# U.S. Case of Mad Cow Disease Confirmed



## xellil

I find it interesting that they go on and on about how they are keeping these animals out of the human food chain. They don't mention these animals are perfectly fine to put in dog food.

Truthaboutpetfood.com asked if the animals were going to be sold for pet food, and got a reply that didn't answer the question. 

USDA Announces Confirmed BSE Positive Cow



> Hi Stephanie,
> I have a few questions on today's press release regarding the BSE Positive cow...
> 
> 1. The release stated the cow was being held at a rendering facility, will this animal be destroyed by rendering? If so, can you provide a list of industries this particular renderer sells to such as the pet food industry?
> 
> 2. The release states this animal tested positive for "atypical BSE" that is "not generally associated with infected feed". Can you provide test results to verify the 'atypical BSE' and provide any data on this type of BSE not being associated with infected feed.
> 
> Thank you,
> Susan Thixton
> 
> And this is the response I received...
> 
> Good afternoon, please see below for statement from Secretary Vilsack:
> “The beef and dairy in the American food supply is safe and USDA remains confident in the health of U.S. cattle. The systems and safeguards in place to protect animal and human health worked as planned to identify this case quickly, and will ensure that it presents no risk to the food supply or to human health. USDA has no reason to believe that any other U.S. animals are currently affected, but we will remain vigilant and committed to the safeguards in place.”
> 
> Please visit BSE | USDA to learn more about BSE and to find updates as USDA continues to investigate this incident and share information as it becomes available. Video of an interview with USDA’s Chief Veterinary Officer John Clifford on the BSE case is available HERE.
> 
> In other words, the USDA did not respond to my questions. *For those unaware, FDA Compliance Policies allow rendered diseased animals to become animal feed/pet food ingredients. *Federal law says it is illegal for a human food or animal food to contain any part of a diseased animal, but FDA allows it. Parts of a sick cow can be rendered - cooked - and become cattle feed, pig feed, poultry feed and pet food. My question of - and the USDA's statement of - 'infected feed' - directly relates to the concern that serious illness can be transmitted through rendered diseased animals. To which they did not respond. The USDA - in an effort of transparency - should provide evidence this animal was destroyed and not rendered. (My guess would be this animal will not be rendered because it is clearly in the national spotlight. To learn more about the rendering industry, Click Here to view a 2004 Report to Congress on the Rendering Industry.)


----------



## magicre

Wow. There is nothing I can say but wow. 

But we always knew.....


----------



## Makovach

I'm sure its not the first time, know it wont be the last.

Every time I read these things it makes me SO happy that I'm feeding meats that are born and raised locally and by small farms not over run or over crowded. Just take a major chunk out of my stress to know exactly what my dogs are eating.


----------



## CavePaws

Glad I feed my dogs food from a restaurant supplier - ie: I KNOW for a fact it's human grade food they are consuming.


----------



## Sprocket

Interesting...

Cant say I'm surprised.


----------



## Deaf Dogs

This is why, when buying commercial pet foods, you must avoid rendered meats! I know alot of you raw feeders are against any commercial foods, but there are good ones out there, and there are alot that dont use any rendered meats. I wont buy foods that have "By-Products or "digest" in them. along with many other ingredients. This is also why I buy mostly Canadian foods, and feed a rotation diet, because, if they close the borders again, I can still get the foods I'm feeding, and if I cant get one or 2 of the foods, it doesn't matter, because my dogs can eat anything.

During the last BSE crisis (a Canadian Cow), 9 or 10 years ago, pet foods weren't moving across borders. and the food my old dog was eating couldn't be found anywhere. I had to switch her food. Since then I have stuck with foods on this side of the border, though I have broken away from that a bit and am feeding some American brands, but I dont have to.


----------



## DaViking

Oh the irony, she just called an EU cert pointless :biggrin:


----------



## xellil

DaViking said:


> Oh the irony, she just called an EU cert pointless :biggrin:


She said the EU Cert doesn't guarantee you won't get a diseased animal in the dog food, if I remember correctly.


