then call or write for their "Typical
Analysis" or "Proximate Analysis" - this will give you a breakdown of the
nutrient contents of the diets. The label "guaranteed analysis" is not the
actual nutrient content of the food - only minimum and maximums.
http://maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm
Good luck.
Phil.
Phil P.
Elizabeth Blake <poodl...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%9129.4649$cI.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
.
>
> What I'm saying is... I really hope Wellness really is one of the better
> foods. I have no idea what to look for on the labels.
Wellness seems like a good food - I'm just not crazy about all the plant
material - seems more like rabbit food than a carnivore's diet.... I also
don't like flax seed in a diet - too much omega-6.
They *still* haven't sent me their typical/promimate analysis so I don't
know the phosphorus/calcium/sodium levels.
>
> My two cats at work currently eat Nutro Lite dry food, and Science Diet
Lite
> canned. They will not eat any other canned food - I've tried so many,
even
> regular (non-lite) brands/flavors. They don't seem as picky about the dry
> food so maybe I'll try Wellness on them (they won't touch the Wellness
> canned).
>
> Liz
I'd try to wean them off Nutro, if I were you.
Good luck.
Phil.
Phil P.
P&G held a press conference only *three months* before they bought the Iams
Company to announce they were no longer testing their products on animals...
PawsForThought
>[On 31 Jul 2002 22:32:59 GMT, dar...@aol.comnolitter
>(PawsForThought) wrote:]
>
>> Why don't you go the website or do a Google search about P&G and you can
>see
>> for yourself. There was nothing wrong with her posting this. In fact, I
>found
>> it responsible, not irresponsible.
>
>What it was, is downright stupid.
>
>Here's an excerpt from the FAQ on Iams website (www.iams.com):
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>3. The Iams Company policy on the development of pet food is based
>on the following fundamentals:
>
>- The Iams Company is committed to improving the health and
>well-being of cats and dogs through the development of superior
>nutrition.
LOL! Well of course IAMS is going to say good things about their own company!
kaeli
> [On 31 Jul 2002 22:32:59 GMT, dar...@aol.comnolitter
> (PawsForThought) wrote:]
>
> > Why don't you go the website or do a Google search about P&G and you can see
> > for yourself. There was nothing wrong with her posting this. In fact, I found
> > it responsible, not irresponsible.
>
> What it was, is downright stupid.
>
> Here's an excerpt from the FAQ on Iams website (www.iams.com):
>
>
> Now I'm sure, in your infinite wisdom, that you think that's all a
> pack of lies.
>
Yup.
From another website, since you wanna play war of the websites...
========================================================================
Iams/Eukanuba has been using dogs and cats in highly invasive
experiments that subjected them to major surgeries and implanted them
with tubes and other apparatus throughout their bodies. All of the
experiments described below have been published in recent journals of
veterinary research, most within the past three years.
One cruel experiment to study the effect of extreme weight fluctuations
on the liver forced 24 cats to become obese by feeding them a high-
calorie diet immediately after being spayed. Once obese, these cats were
then starved for 7 to 8 weeks on a diet containing only 25% of the
calories needed for maintenance, in order to induce drastic weight loss.
The rapid, extreme weight loss forced 3 of the cats to develop hepatic
lipidosis, a devastating disease that is difficult to treat and often
fatal. No mention is made about the ultimate fate of the surviving cats.
(1)
In another study to look at diet and allergies, 14 newborn puppies were
manipulated with injections to develop allergens to various food
ingredients. When the dogs were later placed on diets containing the
allergen, they lost weight, developed moderate to severe diarrhea, hair
loss and itching. Twice during the experiment, the dogs had solutions of
the allergy- causing ingredient injected into the lining of the stomach
while under anesthesia. These dogs will remain allergic for the rest of
their lives. (2)
One cruel experiment to study the effect of extreme weight fluctuations
on the liver forced cats to become obese by feeding them a high-calorie
diet immediately after being spayed. Upon becoming obese, the same cats
were then starved for 7 to 8 weeks on a diet containing only 25% of the
required calories in order to induce drastic weight loss. The extreme
weight fluctuations forced the cats to undergo hepatic lipidosis, a
devastating disease that is not easily cured. No mention is made about
the ultimate fate of these cats. (3)
A 1998 experiment sponsored by Iams killed 18 young Great Danes to study
the effect of diet on bone density. The dogs had been placed on diets
with varying amounts of calcium and phosphorus and were later killed so
that their bones could be removed and analyzed. (4)
To study fiber in the diet, cats were subjected to surgeries that opened
their abdominal cavities and flushed out the contents of the intestines.
At the end of the experiment, all 28 cats used in the study had the
entire large intestine removed. The study does not state the final fate
of these cats. (5)
In fact, most of these experiments do not address what happens to the
animals after the experiments. Animals with complex medical problems,
missing large sections of their intestines, or forced to develop chronic
allergies, are all manipulated to endure a life of disability and
suffering.
References
[1] Ibriham, WH, Szabo, J, Sunvold, GD, et al, Effect of dietary protein
quality and fatty acid composition on plasma lipoprotein concentrations
and hepatic triglyceride fatty acid synthesis in obese cats undergoing
rapid weight loss, Amer J Vet Res 2000; 6(5):556-572.
[2] Hayek, M.G., Hypersensitivity reactions to dietary antigens in
atopic dogs. Proceedings of 2000 Iams Nutrition Symposium
[3] Ibriham, Szabo, Sunvold, Kelleher, Bruckner, "Effect of dietary
protein quality and fatty acid composition on plasma lipoprotein
concentrations and hepatic triglyceride fatty acid synthesis in obese
cats undergoing rapid weight loss," AJVR, Vol. 61, Iams)5:556-572 (2000)
[4] Crenshaw, Budde, Lauten, Lepine, Nutritional Effects on Bone
Strength in the Growing Canine, 1998 Iams Nutrition Symposium.
[5] Bueno, Cappel, Sunvold, Reinhart, Clemen, "Feline Colonic Morphology
and Mucosal Tissue Energetics as Influenced via Sources of Dietary
Fiber," Nutrition Research, Vol. 20, 7:985-993 (2000).
========================================================================
> You friggin' airheads really amaze me.
>
> Please make one specific, verifiable, negative allegation about Iams
> testing methods and sign your name to it. If you care to play. I
> will be delighted to go to war with you.
>
Well, there ya go. Go play.
And besides, the fact that they are owned by P&G is enough for me,
regardless of whether the specific products even were tested on animals
at all. Which they were. See above. I can find more articles, I'm sure,
but an intelligent guy like you can surely find plenty through Google.
> Idiots...
>
You always call people names while attempting rational discourse? Then
expect anyone whose mind is already pretty set to change? Oh, yeah.
Okay. Whatever.
--
~kaeli~
visit me at http://home.att.net/~infinite.possibilities
FllSpdAhd1
Company to announce they were no longer testing their products on animals...<
I read about this, but I also read about P&G's continued sponsorship of
university research using animals and some of the studies I read can hardly be
considered humane. So they may not test on animals directly, but indirectly P&G
allegedly subsidizes university research.
Of course we could go on for days about what has been published in their favor
as well as against them.
Regardless, when comparing their pet food products to others I believe they
fail miserably. My opinion isn't based on animal testing, but rather on
personal education and experience with their product.
kaeli
There's a reason they don't sue us. The statements are correct.
Have another link (thanks Alison!).
http://walk-wales.org.uk/Scandalofanimaltests.htm
From P&G themselves.
"When we must use animals, we ensure each animal is given the best
professional veterinary care."
