Chihuahua People Forum banner
1 - 4 of 85 Posts

· Registered
5,884 Posts
here's the article....... i have mixed feelings about this article... :?

In October 1997 Austin, Texas Channel 42 News ran a series of expose´s about the pet food industry. It was quite shocking-- not for primetime-due-to-violent-content--type of newscasting, and the images had the whole town talking: Dead dogs and cats in big barrels were being dumped into vats of foaming food at a feed producing plant.

Radio DJ's were screaming, and talk radio was filled with panicked, irrate, amazed, and incredulous pet owners.

What was it all about? What did they mean "Foods Pets Die For?"

It came as a surprise to most dog and cat owners that those types of products are allowed to be used for animal feeds, but it was confirmed in interviews with officials at AAFCO, the government agency that regulates and controlspet foods.

I visited a rendering plant once. Once is enough for anyone. At the plant, where ingredients are mixed and cooked to produce animal feeds, I saw huge trucks pull up loaded with things as objectionable as maggot-infested carcasses and euthanized cats and dogs as well as city trucks of road kill and dead animals cleaned off of urban streets.

Like the viewers in Austin, I was incredulous. I hadn't stopped to consider what happens to those things. I guess I thought they went to the land fill or to some dead animal place in the sky.

No, folks. They go into dog and cat, cattle and hog food. Now, with 20 years of experience, I know that in the industry the 4 D's: dead, dying, diseased and decayed animals as well as dead dogs and cats are routinely used in many grocery and discount pet foods. But back those many years ago, I was as shocked and outraged as Austin pet owners were last week.

If the network wanted to enhance viewership, they did. The 5-part series had not even aired on Sunday, and I was already fielding questions from anxious clients who had only seen the name and teaser for the program.

I stayed up each night to see the news--something I'd like to do every night, but, sadly I am too weary from my day to stay awake after ten. The show was, indeed, exactly as we had anticipated: a wake-up call to pet owners.

Future Pets had tried to make a cost-conscious public aware of the ugly truth about cheap pet foods for over ten years. But since we don't sell any foods like that, our advicewas too often viewed as a marketing tool.Now, at last, the network news had finally done the job, albeit in a highly graphic and grotesque way. But if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.

Austinites were dismayed that the newsroom never told us just which foods to avoid. That would have been, perhaps, too dangerous in the face of the huge, well-funded, and legally aggressive conglomerates like Quaker Foods and Purina Mills who make and market many grocery dog and cat foodvarieties such as "Cycle" and "Dog Chow".

They did, however give some guidelines to use when choosing a good product. I reiterate those guidelines here for theworld to see and have added a couple of my own.

1. Understand that the ingredients are listed in order that tells you the quantity of each of the ingredients in the bag (by weight before processing). There's more of the first than the second ingredient and more of the second than the third and so on. If you want your pet to have a chicken or lamb based diet, look for it first on the label.

2. Don't buy Meat and Bone Meal diets. How about animal fat? It is precisely the lack of definition of exactly what kind of meat that gets you into trouble.

3. Don't be afraid of by-products They are the non-meat portion of the animal such as the brain, the liver, or the innards, but they are very valuable as a source of nutrition. Chicken and lamb by-product are important pet food ingredients.

4. Don't be afraid of meal. Meal simply means that the meat has been dehydrated. The water is gone but the valuable nutrition stays. In fact, a diet whose first ingredient is chicken meal may very well have more actual chicken than a diet whose first ingredient is chicken or fresh chicken which is heavy with water when it is weighed for the label. It's weight makes it appear as a first ingredient, but it's value is negligible. Meal has more meat-less water.

5. Stay away from preservatives like ETHOXYQUIN. Maybe even BHA and BHT. Look instead for Vitamin E or Mixed Tocophorols (another name for vitamin E). Your pet eats a diet that is completely pre-made, so his every bite may be loaded with chemicals unless you protect him from them. I saw a study that showed that a medium sized dog might be ingesting as much as 10 pounds of preservatives in a year! Think of a bag of chemicals the size of a bowling ball and imagine feeding them to your dog. Not a pretty thought.

6. To make this easy, they came right out and said that the grocery store is NOT the place to shop for a quality diet. It's true. They know not what they sell. Future Pets does NOT carry any diets that contain dead dogs and cats or diseased animals. Be suspicious of the grocery where no-one can help you make an informed decision, and be suspicious of the big chains of WalMart-type pet superstores (you know their names) that carry the ugly foods along with the good. Don't give them your money, even if you're buying a good food.