----------



## DaViking

xellil said:


> She said the EU Cert doesn't guarantee you won't get a diseased animal in the dog food, if I remember correctly.


There is a separate section just for this. Diseased or not prior to processing doesn't have anything to do with it, this is about BSE. How to handle BSE is laid out in it's own regulation. If this was EU cert. petfood she wouldn't need to even send the letter since no risk material is allowed into any food-chain. She called something an EU cert would prevent pointless and here she is complaining about how she can't get answers from US officials. However, US regulations might be similar to EU here but they just chose to fired off a form template response to her, I don't know enough about US regulations on this so I am not criticizing it.


----------



## xellil

She never used the word pointless. You've said it twice so i'm assuming you are quoting her - she never said EU Cert was pointless. She also never said that EU Cert was as bad as US. 



I don't know if the risk of BSE is higher or lower in EU Cert foods. But I'm pretty sure they don't test every animal. The main difference seems to me to be IF they find a BSE case over here they could just toss it in the dog food pile.

Because some folks have said REPEATEDLY that EU Cert means we could eat the food that goes to our dogs, all this does is give a different story. She said, and I quote



> All of the above is strike through text on the original document- meaning it no longer applies. Thus, "fit for human consumption" or human grade does not apply to APHIS EU certification.
> 
> (Bold added) "and/or carcasses or bodies and parts of animals which are rejected as unfit for human consumption in accordance with Union legislation, but which did not show any signs of disease communicable to humans or animals;"
> 
> Note - this section was not stricken. In other words, animal ingredients in the pet food can be sourced from animals rejected for use in human food. And even more absurd is "did not show any signs of disease communicable to humans or animals." What type of 'signs' are they speaking of? Are we to believe the veterinarian signing this document actually inspected each and every rejected for use in human food animal and animal part before they were processed into the pet food? I doubt it.
> 
> APHIS EU certified also means the pet food can contain "heads of poultry, hides and skins, including trimmings and splitting thereof, horns and feet, including the phalanges and the carpus and metacarpus bones, tarsus and metatarsus bones, of animals other than ruminants, pig bristles and feathers."
> 
> Throughout the entire document, any previous requirement that stated "fit for human consumption" have all been stricken.


----------



## DaViking

"certification mean little to nothing" means pointless to me but I'm not here to split hairs. There is no BSE risk material in EU cert. petfood unless the entire supply, production and inspection chain have been bought off.

She said it means little to nothing but here she is demanding questions from US officials. So, at some level, it must mean something, even to her. Maybe there are other things in there that is not so meaningless even? That's my $0.02


----------



## xellil

She also says "The one good of this certification, until it gets stricken too, is that none of the pet food can contain specified risk materials (suspect mad cow disease materials). That's seems to be it."

I guess I am splitting hairs. The exact quote is "Another document recently provided to me shows this certification can mean little to nothing as far as quality of ingredients. "


----------



## DaViking

xellil said:


> She also says "The one good of this certification, until it gets stricken too, is that none of the pet food can contain specified risk materials (suspect mad cow disease materials). That's seems to be it."
> 
> I guess I am splitting hairs. The exact quote is "Another document recently provided to me shows this certification can mean little to nothing as far as quality of ingredients. "


+1

Then maybe she should write a 3d article where she explains why the first impression that EU cert. petfood is some high end super duper health food was wrong and it's about other things. The romantic superfood view was wrong all along. Can you eat the food yourself? Absolutely. Some years back there was a guy eating mostly European Pro Plan for 6 months. He was perfectly fine.


----------



## ciaBrysh

Mad Cow disease in contagious, and highly dangerous...why would they not kill the animal?


----------



## Sapphire-Light

For what I have heard the mad cow's came from adding beef to the feed of cattle, in other word cannibalism right?

I know this sounds nasty but in my country people have being using for years the rendering of beef (mostly bones and brains) to feed the cattle themselfes :yuck: and this is the cattle used for human feed.


----------



## xellil

Sapphire-Light said:


> For what I have heard the mad cow's came from adding beef to the feed of cattle, in other word cannibalism right?
> 
> I know this sounds nasty but in my country people have being using for years the rendering of beef (mostly bones and brains) to feed the cattle themselfes :yuck: and this is the cattle used for human feed.