They use animals. Enough for me.
From my ex, who was an inspector with an animal welfare league, P&G
chronically paid fines when they broke the laws rather than obey the
laws because it was cheaper and more efficient.
More links - they can't sue everybody!
http://www.allforanimals.com/news-june98.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Societies/greensoc/archive/procterandgamble/
http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/97/6/lab.htm
http://www.gurlpages.com/veggie_girl/proctorandgamble.html
http://www.pandgkills.com/gd.html
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/1999/000057.html
I'm not saying the company isn't getting better - they are. Or at least
they say they are. But they are a huge company. When they do tests, the
tests are not done humanely at all, if there even is such a thing as
humane testing. I buy all cruelty-free products. That is my choice. If a
company is not cruelty-free, that is not slander or libel, it is a mere
statement of fact. I certainly won't feed a food to my animals from a
company that kills pets just like mine.
That is my right. And I also have a right to express my opinion. That's
why I live in the US. Oh, wait, maybe you *don't*. I forget the web is
international sometimes. What communist country do you live in?
Priscilla Ballou
Harry <hc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I'm curious about the wet vs dry. Has the wet deteriorated as well as
the dry? I feed largely Nutro Natural choice wet, and my cats scarf it
down and are pretty healthy.
MAEPGH
>cat had urinary problems, who are now finding a lot of male cats having
>urinary problems on IAMS and previously they thought it was a fine food.
I'm not supporting or opposing IAMS here but I had to point out that this
seems like faulty logic to me. You'd need to answer questions like: 1. Has
there been an increase in overall urinary disease cases? 2. What percentage
of cats eating IAMS develop urinary disease and is this percentage a: up from
what it was before IAMS was sold; and b: significantly higher than the
percentage of cats eating other foods? What I mean here is: let's say 100
cats eat IAMS and 10 develop urinary problems. Now let's suppose 50 cats eat
Wysong and 5 develop urinary problems. In this case, it's true to say that
twice the number of cats eating IAMS develop urinary problems when compared to
the cats eating Wysong. However, the percentages (10%) are the same. My guess
is that at least part of the explanation for seeing an increase in urinary
problems in cats who eat IAMS is that there has been an increase in the numbers
of cats who eat IAMS now that the food is available in grocery stores (and they
publish coupons all the time).
Anna
Cate
news:MPG.17b305d11...@nntp.lucent.com...
> I'm not saying the company isn't getting better - they are. Or at least
> they say they are. But they are a huge company. When they do tests, the
> tests are not done humanely at all, if there even is such a thing as
> humane testing.
There is such a thing as humane animal testing (in general), and you are a
beneficiary of it. (Whether such standards are enforced or even required for
testing of animal food, I don't know.) Medical advances alone, most people
would agree, warrant the humane testing of animals.
> I buy all cruelty-free products. That is my choice.
I hope you'll take this in the purely educational manner in which it's
intended: I'd bet my next paycheck that there are things in your home or on
your person that are not 'cruelty-free.' I say this because many people
don't know the breadth of products and their components that are tested on
animals. e.g., any medication that's consumed in the US has at some point
been tested on animals. That birth control pill, that Viagra, that allergy
medication, that growth hormone, that infertility treatment, that insulin,
that beta blocker, that antidepressant--all have been forcibly tested on
animals. And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way. Test medications on
animals first, and then humans can have them. I do not have the same opinion
of beauty products like makeup or hairspray, but I'm on the fence about
other products I must use, such as tampons, etc.
If a
> company is not cruelty-free, that is not slander or libel, it is a mere
> statement of fact.
Actually, it's a semantic argument, because your definition of cruelty is
bound to be different than another person's definition.
I certainly won't feed a food to my animals from a
> company that kills pets just like mine.
Nor would I, but although I'm a regular reader of this ng, I'd no idea that
P&G was accused of such practices. However, I'll be checking it out myself
before ridding my house of P&G products rather than taking possibly dated
info from a web site or from Usenet.
Cate
MAEPGH
>ago... Now, its about equal to Friskies... at triple the price.
One thing I do wish is that other producers would copy the Nutro Gourmet shape.
My cats love the little cubed consistency and they won't eat anything ground.
They like the "julienned strips" of Nature's Recipe, too. I know SD has a
couple varieties in the little cubes but my cats don't really like it (it's one
of those foods that they approved of the gravy but not the chunks - LOL).
Anna
Karen
to make them notice) were on IAMS.
Karen
"MAEPGH" <mae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020801114553...@mb-fu.aol.com...
PawsForThought
>I'm not supporting or opposing IAMS here but I had to point out that this
>seems like faulty logic to me. You'd need to answer questions like: 1. Has
>there been an increase in overall urinary disease cases? 2. What percentage
>of cats eating IAMS develop urinary disease and is this percentage a: up from
>what it was before IAMS was sold; and b: significantly higher than the
>percentage of cats eating other foods? What I mean here is: let's say 100
>cats eat IAMS and 10 develop urinary problems. Now let's suppose 50 cats eat
>Wysong and 5 develop urinary problems. In this case, it's true to say that
>twice the number of cats eating IAMS develop urinary problems when compared
>to
>the cats eating Wysong. However, the percentages (10%) are the same. My
>guess
>is that at least part of the explanation for seeing an increase in urinary
>problems in cats who eat IAMS is that there has been an increase in the
>numbers
>of cats who eat IAMS now that the food is available in grocery stores (and
>they
>publish coupons all the time).
>
>Anna
While it may be true that more people are buying Iams than Wysong, I still
think from seeing the ingredients and formulation for both products, that
Wysong is light years ahead of Iams, and I would be willing to be that cats
eating Wysong are healthier than cats eating Iams.
JMO.
kaeli
> "kaeli" <infinite.po...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17b305d11...@nntp.lucent.com...
>
> > I'm not saying the company isn't getting better - they are. Or at least
> > they say they are. But they are a huge company. When they do tests, the
> > tests are not done humanely at all, if there even is such a thing as
> > humane testing.
>
> There is such a thing as humane animal testing (in general), and you are a
> beneficiary of it. (Whether such standards are enforced or even required for
> testing of animal food, I don't know.) Medical advances alone, most people
> would agree, warrant the humane testing of animals.
>
Most people would, I'm sure. However, what was done in the past is done,
and we both benefit from it and can't change it. There are advances now
that make animal testing unnecessary, or so I believe based on the fact
that some companies can get along fine without it. If one single company
can do it (and more than that do) then they all should. This is merely
my opinion.
And I can't think of a single way animal tests could be humane, but I am
biased from reading about vivisections and how animals can't be given
pain meds because it affects the tests. I am not talking about
"voluntary" tests like an already sick animal going on meds to see if it
gets better. That's a trial, and humans do it all the time. I'm talking
about animals who were healthy who are no longer healthy (or even alive)
after the tests. If an animal experiences pain (not just a little pain,
we're talking real pain, like burning chemicals on their skin and
cutting them when they have no anesthetic - permanent injury) as a
result of a test, it is not humane. When they make a healthy animal sick
so they can test a drug, that is not humane. This is my opinion - as you
said, semantics.
> > I buy all cruelty-free products. That is my choice.
>
> I hope you'll take this in the purely educational manner in which it's
> intended: I'd bet my next paycheck that there are things in your home or on
> your person that are not 'cruelty-free.' I say this because many people
> don't know the breadth of products and their components that are tested on
> animals. e.g., any medication that's consumed in the US has at some point
> been tested on animals. That birth control pill, that Viagra, that allergy
> medication, that growth hormone, that infertility treatment, that insulin,
> that beta blocker, that antidepressant--all have been forcibly tested on
> animals. And I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way. Test medications on
> animals first, and then humans can have them. I do not have the same opinion
> of beauty products like makeup or hairspray, but I'm on the fence about
> other products I must use, such as tampons, etc.