If they really cared, they'd empty their shelves of the bags and the companies that make the bags of "Foods Pets Die For!".

Footnote April 1998--consumer Reports concluded that "designer" foods are no more "valuable" than Ol' Roy or any other off-brand pet foods, but when pressed, they have agreed to re-do the tests. We highly respect the opinion of Consumer Reports Magazine and think they are a fine source of quality investigative reporting. We are pleased that they have agreed that their studies may be flawed and will be re-evaluating their conclusions.

UPDATE Nov 2003: It is interesting to note that nothingin the dog food manufacturing industry seems to have changed in the lastcouple of years.

· Registered
5,884 Posts
i think some of it is. i've read and did my research and believe that yes some lower quality foods put crap in there products..... i don't know something jsut doesn't sit right with me about that article. i'd like to find my articles that i've read about the foods but i can't even begin to think about where i seen them.....

· Registered
5,884 Posts
ilovesadie said:
Ok I'll put my flame suit on for this one, but I'll stick up for the veterinarians in regards to Science Diet, Eukaneuba, Purina, IVD, Royal Canine etc...

Doctors are scientists. They don't go by fads, media, or labels claiming "all natural" or "no by products". They make their best professional nutrition recommendations based on the research that is available regarding daily and prescription diets.

If a vet recommends a food that hasn't gone through extensive testing to a client, and the dog becomes ill and dies or becomes sick, it is the vet's fault for recommending a bad food. Therefore, a vet can only make recommendations for foods that they can scientifically vouch for and are backed up by years of research and testing that is done by other scientists and veterinary nutritionists. As far as foods that appear to be good by the label, that's all they can say or vouch for. It "sounds good". But since there's no testing, they won't put their license on the line for it, and they won't recommend you put your dog's health on the line for it either.

This same rule appies to medications. Would a veterinarian prescribe a drug that has been unapproved for medical use? Even if it has been lauded by the general public, and someone (not a doctor) has written a few articles praising it and demoting their tried and true medications? No way, that's practicing irresponsible medicine and a malpractice lawsuit in the making.

Food is much the same way.

Only a handful of companies have done the scientific testing to show the medical community that their foods are safe and contain the right balance of nutrients and ingredients. These are the companies who veterinarians have no choice but to recommend based on the information that is available.

I am sure that if some of the fad diet or organic diet companies put the time and money into the R&D that it takes to do a scientific study, that veterinarians would take them more seriously. Since they cannot market their foods through this route, they instead appeal to the general public who is always a sucker for the "all natural" "no additivies" "no by products" deal. I know I am.

So, before we all scorn our vets for promoting Science Diet, and believe that there is a big conspiracy going on, consider this: your veterinarians job is to practice good medicine and make recommendations for your pets well being based on good science. To do otherwise is NOT sound practice, and while ABC brand of dog food MAY be better, they have not put forth the effort to prove it to the medical community, so instead they go after the companies that have.

The veterinarian is not necessarily there to make money, in fact they are the lowest paid doctors of all. The pet food industry, however, IS out to make a buck. I would trust a good vet over an article I read on the web any and every day.

Thanks for listening to my 2cents.

was wondering where you were hehe

· Registered
5,884 Posts
xx-nathalie-xx said:
you can ask on of the mods to get it stickied :wink:

the article was interesting.....but as we know this problem is not only for animals food but also for humans food. we eat garbage every day if you like it or not. sure i look at the back of products ....and try to eat as healthy as possible ....but i'm not going to overreact and let it run my life!
i checked the life abundance site ....and are you telling me they have no commercial interest ?? come on .... :? i'm honest i would like to give the brand to my dogs ...but don't overreact with saying science hill's and eukanuba etc are bad foods .....they are not.
i believe brands from big chains are crap (i can't name brands , because here they call different) and probably full of things one might better not know.
i know 80 percent of this site feeds their chi's ...eukanuba ,science hill's etc because they believe it's good to predict they are bad is really fishy :wink:

that's the last thing i'm going to write about it ........i just half agree with it and half not agree with it :wink: .....but as i always say and let live :wink: :wave:

kisses nat
that's what i say, i'm half way on this one....

believe some of what you hear and most of what you see.....

(can really believe all of what you see, since ther are illusinists hehe)
1 - 4 of 85 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.