Yes, they do think it's from cannibalism. 

The thing is, alot of things will kill us. Many more people die each year from e. coli or salmonella than from mad cow disease. But because it eats your brain up and somehow that's worse that dying from a bacteria, there's more protection for us from the regulators.

I'm surprised they allow feeding cows to cows in any country any more - that has been banned in the US and Europe. I think.


----------



## xellil

DaViking said:


> +1
> 
> Then maybe she should write a 3d article where she explains why the first impression that EU cert. petfood is some high end super duper health food was wrong and it's about other things. The romantic superfood view was wrong all along. Can you eat the food yourself? Absolutely. Some years back there was a guy eating mostly European Pro Plan for 6 months. He was perfectly fine.


To me it just shows she doesn't have an agenda. She's willing to point out the good things about the agencies. She thought there was something good to say about APHIS EU and she was mistaken.

Which doesn't surprise me.


----------



## magicre

Sapphire-Light said:


> For what I have heard the mad cow's came from adding beef to the feed of cattle, in other word cannibalism right?
> 
> I know this sounds nasty but in my country people have being using for years the rendering of beef (mostly bones and brains) to feed the cattle themselfes :yuck: and this is the cattle used for human feed.


i have people who belong to my co op buying animals that are rendered. it's for their dogs, but who knows?


----------



## magicre

xellil said:


> Yes, they do think it's from cannibalism.
> 
> The thing is, alot of things will kill us. Many more people die each year from e. coli or salmonella than from mad cow disease. But because it eats your brain up and somehow that's worse that dying from a bacteria, there's more protection for us from the regulators.
> 
> I'm surprised they allow feeding cows to cows in any country any more - that has been banned in the US and Europe. I think.


here's what i don't get. this cow was a dairy cow. they are feeding a dairy cow bone meal? isn't that where mad cow comes from? bone meal?

and then i was reading that several countries will NOT stop the importing of our meat. 

why does it seem to always be california?


----------



## xellil

It does always seem like it's California, huh??

I do feed my dogs food that has not been approved for human consumption. but if one of the reasons to feed raw is to get away from rendered animals, I can't imagine buying rendered animals on purpose and feeding them to my dogs.

I agree it's crazy to feed cows other cows in any form. it shouldn't be allowed anywhere. The danger of mad cow disease may be small, but I sure don't want to be the one out of a million people who gets it.


----------



## magicre

xellil said:


> It does always seem like it's California, huh??
> 
> I do feed my dogs food that has not been approved for human consumption. but if one of the reasons to feed raw is to get away from rendered animals, I can't imagine buying rendered animals on purpose and feeding them to my dogs.
> 
> I agree it's crazy to feed cows other cows in any form. it shouldn't be allowed anywhere. The danger of mad cow disease may be small, but I sure don't want to be the one out of a million people who gets it.


they buy this because the price is unbeatable.....i get it. i just won't do it.


----------



## ciaBrysh

The problem with allowing it to be dog feed is that it's transferable through contact as well as eating. It was nicknamed "foot in mouth disease" because farmers were tracking it into their homes in Europe, taking off their shoes or whatever, and then not washing their hands properly therefore spreading the disease.


----------



## meggels

I've been coming very, very, very close to switching Abbie to a raw diet the past few weeks. Been on my mind a lot. I'm feeding Fromm, Earthborn and Acana, which are companies I trust but jesus....


----------



## DaViking

ciaBrysh said:


> The problem with allowing it to be dog feed is that it's transferable through contact as well as eating. It was nicknamed "foot in mouth disease" because farmers were tracking it into their homes in Europe, taking off their shoes or whatever, and then not washing their hands properly therefore spreading the disease.


Are you sure you are not switching up BSE with Foot and Mouth disease? Both serious but very different.


----------



## Caty M

As far as I know BSE is only transferred through eating infected meat. Maybe you are thinking of Foot and Mouth disease? It's more common I think but a completely different disease.