>
I know. And I do take it as educational. I am still finding the
occasional thing I didn't know about. Everything was *once* tested on
animals (general statement, not literal). I am careful to try to buy
from companies that have signed statements saying they will *no longer*
test ANY of their products on animals.
I go by this list, as it is the one I trust most.
http://www.peta-online.org/mall/cc/ccdonttest1.html
I also buy if the product says it is cruelty-free, but that's where I
got duped a couple times, discovering the product itself wasn't tested
on animals, but the company that makes it tests other products on
animals.
I take no drugs that are *currently* tested on animals, because I take
no drugs at all except aspirin and the occasional antacid. However,
drugs tested on animals have killed people. And drugs that kill animals
help people (aspirin can kill cats). The US is the only country that I
know of *required* to test on animals. Since the FDA requires it, one
has no choice but to buy drugs tested on animals. I am mostly an herbal
gal. I am healthy, though, and have little need for medications.
> If a
> > company is not cruelty-free, that is not slander or libel, it is a mere
> > statement of fact.
>
> Actually, it's a semantic argument, because your definition of cruelty is
> bound to be different than another person's definition.
>
I suppose the definition of cruelty is, but a company either tests on
animals or it does not. There is no opinion involved in that simple
fact.
> I certainly won't feed a food to my animals from a
> > company that kills pets just like mine.
>
> Nor would I, but although I'm a regular reader of this ng, I'd no idea that
> P&G was accused of such practices. However, I'll be checking it out myself
> before ridding my house of P&G products rather than taking possibly dated
> info from a web site or from Usenet.
>
My original post, the very first one that started this (which may not be
archived on your newsserver), never said a bad thing at all about P&G.
Only after someone pushed me on *why* I didn't want to feed a P&G
product did it come up.
[my original]
"I just adopted a beautiful 2 year old male cat from a local shelter.
When I was taking him home, they told me he was used to IAMS dry.
Shocked an animal shelter would feed a P&G product, I inquired about it
and they were shocked to find out IAMS (and sister Eukanuba) were owned
by P&G. They will stop feeding IAMS immediately.
Just thought I'd share. I guess it isn't common knowledge that IAMS was
bought by P&G in 1997 or so.
Personally, I feed NutroMax."
[/quote]
My original intention was merely to tell people that P&G owned IAMS.
Many of us do stay away from them, and if someone like me who is trying
to stay away doesn't know that a product is owned by them, I figured
they might want to. That's all this began as. Most people are pretty
firm in whatever opinions they have and trying to change them is pretty
fruitless.
MAEPGH
>think from seeing the ingredients and formulation for both products, that
>Wysong is light years ahead of Iams, and I would be willing to be that cats
>eating Wysong are healthier than cats eating Iams.
>JMO.
>
>Lauren
My point was not that more cats eat IAMS than Wysong, nor was it to support one
company over the other; it was to try to highlight how misleading statistics
can be and to point out what I saw as faulty logic. If a vet can say, "last
month I saw 30 cats with urinary problems and 3 of them ate IAMS and this month
I saw 30 cats with urinary problems and 15 of them ate IAMS," that doesn't
necessarily mean that something has changed with the IAMS formula or that the
urinary problems are in any way related to food consumption. It may mean, as I
stated before, that more cats are eating IAMS. Therefore, it would follow
logically: if 60% of the vet's patients eat IAMS, approximately 60% of the
urinary cases the doctor treats can be IAMS eaters, as well without sending up
any alarm bells.
There always seems to be a great willingness in the medical community (or at
least in the organizations that report medical news) to believe that if A
exists and B happens, then B was caused by A. This is, of course, not true and
often simpler explanations are overlooked.
(BTW, Click & Clack had a similar argument a while ago about cars being stolen.
Yes, more Camrys are stolen nationwide but there are also more Camrys on the
road. The percentage of (say, for example) Corvettes stolen compared to # of
Corvettes on the road is higher than the percentage of Camrys stolen compared
to # of Camrys on road. So, while more Camrys are stolen per year, it is *less*
likely that *your* Camry will be stolen b/c there are so many of them on the
road. But that's not the stat that makes it to the news.)
Anna
Karen M.
> >From: kaeli infinite.po...@NOSPAMatt.net
> >Just thought I'd share. I guess it isn't common knowledge that IAMS was
> >bought by P&G in 1997 or so.
>
> cats.
>
> Lauren
>
> _________
> =^..^=
> Sandpaper kisses on a cheek or a chin-that is the way for a day to begin!
> See my cats: http://www.picturetrail.com/mickey4paws/703043
For an update, this was on the P&G website as of today:
"Q: Why has P&G ended animal testing for its beauty, fabric and home
care, and paper products?
A: P&G is committed to ultimately eliminating animal testing for
products intended for human use, and we have been moving in that
direction over the past several years. Thanks to advancements in
science and technology, we can confirm the safety of these finished
products through non-animal research alternatives, without any new
animal testing."
This has not been substantiated by any of the groups that are
encouraging boycotts of P&G (at least not on their websites). But if
true, they are still testing for some of their products, though this
would be a good first step.
Karen M.
Cate
> And the fire said to me...on Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:50:58 -0400 in article
> <aiblgg$13ahnm$1...@ID-137534.news.dfncis.de>, orson...@yahoo.com said:
> > "kaeli" <infinite.po...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.17b305d11...@nntp.lucent.com...
> >
> > > I'm not saying the company isn't getting better - they are. Or at
least
> > > they say they are. But they are a huge company. When they do tests,
the
> > > tests are not done humanely at all, if there even is such a thing as
> > > humane testing.
> >
> > There is such a thing as humane animal testing (in general), and you are
a
> > beneficiary of it. (Whether such standards are enforced or even required
for
> > testing of animal food, I don't know.) Medical advances alone, most
people
> > would agree, warrant the humane testing of animals.
> >
>
> Most people would, I'm sure. However, what was done in the past is done,
> and we both benefit from it and can't change it. There are advances now
> that make animal testing unnecessary, or so I believe based on the fact
> that some companies can get along fine without it. If one single company
> can do it (and more than that do) then they all should. This is merely
> my opinion.
Well, if we're speaking only of pet food, I honestly can't see the need for
any testing other than feeding trials. However, beyond the pet food issue,
there are companies who can't or won't get beyond animal testing, either for
profit, for legal requirements, or just because of common sense, as in the
case of lifesaving human medicines. But bravo to the corporate giants who
see the need to stop animal testing of products like mascara (how many more
varieties do we need, thus perpetuating the 'need' for animal testing?).
> And I can't think of a single way animal tests could be humane, but I am
> biased from reading about vivisections and how animals can't be given
> pain meds because it affects the tests.
Well, that's the nature of propaganda--to bias people by their only reading
one side or a slanted view. I'm not saying you're biased, or that your
opinion is unjust or uneducated, only that this is the very objective of
much literature. (However, it's my personal opinion that PETA is headed by a
nutjob, and that therefore the organization's credibility is suspect.
Anything they put out I automatically dismiss without a second opinion from
a more objective source.)
I am not talking about
> "voluntary" tests like an already sick animal going on meds to see if it
> gets better. That's a trial, and humans do it all the time. I'm talking
> about animals who were healthy who are no longer healthy (or even alive)
> after the tests. If an animal experiences pain (not just a little pain,
> we're talking real pain, like burning chemicals on their skin and
> cutting them when they have no anesthetic - permanent injury) as a
> result of a test, it is not humane. When they make a healthy animal sick
> so they can test a drug, that is not humane. This is my opinion - as you
> said, semantics.
I'm not being argumentative here, just sort of thinking aloud. What do you
think of vet schools that require vet students to break a healthy animal's
bones so they can learn how to set them? Would it surprise you to learn that
some of these previously healthy animals are euthanized afterward just
because, according to the school policy, the animal has served it purpose?
(At her school, some are euthed, some aren't. Some schools don't do this at
all.) I tell you, it shocked me when my recently graduate vet friend told
me. She's a vegetarian for political reasons, and it bothered her, to put it
mildly, that she had to put down a perfectly healthy (other than a broken
leg) dog just so she could learn how to set complicated fractures. Her vet
school was not uncommon in this practice, she says. It sounds horrendous.
And yet... she's now able to save other animals' lives. I'm not sure what I
think about this, but I don't dismiss it out of hand.
While the above isn't testing, per se, it's (the bone-breaking, not the
euthanasia) an arguably reasonable use of animals. Cruel? Maybe. Depends on
your perspective. Necessary? I'd bet most vet students think practicing on
real animals is infinitely more educational than using computer models.
Everything was *once* tested on
> animals (general statement, not literal). I am careful to try to buy
> from companies that have signed statements saying they will *no longer*
> test ANY of their products on animals.
> I go by this list, as it is the one I trust most.
> http://www.peta-online.org/mall/cc/ccdonttest1.html
> I also buy if the product says it is cruelty-free, but that's where I
> got duped a couple times, discovering the product itself wasn't tested
> on animals, but the company that makes it tests other products on
> animals.
There are other factors, too. The company that sells a 'cruelty-free'
product may use components in manufacturing, shipping, assembling, or
packaging their products that come from places that do test on animals. Or
these components themselves may be tested on animals.
> I take no drugs that are *currently* tested on animals, because I take
> no drugs at all except aspirin and the occasional antacid.
This is a good example of what I just said. Aspirin is not, that I know of,
currently tested on animals. You'd think that since it's been around for
eons that no more testing is needed. But how about different varieties of
aspirin? For arthritis, for menstrual pain, coated (enteric) aspirin,
time-release formulas, migraine formulas. These are components or mechanisms
or variations that aren't old as the hills, and at some point, likely
recently (like maybe last year) required animal testing. (Sorry to beat a
dead horse. This is for the benefit of others; not berating you.)
However,
> drugs tested on animals have killed people. And drugs that kill animals
> help people (aspirin can kill cats). The US is the only country that I
> know of *required* to test on animals.
And I for one am glad about it. This way, we'll have no more Tuskegee
experiments. (Black men were infected with syphilis unbeknownst to them, as
an experiment. The few that were diagnosed were denied treatment.) Before
the animal testing requirement, things were tested on people. Often without
their knowledge, or, even with their knowledge but without their consent.
That's why there was the whole 'informed consent' movement with patients and
clinical trial subjects in the medical field.
> > If a
> > > company is not cruelty-free, that is not slander or libel, it is a
mere
> > > statement of fact.
> >
> > Actually, it's a semantic argument, because your definition of cruelty
is
> > bound to be different than another person's definition.
> >
>
> I suppose the definition of cruelty is, but a company either tests on
> animals or it does not. There is no opinion involved in that simple
> fact.
True. But then you (general you) have to define for yourself whether all
animal testing is necessarily cruel. And to come to any other conclusion
than 'yes' you'd have to believe there is a form of humane testing.
> My original post, the very first one that started this (which may not be
> archived on your newsserver), never said a bad thing at all about P&G.
> Only after someone pushed me on *why* I didn't want to feed a P&G
> product did it come up.
My bad. Sorry.
Cate
Dom Runner
Cate <orson...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aic4us$12p5h6$1...@ID-137534.news.dfncis.de...
> I'm not being argumentative here, just sort of thinking aloud. What do you
> think of vet schools that require vet students to break a healthy animal's
> bones so they can learn how to set them? Would it surprise you to learn
that
> some of these previously healthy animals are euthanized afterward just
> because, according to the school policy, the animal has served it purpose?
This practice is rapidly being outdated as more and more vet students refuse
to take part. In Europe such kill labs are unknown yet their vet students
are just as able to save the lives of animals as American vets. Why?
Instead of kill labs that twist the emotions and minds of their students,
they use animal models and then allow students to work alongside graduate
vets in needed surgeries.
Kill labs are NOT acceptable. Period. And students know this and have been
fighting for a number of years over the use. Right now many schools offer
kill labs as an option that is not required. Soon they won't be offered at
all...and I promise you that the ability of American vets to care for
animals with compassion and love will only increase after the change.
> And yet... she's now able to save other animals' lives. I'm not sure what
I
> think about this, but I don't dismiss it out of hand.
>
> While the above isn't testing, per se, it's (the bone-breaking, not the
> euthanasia) an arguably reasonable use of animals. Cruel? Maybe. Depends
on
> your perspective. Necessary? I'd bet most vet students think practicing on
> real animals is infinitely more educational than using computer models.
But those are not the only options. Students can work alongside real vets
in real surgeries. A student who has killed her patient hasn't learned the
most important lessons. And how will she ever know how well mended the
fracture resolved? After all, her patient is no longer around 6 months
later to observe limbing in or even the next day to cry for pain control.
>
> And I for one am glad about it. This way, we'll have no more Tuskegee
> experiments. (Black men were infected with syphilis unbeknownst to them,
as
> an experiment. The few that were diagnosed were denied treatment.) Before
> the animal testing requirement, things were tested on people. Often
without
> their knowledge, or, even with their knowledge but without their consent.
> That's why there was the whole 'informed consent' movement with patients
and
> clinical trial subjects in the medical field.
Yes, consent is important, isn't it? We shudder when we have to think about
things done to us without our knowledge, without our control. It's among
the worst thing we can think of. Kind of funny in a way, really.
In my opinion, responsibility is everything. You want to see if this drug
is safe and help millions of people, maybe even save lives? Good. You take
it. Anything less is passing responsibility on to someone else, which is
not correct. If you won't...guess you didn't really want to save those
lives that badly, did you?
Just my thoughts. I don't take drugs, period...even those I really could
use them. But I don't want to be part of that passing the responsibility
for ourselves on to others.
Sethran
>
PawsForThought
>Most people would, I'm sure. However, what was done in the past is done,
>and we both benefit from it and can't change it. There are advances now
>that make animal testing unnecessary, or so I believe based on the fact
>that some companies can get along fine without it. If one single company
>can do it (and more than that do) then they all should. This is merely
>my opinion.
Here's an excellent website that lists both companies that are cruelty free and
ones that test:
www.allforanimals.com/cruelfree1.htm
PawsForThought
>But those are not the only options. Students can work alongside real vets
>in real surgeries. A student who has killed her patient hasn't learned the
>most important lessons. And how will she ever know how well mended the
>fracture resolved? After all, her patient is no longer around 6 months
>later to observe limbing in or even the next day to cry for pain control
Humans don't break bones to learn how to set them so why is it being done to
animals?
PawsForThought
>Anna
You're right, Anna. That's what I get for drive by posting. I totally agree
with you. I don't see how a vet can say a cat eats a certain brand and so
therefore, that's what caused the health problem. Not very scientific. Now if
half his clients' cats ate Iams, and the other half Wysong, then it might be
interesting to see.
Lauren
Phil P.