----------



## ciaBrysh

Yup lol that's the one I was thinking of! lol


----------



## Deaf Dogs

meggels said:


> I've been coming very, very, very close to switching Abbie to a raw diet the past few weeks. Been on my mind a lot. I'm feeding Fromm, Earthborn and Acana, which are companies I trust but jesus....


None of those foods use rendered animals, so they're safe.


----------



## xellil

Deaf Dogs said:


> None of those foods use rendered animals, so they're safe.


I guess I'm just sick of these pet food companies not disclosing the true ingredients because they aren't forced to. I know they say they don't use rendered animals. But is that true? 

I dunno. There's no way to be 100 percent sure unless you watch the meat from start to last.


----------



## magicre

xellil said:


> I guess I'm just sick of these pet food companies not disclosing the true ingredients because they aren't forced to. I know they say they don't use rendered animals. But is that true?
> 
> I dunno. There's no way to be 100 percent sure unless you watch the meat from start to last.


this is just one more thing that keeps me from giving my dogs processed food. 

everything i've read about mad cow speaks to the human consumables, but also speaks about rendered cattle and other proteins going to dog food.....

i don't get that. 

along with other things that end up in dog food, this is just too horrid to even joke about. and i joke about many things.

this is not one of them.


----------



## xellil

I know. It's crazy that it's even a possibility that, for profit, that cow could get thrown into rendering for dog food. 

And I know every single cow is not tested for the disease. The one that was diagnosed was from a spot inspection. If they had picked the next cow over, maybe it wouldn't have been caught. 

I wonder if there are symptoms in cows. Was that cow showing signs of sickness? Since diseased animals are allowed in dog food, you have to wonder how many get past the inspections.

Just too many "what ifs" for me. I know I take a chance with the meat I DO buy from dog food raw suppliers, but I can be pretty sure it didn't come from a rendering plant.


----------



## Deaf Dogs

xellil said:


> I guess I'm just sick of these pet food companies not disclosing the true ingredients because they aren't forced to. I know they say they don't use rendered animals. But is that true?
> 
> I dunno. There's no way to be 100 percent sure unless you watch the meat from start to last.


Yes there are labeling laws. I recently saw an article about what those laws are, but cant remember where I saw it. Rendered meat has to be labeled as such.

There's also false advertising laws, if they advertise no rendered meats, they have to follow that, or face serious consequences if caught.

Yes we have to be careful with the foods we feed, but I dont believe in conspiracy theories. Dog food companies aren't out to kill our dogs.


----------



## xellil

Deaf Dogs said:


> Yes there are labeling laws. I recently saw an article about what those laws are, but cant remember where I saw it. Rendered meat has to be labeled as such.
> 
> There's also false advertising laws, if they advertise no rendered meats, they have to follow that, or face serious consequences if caught.
> 
> Yes we have to be careful with the foods we feed, but I dont believe in conspiracy theories. Dog food companies aren't out to kill our dogs.


you will NEVER see "rendered meats" on a bag of dog food. They don't have to say it. If it's says "animal digest" it's probably rendered. If it says "byproduct" it's probably rendered. The word rendered isn't in their vocabulary on the ingredients list.

I've also never seen a dog food bag that proclaims "no rendered meats" but I haven't seen them all. Maybe there are some that do.

And what consequences? Dog food companies ARE legally allowed to put misleading statements in their advertising and on their dog food bags. i can guarantee a picture of a t-bone steak is false advertising yet you see it all the time in their advertising.


----------



## xellil

Deaf Dogs said:


> Dog food companies aren't out to kill our dogs.


They may not be out to kill them, but they do it all the time. Just ask the people who fed their dogs chicken jerky treats. They don't care - they don't recall and they don't state fully what's in the dog food bag. 
They split ingredients to fool us into thinking meat is the first ingredients. 
They put meat in as wet weight to make us think it's the first ingredient. 
If they buy from suppliers who ADD something to the stuff they buy they don't have to include the added stuff in their ingredients list. Ethoxyquin is in alot of fish meal but that's something you'll never see on the ingredients list. SOMETIMES they will put "ethoxyquin free" on the bag but not always and if it's in there they sure don't say that.