FllSpdAhd1 <fllsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020801103916...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> >P&G held a press conference only *three months* before they bought the
Iams
> Company to announce they were no longer testing their products on
animals...<
>
>
> I read about this, but I also read about P&G's continued sponsorship of
> university research using animals and some of the studies I read can
hardly be
> considered humane. So they may not test on animals directly, but
indirectly P&G
> allegedly subsidizes university research.
Absolutely. P&G's motives for announcing their "cessation" of animal
testing weren't too obvious.... Now, they just have outside labs do their
dirty work so they look squeeky clean. After all, animal testing doesn't go
very well with their heart-warming pet food commercials....
> Of course we could go on for days about what has been published in their
favor
> as well as against them.
> Regardless, when comparing their pet food products to others I believe
they
> fail miserably. My opinion isn't based on animal testing, but rather on
> personal education and experience with their product.
Iams used to be an excellent food years ago when The Iams Company owned Iams
and Euk. Now, Iams has also adopted "least cost formulation" to compound
their diets. IOW, the quality of their ingredients depends on market
prices...
Instead of competing with Hills, Nature's Recipe, Innova, Wellness even
Nutro, Iams now competes with Friskies and Alpo in the grocery stores!
Phil.
Phil P.
Priscilla Ballou <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vze23t8n-169DE9...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> In article <dkqgkus1qi1ju60ld...@4ax.com>,
> Harry <hc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > [On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:14:23 GMT, "Phil P." <ph...@maxshouse.org>
> > wrote:]
> >
> > > LOL! Only by people who don't know any better... Nutro *was* good
years
> > > ago... Now, its about equal to Friskies... at triple the price.
> >
> > Okay. I really haven't looked into Nutro myself. I have seen where
> > many people seem to like it, but that may be dated information.
>
> I'm curious about the wet vs dry. Has the wet deteriorated as well as
> the dry? I feed largely Nutro Natural choice wet, and my cats scarf it
> down and are pretty healthy.
I noticed the increase in P & Ca in the dry food before the increases in the
canned.
HTH,
Phil.
--
"Like a graceful vase, a cat, even when motionless,
seems to flow". -George P. Will
Feline healthcare http://maxshouse.com
Karen
dar...@aol.comnolitter wrote on 8/1/02 5:12 PM:
>> From: "Dom Runner" domr...@comcast.net
>
>> But those are not the only options. Students can work alongside real vets
>> in real surgeries. A student who has killed her patient hasn't learned the
>> most important lessons. And how will she ever know how well mended the
>> fracture resolved? After all, her patient is no longer around 6 months
>> later to observe limbing in or even the next day to cry for pain control
>
> Humans don't break bones to learn how to set them so why is it being done to
> animals?
>
>
>
No kidding. As though plenty of injuries and illnesses aren't coming into
hospitals or vets everyday! Or even into shelters. Does not seem to be any
need to "create" the problems.
Karen
Karen
dar...@aol.comnolitter wrote on 8/1/02 5:15 PM:
Well, I don't believe I said that they say it *caused* the problem but that,
independently, they had both noticed and were alarmed by an observed trend.
Karen
PawsForThought
While it may not be able to be proven through a vet's office, I wouldn't be
surprised at all if it did cause the problem. I imagine if I was a vet seeing
a number of cats having problems who ate Iams, I would think something was up
too. Your vet is probably on to something, Karen.
Harry
wrote:]
> Absolutely. P&G's motives for announcing their "cessation" of animal
> testing weren't too obvious.... Now, they just have outside labs do their
> dirty work so they look squeeky clean. After all, animal testing doesn't go
> very well with their heart-warming pet food commercials....
Phil, you are obviously the big dog in the debate on this subject in
this newsgroup. You seem to have done your homework, and you're
obviously proud of it.
That's all good by me.
What I don't understand is what you don't ever call the PETA types
when they say nonsensical things. Maybe you do sometimes. I've
just never seen it.
Harry
Harry
(PawsForThought) wrote:]
> While it may not be able to be proven through a vet's office, I wouldn't be
> surprised at all if it did cause the problem. I imagine if I was a vet seeing
> a number of cats having problems who ate Iams, I would think something was up
> too. Your vet is probably on to something, Karen.
And how was the dope you've been smoking?
There have been a few intelligent posts in this thread, Most of
them have come from mae...@aol.com (MAEPGH). Cate did pretty good
as well.
None of them have come from me. Nor have any of them come from you.
Phil has been AWOL.
I'd suggest a trip to Amsterdam. See the tulips. Get laid for
money, etc.
They have really great toilets there. I think you'd like them.
Harry
PawsForThought
>
>I'd suggest a trip to Amsterdam. See the tulips. Get laid for
>money, etc.
>
>They have really great toilets there. I think you'd like them.
>
>Harry
You really are an ass
<plonk>
FllSpdAhd1
You really are an ass<
Gosh, that's putting it mildly.
What an angry little ass with nothing pertinent or valuable to contribute.
Yuck!
*PLONK*
Cate
news:Mkh29.19377$P8.4...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> Cate <orson...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aic4us$12p5h6$1...@ID-137534.news.dfncis.de...
> > I'm not being argumentative here, just sort of thinking aloud. What do
you
> > think of vet schools that require vet students to break a healthy
animal's
> > bones so they can learn how to set them? Would it surprise you to learn
> that
> > some of these previously healthy animals are euthanized afterward just
> > because, according to the school policy, the animal has served it
purpose?
>
> This practice is rapidly being outdated as more and more vet students
refuse
> to take part.
I'm glad. And I'm glad that there are more options for US vet students than
to participate. But in the meantime, there are vet students who must go
through the process if they want to be vets. I'm sure they have a hard
enough time of it in their moral dilemma.
> > And yet... she's now able to save other animals' lives. I'm not sure
what
> I
> > think about this, but I don't dismiss it out of hand.
> >
> > While the above isn't testing, per se, it's (the bone-breaking, not the
> > euthanasia) an arguably reasonable use of animals. Cruel? Maybe. Depends
> on
> > your perspective. Necessary? I'd bet most vet students think practicing
on
> > real animals is infinitely more educational than using computer models.
>
> But those are not the only options. Students can work alongside real vets
> in real surgeries.
Not all students. Not yet.
A student who has killed her patient hasn't learned the
> most important lessons. And how will she ever know how well mended the
> fracture resolved? After all, her patient is no longer around 6 months
> later to observe limbing in or even the next day to cry for pain control.
I agree.
> > And I for one am glad about it. This way, we'll have no more Tuskegee
> > experiments. (Black men were infected with syphilis unbeknownst to them,
> as
> > an experiment. The few that were diagnosed were denied treatment.)
Before
> > the animal testing requirement, things were tested on people. Often
> without
> > their knowledge, or, even with their knowledge but without their
consent.
> > That's why there was the whole 'informed consent' movement with patients
> and
> > clinical trial subjects in the medical field.
>
> Yes, consent is important, isn't it? We shudder when we have to think
about
> things done to us without our knowledge, without our control. It's among
> the worst thing we can think of. Kind of funny in a way, really.
>
> In my opinion, responsibility is everything. You want to see if this drug
> is safe and help millions of people, maybe even save lives? Good. You
take
> it. Anything less is passing responsibility on to someone else, which is
> not correct. If you won't...guess you didn't really want to save those
> lives that badly, did you?