It is perfectly legal to put diseased animals into dog food. You think they don't? Personally, I'm not betting my dog's life on it.


----------



## Deaf Dogs

I know rendered meats are called by-product and digest. that's what rendered meats ARE, and they have to be labeled as such. that's how we are able to avoid them. Also the dog food companies weren't trying to kill our dogs, they bought ingredients from a country with no such laws on proper labeling. Bad and very wrong of them, which is why I dont feed those foods, and why buying from dog food companies that source from countries that have proper laws is very important. 

I am not naive, I do a ton of research, and there are companies that I trust. And until that changes, I will feed mostly food prepared for my dogs.


----------



## magicre

Deaf Dogs said:


> I know rendered meats are called by-product and digest. that's what rendered meats ARE, and they have to be labeled as such. that's how we are able to avoid them. Also the dog food companies weren't trying to kill our dogs, they bought ingredients from a country with no such laws on proper labeling. Bad and very wrong of them, which is why I dont feed those foods, and why buying from dog food companies that source from countries that have proper laws is very important.
> 
> I am not naive, I do a ton of research, and there are companies that I trust. And until that changes, I will feed mostly food prepared for my dogs.


we can debate this back and forth....and i get what you're saying.

i don't think you are naive, either...and i think you do what you think best for your dogs.

as i've stated, i know people who are members of my co op who feed rendered product to their dogs...except it's raw, not processed.

i think, for me, at least, i don't want to. LOL.....

regardless of whether it is labelled or not....it's not a conspiracy theory.....it is what it is...and people can decide for themselves whether or not to feed product with things that i don't think are doable for my dogs.

it's a choice we make and we live with our choices.....as to labelling.....if the FDA is anything with dog food as it is with human product, then a fine and a slap on the wrist and a pull the product for a bit is what happens. usually. unless it's so blatant that it cannot be swept under the carpet.

i've seen this with pharmaceuticals way too often to dismiss what the FDA does and doesn't do.....so i would have to believe that the USDA is not so different.

i don't believe for one minute that any mad cow gets into human food. i do believe that it does get into some dog foods.

there is, however, a voluntary movement by some companies who are labelling on their own. i call that a smart marketing move, as people become more and more aware and social media groups spread news like wildfire.


----------



## xellil

Not everyone knows what "digest" means. I would say almost no one does. Nor by products. They are terms meant to mislead. 

They could throw in nothing but chicken feathers and be following the labelled ingredients. Who knows that? Not your average pet owner. They go by the pretty meats dancing on TV screen which are NEVER included in dog food.

Now, if they said "rendered animals which are slaughterhouse castoffs and may be diseased or dying including road kill and euthanized animals" THAT would be truth in labeling.

If you trust them, fine. Alot of people do. I don't. And alot of people's dogs are dead or permanently damaged because they believed the advertising and didn't understand what's REALLY in that bag of dog food.


----------



## magicre

Deaf Dogs said:


> Yes there are labeling laws. I recently saw an article about what those laws are, but cant remember where I saw it. Rendered meat has to be labeled as such.
> 
> There's also false advertising laws, if they advertise no rendered meats, they have to follow that, or face serious consequences if caught.
> 
> Yes we have to be careful with the foods we feed, but I dont believe in conspiracy theories. Dog food companies aren't out to kill our dogs.


i agree with you. dog food companies and every one else out there is out to make money.

bottom line. the less you spend on the creation of the product, the more the profits. that's basic economics.

i just think it's gone too far the wrong way.


----------



## xellil

magicre said:


> i agree with you. dog food companies and every one else out there is out to make money.
> 
> bottom line. the less you spend on the creation of the product, the more the profits. that's basic economics.
> 
> i just think it's gone too far the wrong way.


If dog food had in it what we think (wish) it had in it, it would cost $200 a bag.


----------



## DaViking

xellil; said:


> They could throw in nothing but chicken feathers and be following the labelled ingredients. Who knows that?