Yours is a facile position on a very complex issue. When I say medical
advances, I'm not just speaking of drugs. Our knowledge about our bodies and
how they work has exponentially increased in this century alone, partly due
to research done on animals. I'm not just talking about heroic or extreme
steps, either, such as heart-lung transplants or quadruple bypass on a
65-year old who can't quit smoking or stop eating fast food. I mean less
headline-grabbing conditions such as heart murmurs, scoliosis, diabetes, and
epilepsy. We know as much as we do now about these things because we've been
able to do highly nuanced research. Research that our (US) society values as
important to allowing humans to live healthy lives.
> Just my thoughts. I don't take drugs, period...even those I really could
> use them. But I don't want to be part of that passing the responsibility
> for ourselves on to others.
But I bet you'd have a tracheotomy, or have your compound leg fracture
operated on, or have your appendix removed, or get an MRI. Unless you refuse
all medical care, you are benefitting from animal research.
Cate
Harry
(PawsForThought) wrote:]
> You really are an ass
>
> <plonk>
Plank away. All you want.
If my daughter ever gets kidnapped, I don't think it will be you
will constructively intervene in that.
I doubt you'd intervene in anything.
It's just as well you weren't one of the flight attendants on flight
93. You would have worried about the Arabs.
Steve Crane
"kaeli" <infinite.po...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
> And the fire said to me...on Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:20:49 GMT in article
> <B7U19.132$rL6...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, ph...@maxshouse.org said:
> >
> >
> > The quality of Nutro products has deteriorated significantly over the
past
> > few years to the point where its about equal to grocery brands -- just
at
> > twice the price. The calcium and phosphorus levels have also increased,
> > much too high, which may predispose your cat to renal disease later in
life.
> >
> > As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or
Science
> > Diet.
> >
> > Phil.
> >
>
> Really? Thanks for the tip! I've been feeding Nutro for years, as my
> cats don't like Science Diet. I fed IAMS until P&G bought them. I guess
> I need to read more labels and choose another... *sigh*
> I haven't tried Nature's Recipe. Maybe they'll like that.
>
> Thanks :)
You might very well be going from the frying pan to the fire. Nature's
Recipe calcium and phosphorous levels sometimes even exceed Nutro, although
that is hard to do.
Steve Crane
"FllSpdAhd1" <fllsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or Science
> Diet.
>
> Phil.<
their
> basic food line, not the specialty line, and it seems they are close in
quality
> to Friskies and the like. Especially since Hills took over with their
> affiliated company Colgate-Palmolive.
> Again, I'm only curoius and certainly not looking to start a debate.
Remember that Colgate bought Hill's in 1976, over 25 years ago.
Steve Crane
"Phil P." <ph...@maxshouse.org> wrote in message
news:wd829.2150$Z6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
> Wellness seems like a good food - I'm just not crazy about all the plant
> material - seems more like rabbit food than a carnivore's diet.... I also
> don't like flax seed in a diet - too much omega-6.
>
> They *still* haven't sent me their typical/promimate analysis so I don't
> know the phosphorus/calcium/sodium levels.
Good luck getting that one. I've tried for over a year.
Steve Crane
I have to agree. Not all cats are finicky or picky. My cat Normal (which
she isn't of course) will eat anything. For the first couple years of her
life she was given a different food every few months. She was test kitty and
we received various plain white bags of experimental foods every couple
months. Eventually it was determined she was a poor test kitty because she
ate everything.
"Karen" <kchu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B96E150C.27F9C%kchu...@earthlink.net...
> in article 9v6hkuc12k18em5ro...@4ax.com, Harry at
> hc...@ix.netcom.com wrote on 7/31/02 9:43 PM:
>
> > [On 31 Jul 2002 20:35:08 -0500, Karen <kchu...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:]
> >
> >> And they are so darned picky!
> >
> > This is one of the reasons why I will never adopt a cat.
> >
> > They aren't simply "picky". When it comes to food, they are
> > absolute, complete, total assholes.
> >
> > There is nothing quite like going out your way to buy them 56 packs
> > of the exact sorts of foods that you think they will like, then
> > having them immediately turn their noses up at what you've just
> > offered them. Which is the same thing that they liked so much just
> > yesterday.
> >
> > They start meowing and whining. Feed me!
> >
> > Goddammit, I did feed you.
> >
> > I don't want that.
> >
> > You liked it yesterday.
> >
> > It's disgusting. It stinks.
> >
> > Listen, you little bitch, either you eat that or I cut your balls
> > off.
> >
> > Meow
> >
>
> This was pretty funny. The deal is though, when it's YOUR cat (and they
> aren't ALL picky, just some of them) the rest of it makes up for that.
They
> are SO entertaining and when they are bonded with YOU (baby sitting is not
> the same thing) you look at them and just see total devotion. People say
> dogs are devoted (and I like dogs) but cats are devoted in a much
different
> way. It's a more...mmm..picky devotion ;) over the mindless "pant, pant, I
> luv you uh huh" way dogs have with almost everyone they meet, cats are
> devoted just to YOU. They quietly need to be where you are. No matter what
> room you go to, you eventually notice, they've made a spot somewhere near.
> They know when you are ill and just where to be to make you feel better.
> They run around like mad and show off when you've been gone. They're just
> .... cool.
>
> Karen
>
Dom Runner
> I'm glad. And I'm glad that there are more options for US vet students
than
> to participate. But in the meantime, there are vet students who must go
> through the process if they want to be vets. I'm sure they have a hard
> enough time of it in their moral dilemma.
Which does not make the process correct. Forcing those students to kill
their patients doesn't need to be done. We know this, the students know
this...so why are we doing it? Are you arguing that simply because outdated
schools require it that it is somehow correct or needed? I truly don't see
your point here. By bringing this issue to light and pressuring these
schools to stop kill labs we are doing the only responsible thing. As for
the students moral dilemma...if they truly didn't want to proceed with kill
labs, they wouldn't, just as others before them have done.
> > But those are not the only options. Students can work alongside real
vets
> > in real surgeries.
>
> Not all students. Not yet.
All students who are willing to fight for the right not to kill those they
swear to protect. So no, not all students...which is unfortunate.
At my school they used to kill one rat a semester to demonstrate the taking
of blood from the veins behind the eyes. The instructor would do the
procedure while students who wished to watched. What was the difference
between watching a video and killing that rat? Each student was not given
their own rat, so there really was no learning difference. Concerned
students took a stand and now no rats are killed in that school at all.
>
> >
>
> Yours is a facile position on a very complex issue. When I say medical
> advances, I'm not just speaking of drugs. Our knowledge about our bodies
and
> how they work has exponentially increased in this century alone, partly
due
> to research done on animals. I'm not just talking about heroic or extreme
> steps, either, such as heart-lung transplants or quadruple bypass on a
> 65-year old who can't quit smoking or stop eating fast food. I mean less
> headline-grabbing conditions such as heart murmurs, scoliosis, diabetes,
and
> epilepsy. We know as much as we do now about these things because we've
been
> able to do highly nuanced research. Research that our (US) society values
as
> important to allowing humans to live healthy lives.
I don't mean heroic measures either. You want the benefit, you take the
risk and that applies to anything. And why do we divide so sharply between
medical research and superficial? Why is the testing of shampoo terrible
but painkillers wonderful? Isn't there a difference between "needed"
medical research and "wanted" medical research? You can argue that
treatments for diabetes can save lives. What about meds to stop headaches,
to stop cramping, to soothe red eyes? Are these things also worth the lives
and pain of animals?
>
>
> But I bet you'd have a tracheotomy, or have your compound leg fracture
> operated on, or have your appendix removed, or get an MRI. Unless you
refuse
> all medical care, you are benefiting from animal research.
Actually, I do refuse medical care, though I am not in control of the
actions of those around me. However, I will allow that the goal of animal
rights activists is not to stop research and end medical benefits. The goal
is developing a system where people who value those lives don't have to
suffer to keep from partipacating in their harm. I don't blame those who do
use medical care of any type or think them lesser committed. Right now we
are not given the choice. Saying that these benefits would not have
happened without animal testing isn't a true statement...animal testing has
been required and thusly we can not known what we may have discovered
without it. It is not so simple of choice as "benefit from animal testing
or have nothing". Society forces the testing and the activist seeks to
reverse what he or she sees as a basic injustice. In the times of slavery m
any people who hated the idea of it continued to eat crops grown at the
hands of slaves. Where they betraying their cause? Society put them in a
spot of no refusal expect to attempt to change the system.
Sethran
Steve Crane
>
> FllSpdAhd1 <fllsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> news:20020731141120...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> > >As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or
Science
> > Diet.
> >
> > Phil.<
> > Phil - why S.D.? Just curious. I have done some cursory comparisons of
> their
> > basic food line, not the specialty line, and it seems they are close in
> quality
> > to Friskies and the like.
>
> quality isn't remotely close to SD's. Phosphorus and calcium contents are
> crude, but fairly good indicators of quality; high P & Ca indicate poor
> quality indredients (e.g., a lot of ground up bone, less & cheaper meat).
> Friskies' P & Ca are nearly *twice*, and in some diets, *more* than twice
> the levels of SD. High P & Ca also increase the risk of calcification of
> soft tissue as well as mineral deposits in the kidneys.
>
> The sodium content of most of Friskies diets are also *twice* that of SD.
> High P & Na contents are what makes cheap (25-cents-a can), low quality
cat
> foods so palatable for cats. Unfortunately, many caring and
> well-intentioned cat owners erroneously think if a cat gobbles up a food,
it
> must be good for them...
>
> Comparing the three foods -- strickly -- by the virtues of their proximate
> or typical analyses and leaving out personal opinion, Nutro is very
similar
> in quality to Friskies... only at triple the price!
>
>
> Especially since Hills took over with their
> > affiliated company Colgate-Palmolive.
>
> 100% sure.. (Steve?). So, I don't think C-P uses Hills as a dumping
ground
> for their slaughterhouse waste.
Correct, Colgate manufactures no human foods at all. Toothpaste, Ajax, Menen
deodorant, soaps etc. (Please buy lots of these folks as my 401k is looking
pretty poorly and this old guy wants to retire in 6 more years)
In contrast Heinz is heavily involved in food production. Human tuna sales,
and of course Ore-Ida Potatoes which may explain why IVD uses potato as a
carbohydrate.
>
>
> > Again, I'm only curoius and certainly not looking to start a debate.
>
> Not at all! It was a very good question! ;)
>
> Phil.
> --
> "I can half-persuade myself into believing
> the word "felonious" was derived from the Feline nature"
> Feline Health Care & More: http://maxshouse.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Steve Crane
Cal Phos
Natures Best Adult Feline Chicken 1.02 0.73
Natures Best Adult Cat Fish 1.02 0.8
Nutro Natural Choice Feline Adult Complete Care 1.21 1.11
Old Mother Hubbard Wellness Chicken Feline Super 5 Mix 1.15 1.12
Solid Gold Cat 1.78 1.28
California Natural Adult Chicken & Rice 1.32 1.29
Natures Recipe Adult Dry Feline 1.85 1.35
Nature's Recipe levels of calcium and phos are quite a bit higher.
"MAEPGH" <mae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020731140743...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> >As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or Science
> >Diet.
> >
> >Phil
>
> My kitties can back up Phil's recommendation; they love Nature's Recipe.
Hope
> nobody has a problem with Heinz!
>
> Anna
Steve Crane
You never read any such thing. Corporate headquarters are in wonderful
downtown Topeka Kansas. Colgate corporate headquarters are in Manhattan New
York.
"CatProtectionSoc" <catprote...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020731170911...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> >From: "Phil P." ph...@maxshouse.org
> >As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or Science
> >Diet.
> >Phil.
>
> I read on a bag of Science Diet that its corp. hq is in South Africa.
>
> CPS.
Karen
Karen
"Steve Crane" <rose...@televar.com> wrote in message
news:7wy29.704$rU2.6...@bcandid.telisphere.com...
Priscilla H Ballou
: Oh Baloney,
: You never read any such thing. Corporate headquarters are in wonderful
: downtown Topeka Kansas. Colgate corporate headquarters are in Manhattan New
: York.
Not to mention my question, now repeated: what the heck's wrong with being
headquartered in South Africa? It's a good country.
Priscilla
: "CatProtectionSoc" <catprote...@aol.com> wrote in message
: news:20020731170911...@mb-bk.aol.com...
:> >From: "Phil P." ph...@maxshouse.org
:> >As a former Nutro customer, I highly recommend Nature's Recipe or Science
:> >Diet.
:> >Phil.
:>
:> I read on a bag of Science Diet that its corp. hq is in South Africa.
:>
:> CPS.
--
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
- Albert Einstein
Karen M.
You guys read my mind - Dom, Lauren, Karen. Why aren't vets trained
like MDs? Why not have them intern at local vets, shelters, etc? They
could use the help, could offer perhaps lower costs to clients,
shelters would have extra med help.
I try to buy everything I can cruelty-free. I do take prescription
meds that I need. I actually have tried to sign up for clinical
trials, I'm not an "ideal" candidate, apparently. Though the drug was
probably tested on a rat two months before, not exactly an "ideal"
candidate either. We as consumers need to keep pushing for
alternatives to animal testing - in what we buy, in writing letters,
in voting for animal-friendly political candidates. Just my two cents.
Karen M.
FllSpdAhd1
pretty poorly and this old guy wants to retire in 6 more years)<
Ok Steve, I'll continue to purchase Colgate toothpaste and Ajax :))
Anyone know about Nestle's background and possible animal testing? They
recently purchased Purina and they already own the Friskies brand. I can't find
anything derogatory about the animal testing issue and Nestle on the net, but
perhaps there may be. They are also the largest people food company in the
world.
Phil P.
I think you need to recheck your data...
Nature's Recipe Select Balance Feline Adult canned.
Phosphorus: 0.69%; Calcium: 0.69%.
Nature's Recipe Select Reduced Activity canned
Phosphorus: 0.68%, Calcium: 0.68%
Nature's Recipe is lower in P & Ca than even some of SD's diets....
Check your data. (SACN IV, Pg. 1076)
Phil.
Phil P.
Harry <hc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:79rjkuge5g1b2fi82...@4ax.com...
> [On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:30:33 GMT, "Phil P." <ph...@maxshouse.org>
> wrote:]
>
> > Absolutely. P&G's motives for announcing their "cessation" of animal
> > testing weren't too obvious.... Now, they just have outside labs do
their
doesn't go
> > very well with their heart-warming pet food commercials....
>
> Phil, you are obviously the big dog in the debate on this subject in
> this newsgroup. You seem to have done your homework, and you're
> obviously proud of it.
Naaa.... Its not a matter of being "proud" of knowing what I'm talking
about; I'd be ashamed of myself if I didn't.... Ya see, Harry, cats are my
thing... Everything that involves them, involves me.
Come to think of it, Harry, you haven't been right, yet, about anything...
Lets see if you can surprise us all by actually posting some correct and
useful information.... for a change. If you can't think of anything on your
own, just ask, I'd be happy to educate you.
Phil.
Steve Crane
The level on Nature's Recipe below is the most recent. The difficulty
with using SACN numbers is that things change. The data in SACN is from
products tested in 1999. It's still an excellent source but not always up to
date. Sorry it was so hard to read. Copy/paste of excel cells doesn't work
too good does it.