Yes theoretically they can do that but how do you think that would affect the nutrient information on the bag and elsewhere? No one is going to make a formula full of feather meal because not even Petsmart would sell that crap.



xellil said:


> dogs are dead or permanently damaged because they believed the advertising and didn't understand what's REALLY in that bag of dog food.


What does that mean? What are you suggesting? Are you saying that if ppl understood fully the labels and what, according to humans, gross things goes into by-product meals their pets would still be alive? Dogs don't die because they ate rendered by-products or digest. Food related deaths among dogs are related to carelessness and sub-par safety procedures.


----------



## magicre

DaViking said:


> Yes theoretically they can do that but how do you think that would affect the nutrient information on the bag and elsewhere? No one is going to make a formula full of feather meal because not even Petsmart would sell that crap.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean? What are you suggesting? Are you saying that if ppl understood fully the labels and what, according to humans, gross things goes into by-product meals their pets would still be alive? Dogs don't die because they ate rendered by-products or digest. Food related deaths among dogs are related to carelessness and sub-par safety procedures.


i'm saying it.

ever heard of menadione?

nutro used it in their products for a long time. menadione sodium bisulfite or sulfate.....there are lots of names for it....and one of the side effects is out of control elevated liver enzymes.

i didn't know then what i didn't know. now i do. and my dogs who should have lived to be a ripe old age, did not. they were not sick. they had no conditions.

and they died, all four shih tzus before they turned 14.

after researching this particular ingredient and realising that all four of my dogs were eating this food....i now realise it is a killer.

so yeah. there are things in foods that we feed our animals that are toxic and they killed my dogs.


----------



## xellil

DaViking said:


> Yes theoretically they can do that but how do you think that would affect the nutrient information on the bag and elsewhere? No one is going to make a formula full of feather meal because not even Petsmart would sell that crap.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean? What are you suggesting? Are you saying that if ppl understood fully the labels and what, according to humans, gross things goes into by-product meals their pets would still be alive? Dogs don't die because they ate rendered by-products or digest. Food related deaths among dogs are related to carelessness and sub-par safety procedures.


No, they probably won't. but do people really know their dogs are eating some proportion of feathers in chicken dog food? And they are probably NOT eating any chicken the way they imagine it? And that sawdust is normally included in the pricey Rx foods, especially Science Diet?

How do you know dogs don't die from eating digest or byproducts? how many people do you know whose dogs got sick with unexplained kidney failure, liver failure, pancreatitis, etc? What kind of diseases are they putting in the dog food? Diseased animals are allowed by law. If they were NOT allowed by law then we wouldn't have to worry about it, would we? 

Consumer affairs reports complaints about the following dog foods, all in the last few months. And of course there is the ongoing debacle of Diamond.

Natural Balance.
Nutro
Iam's
Blue Buffalo

And as usual, always complaints about Pedigree, Purina, Ole Roy etc.

These people's dogs are sick and dying, even dead, and they believe it's the food. Maybe it's aflatoxin, or melamine, and maybe it's something in the rendered animals they put in there. Or something totally different. But dogs don't just keel over and die for no reason.


----------



## Caty M

Does eating infected meat cause Creutzfeld-Jacob disease in dogs too, or just in humans? BSE itself is not caused by a bacteria or virus, but a prion- apparently that is denatured at high temperatures, but are kibble processing techniques high enough?


----------



## DaViking

magicre said:


> i'm saying it.
> 
> ever heard of menadione?


Yep, look at one of my latest replies in the dry section.


----------



## magicre

DaViking said:


> Yep, look at one of my latest replies in the dry section.


i am not welcome in the dry section by two of the people who post there. so i guess i shall miss it.

i know what i know. and it took me a long time to figure it out. four dogs don't die of the same thing unless there is a common denominator. menadione was it.


----------



## Caty M

I don't feel that all companies are out to kill our dogs- of course not. There are companies that are reasonably trustworthy like Champion, Fromm, Horizon Legacy.. but the companies that still continue to use things like ethoxyquin and menadione? They are as good as out to kill our dogs and are less than dirt in my opinion. Giving a knowingly damaging chemical to our pets and not disclosing that it's dangerous on the label. I had no idea that it was bad before coming to a website- I thought it was just vitamin K.