"Phil P." <ph...@maxshouse.org> wrote in message
news:VFA29.1825$Bb6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> Steve Crane <rose...@televar.com> wrote in message
> news:7wy29.704$rU2.6...@bcandid.telisphere.com...
> > Product Name
> > Cal Phos
> >
> > Natures Best Adult Feline Chicken 1.02 0.73
> > Natures Best Adult Cat Fish 1.02 0.8
> > Nutro Natural Choice Feline Adult Complete Care 1.21 1.11
> > Old Mother Hubbard Wellness Chicken Feline Super 5 Mix 1.15 1.12
> > Solid Gold Cat 1.78 1.28
> > California Natural Adult Chicken & Rice 1.32 1.29
> > Natures Recipe Adult Dry Feline 1.85 1.35
> >
> >
> > Nature's Recipe levels of calcium and phos are quite a bit higher.
>
>
Steve Crane
answered a set of questions correctly, based on looking through their web
site for answer they sent you a hard bound book with a silk place keeper. A
truly class act. Very interesting history. You might check that out. I don't
remember reading anything in the book regarding your question.
PS Thanks for buying that toothpaste, my grand kids will rest easy now.
"FllSpdAhd1" <fllsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020802133922...@mb-md.aol.com...
PawsForThought
>
>I have a question; has anyone ever talked to PetGuard on their levels?
>
>Karen
For what it's worth, I don't know anything about their numbers but I do know a
few people who have been feeding Petguard for a long time and have healthy
cats.
Lauren
Antique
Antique
"FllSpdAhd1" <fllsp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message news:20020802133922...@mb-md.aol.com...
Harry
wrote:]
> Come to think of it, Harry, you haven't been right, yet, about anything...
> Lets see if you can surprise us all by actually posting some correct and
> useful information.... for a change. If you can't think of anything on your
> own, just ask, I'd be happy to educate you.
Well, let's see here.
There isn't a lot that I know about cats, so I don't really think I
can do much with that.
I came into this group asking a question about food, so that is
obviously a subject where I admit my ignorance. I have studied up a
bit on dog food, but I am only looking after my daughter's cats for
the summer. I'm not necessarily looking to convert her feeding
patterns (3 packs per day of Whiskas wet plus free-feeding Purina
One dry food) into something different than that.
Given what I think I know about dog food, that diet just seemed odd
to me. It seemed like too much wet food, and I was a bit suspicious
of Purina One. Based on the responses I received, it seems that the
diet she has them on is actually not too bad. I'm sure it could be
improved on. Please do feel free to educate me on how to do that.
Anyway, at about this point, kaeli started the thread that we're in
now.
In the course of Googling dog food for many hours, I had formed an
opinion on this subject. To put it bluntly, I thought she had her
head up her ass when it comes to Procter & Gamble's current testing
methods.
I am not out to defend either P&G or any other company. It just
irritates the heck of me to see people irresponsibly (imo) slinging
shit like that around.
I am absolutely sure that P&G could improve their practices in this
regard.
But I also do not believe the shit that people like kaeli so freely
sling at them. I think it is nonsense, and it should be identified
as such. P&G is well aware of and very sensitive to this stuff.
They may not be perfect in kaeli's mind, and you may not like the
nutritional mix in their foods.
Still, bullshit is bullshit. My opinion is that the testing
allegations that are commonly made about IAMS / P&G are not true
these days. They are bogus, irrational garbage. A bunch of urban
myths that don't begin to deserve half the attention they receive
from the PETA types.
I could be wrong about that. I'm willing listen.
Are you?
What I notice about you, is that you absent yourself from the
substance of the discussion, and then you chime in around the edges
without having ever taken a position on anything that could be
questioned.
If you really do know as much as you seem to know, I think that's a
also bullshit. You should be calling both me and kaeli and anyone
else when we're wrong about something. You should, so to speak, be
an equal opportunity employer.
Do you do that?
Don't make me laugh. You don't even get close to doing that. You
use what you know selectively.
In my book, that makes you a liberal BMW-driving asshole from
Massachusetts.
Next year, I think you should try to become a decent human being.
You could become one.
Harry
Phil P.
> [On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:24:34 GMT, "Phil P." <ph...@maxshouse.org>
> wrote:]
>
> > Come to think of it, Harry, you haven't been right, yet, about
anything...
> > Lets see if you can surprise us all by actually posting some correct and
> > useful information.... for a change. If you can't think of anything on
your
> > own, just ask, I'd be happy to educate you.
>
>
>
> substance of the discussion,
I've been through this disscussion many times before... Nothing has changed.
and then you chime in around the edges
> without having ever taken a position on anything that could be
> questioned.
What's to question? P & G has been involved in animal testing for
decades... P&G only announced they were "ceasing" animal testing 3 months
before they bought the Iams Company... Nothing to question... its *fact*.
>
> If you really do know as much as you seem to know, I think that's a
> also bullshit.
I talk it like I walk it. Like I said, Harry... you haven't been right
yet... at least you're consistant.
You should be calling both me and kaeli and anyone
> else when we're wrong about something. You should, so to speak, be
> an equal opportunity employer.
>
> Do you do that?
I called you when you were wrong, didn't I?
> Don't make me laugh. You don't even get close to doing that. You
> use what you know selectively.
I use what I know appropriately... when and where its needed.
>
> In my book, that makes you a liberal BMW-driving asshole from
> Massachusetts.
I'm not a liberal, I'm not from Massachusetts, I don't drive a BMW - I
probably spend more on cat litter in a year than the cost of a BMW ..., and
I'm not an asshole, I'm a prick...gotta be to do the job I have to do and
get it done...
Like I said, Harry... you haven't been right yet... at least you're
consistant. You better buy a new book....
> Next year, I think you should try to become a decent human being.
Next year, I think you should try to be right about something... at least
once in awhile..
example: someone@microsoft.com For example: John Smith
chicken and steak and crap?
"kaeli" <infinite.po...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17b1a9a2...@nntp.lucent.com...
>
> I just adopted a beautiful 2 year old male cat from a local shelter.
> When I was taking him home, they told me he was used to IAMS dry.
> Shocked an animal shelter would feed a P&G product, I inquired about it
> and they were shocked to find out IAMS (and sister Eukanuba) were owned
> by P&G. They will stop feeding IAMS immediately.
> Just thought I'd share. I guess it isn't common knowledge that IAMS was
> bought by P&G in 1997 or so.
> Personally, I feed NutroMax.
>
> http://www.IAMSkills.com
Karen
example: som...@microsoft.com wrote on 8/2/02 10:25 PM:
> Is there anything wrong with just feeding them like
> chicken and steak and crap?
>
Yes! They need a fully balanced diet that just meats like that cannot give
them!!!! If you are not feeding your kitty a food formulated for young cats
you are heading for a SICK kitty. Please tell me you feed him a regular food
too (sorry if I jumped to a wrong conclusion but there are those people out
there who would do this and not realize cats in the wild get a lot from
organs and bones and such that they would not get from human table scraps
and meat cuts).
Karen
Priscilla Ballou
"For example: John Smith" <For example: som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Is there anything wrong with just feeding them like
> chicken and steak and crap?
Yeah, they won't get all the nutrients they need that way. They'd
probably be fine catching and eating mice and birds and the like, but
"chicken and steak and crap" is not the equivalent.
Priscilla
--
"Love is not something wonderful that you feel; it is something
difficult that you do." -- Elizabeth Goudge