----------



## DaViking

magicre said:


> i am not welcome in the dry section by two of the people who post there. so i guess i shall miss it.


Huh? Why is that?
I'm sure many want me to stay out of the raw section but I still post but try to be careful not to peddle kibble in there.


----------



## magicre

Caty M said:


> I don't feel that all companies are out to kill our dogs- of course not. There are companies that are reasonably trustworthy like Champion, Fromm, Horizon Legacy.. but the companies that still continue to use things like ethoxyquin and menadione? They are as good as out to kill our dogs and are less than dirt in my opinion. Giving a knowingly damaging chemical to our pets and not disclosing that it's dangerous on the label. I had no idea that it was bad before coming to a website- I thought it was just vitamin K.


i agree. i don't think it's in any one's best interest to kill the consumer's dog. that kind of defeats the purpose.

i do think that ingredients are added using the cheapest ones that can be found, so that the bottom line is low and profits are high.

that's the name of the game.

i'm perfectly willing to pay for a premium dog food, no matter if i'm feeding raw or home cooked or kibble.

what i don't expect is a company using an ingredient that is harmful.

and someone, please explain the new kick of using rosemary when it's harmful.

and brewer's yeast. it is cheap and harmful.

there are ingredients that just don't belong. 

and too many people who don't read people labels also don't read dog food labels.

i don't blame the dog food companies. i blame the people who blindly accept that what is in the product is perfectly fine.

when it isn't. 

i will never get over not looking up menadione. i should have. i put more time into researching cars and tvs than i did my dog's food.

it will never happen again....but blinders are off.


----------



## magicre

DaViking said:


> Huh? Why is that?
> I'm sure many want me to stay out of the raw section but I still post but try to be careful not to peddle kibble in there.


i like you. you can stay LOL


----------



## xellil

magicre said:


> i like you. you can stay LOL


Me too. What fun would life be if we didn't have someone to disagree with?


----------



## xellil

Oh, and I disgree that they aren't out to kill our dogs. Melamine was an on-purpose, not an accident. aflatoxin may not be on purpose but I believe they processed it into dog food knowing the corn was moldy. So that makes it an on-purpose. No one knows what's going on with Champion right now but it doesn't seem good.

When it's money vs. dogs, money always wins. Maybe some are not like that. But I'm not counting on it.


----------



## magicre

xellil said:


> Oh, and I disgree that they aren't out to kill our dogs. Melamine was an on-purpose, not an accident. aflatoxin may not be on purpose but I believe they processed it into dog food knowing the corn was moldy. So that makes it an on-purpose. No one knows what's going on with Champion right now but it doesn't seem good.
> 
> When it's money vs. dogs, money always wins. Maybe some are not like that. But I'm not counting on it.


kill the dog. lose a client.

doesn't mean their practises aren't suspect and idiotic....put out a better product, get a client for life. kill the dog and what good is that for the company bottom line.


----------



## xellil

magicre said:


> kill the dog. lose a client.
> 
> doesn't mean their practises aren't suspect and idiotic....put out a better product, get a client for life. kill the dog and what good is that for the company bottom line.


The problem is there is an endless supply of customers. The only real scare the pet food companies had was with the melamine. 

I agree - it makes no sense to be so careless with the lives of the dogs you feed. And yet - they are.

And by the way, they just recalled Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul - salmonella. Oddly enough, that probably won't hurt any dogs. Might kill some people, though. Whoops - better recall.


----------



## magicre

xellil said:


> The problem is there is an endless supply of customers. The only real scare the pet food companies had was with the melamine.
> 
> I agree - it makes no sense to be so careless with the lives of the dogs you feed. And yet - they are.
> 
> And by the way, they just recalled Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul - salmonella. Oddly enough, that probably won't hurt any dogs. Might kill some people, though. Whoops - better recall.


i just saw that. and shared it on facebook.....

you're right. there is an endless supply of customers. kill the dog, replace the dog. sigh.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Excuse me for not reading all 6 pages.

The part that really caught my attention was the fact that a sick cow is allowed to be turned into cattle feed. 

1. A cow is an herbivore not an omnivore or a carnivore... unless I have completely missed a discovery of some new species of carnivorous cattle.

2. Isn't this how these diseases became a threat? From what I have read, if I am remembering correctly, mad cow fits into the category of a prion disease. Cannibalism is the cause so wouldn't continuing to feed cows to cows be a bit ridiculous?


----------



## Caty M

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Excuse me for not reading all 6 pages.
> 
> The part that really caught my attention was the fact that a sick cow is allowed to be turned into cattle feed.
> 
> 1. A cow is an herbivore not an omnivore or a carnivore... unless I have completely missed a discovery of some new species of carnivorous cattle.
> 
> 2. Isn't this how these diseases became a threat? From what I have read, if I am remembering correctly, mad cow fits into the category of a prion disease. Cannibalism is the cause so wouldn't continuing to feed cows to cows be a bit ridiculous?


I don't think they FEED the cows it.. but if a cow dies on the feed lot and isn't noticed for a couple of days.. well..


----------



## xellil

I believe it's illegal to feed cows to other cows these days. However, I do think there's a chance they could get into dog food. Diseased cows are perfectly legal to put into dog food.

Maybe not BSE cows, but I really don't believe every sick cow is tested before it's fed to Fido.


----------



## magicre

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Excuse me for not reading all 6 pages.
> 
> The part that really caught my attention was the fact that a sick cow is allowed to be turned into cattle feed.
> 
> 1. A cow is an herbivore not an omnivore or a carnivore... unless I have completely missed a discovery of some new species of carnivorous cattle.
> 
> 2. Isn't this how these diseases became a threat? From what I have read, if I am remembering correctly, mad cow fits into the category of a prion disease. Cannibalism is the cause so wouldn't continuing to feed cows to cows be a bit ridiculous?


weren't cows being fed bone meal? made from bones of other cows or sheep or something? 

i seem to remember reading that...i'll try to look it up so i don't sound like a complete idiot....

Bone meal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Visit To An Animal Rendering Plant

Hanford CAFO Conditions Creates Mad Cow Prions : Indybay

https://www.msu.edu/~corcora5/food/vegan/madcow.html


----------



## KittyKat

A lot of dog food companies will say they can't feed "human grade meat" because they make dog food and thus all meat has to be stamped a certain way. I know Champion's plant is cleared to make human food, and thus all their meat comes in clean - but they went out of their way for that designation. Now that their ownership is suspect, who knows what will happen in the future. The fact is you have no idea whats going on under the table at these places. What you get is a processed product. Picking up that piece of kibble, you have no idea what's really in it. It's brown, and kinda roundish, besides that... who knows? It could be chewed up leather for all you know. Not saying it is, just that its a rather inscrutable piece of food.

The worst companies are, imo, the ones like Natural Balance that don't make their own products. They have other companies do it for them and then stamp their name on it. Where is the careful oversight?!? Yet they can easily blame the other companies (like diamond) when shit hits the fan. "not our fault guys, someone else makes this!". Just like the toys made in china ordeal with the lead factor. Well, THEY didn't make the toys, it was the evil Chinese factory that did! Etc etc.

I don't think they are out to kill dogs (on purpose), but they are out to make money, and in doing so will use the cheapest products possible. If corn makes their product seem like it has more protein, they will use it. They know very well that they are using sub par ingredients, and that it will most likely shorten the lifespan of the dog, or cause other issues, but in the end they are offering up a cheap product to people, some of which likely know its not what their should be eating. 

Hell, everyone knows cigarettes are toxic, but people still smoke them. 

I mean, even feeding raw I feel like I need to tread water carefully. I source my meat from local farms (that I actually go to) so there's no middle man anymore (I did have a butcher before but its cheaper this way, and I get to see the farm) and I get our meat and the dogs meat from there. Nice grass fed meat from cows that wander pastures before their untimely end. Free range chickens, no hormones (well, so they say) and all that crap. I'm a lot more careful about what I eat when it comes to meat.


----------

