# The premature tossing out Innova with the bathwater--because of Merger



## 93-5G20 (May 21, 2010)

I have got a puppy where I am looking at foods heavily right now. 

With the merger-acquisition of Innova lines by P&G, the postings and sites are going crazy. Some sites say they are removing Innova from their recommended lists, one site doing that has 3 of their top 10 as Innova lines. And all of this because of a deal that is not even completed.

Yes a large company can screw up a purchased company, but it is not a fact, as some dog food experts are claiming. For self assuming experts to say that Innova products are now not worthy of consideration because something could happen in the future is ignorant.

Innova has a factory that is built, and a market that fills the factory. Innova makes money. P&G can make money just by using their supply-chain and buying power to an already profitable business. In other words the bastard big company can make money just by doing the same thing.

From what I can see about Iams and other P&G acquisitions, is that the foods never developed much more than when they were bought. Which may be the same for Innova. Its called a cash cow in the business world. All they need to do is churn it out.

But it does piss me off to read how Innova products can no longer be recommended.

To say this we must assume:
1. P&G hates animals and will screw with customers by hiding what they are doing.
2. That the ingredient list will be changed. 
3. That the ingredients will not be listed accurately.
4. That the guaranteed analysis will be fraudulent.
5. That P&G will screw with a product that has people hyper focused on it.

If changes happen they will be seen and will be reported, but it has not happened. 

Am I missing seeing the giant corporate evil destroying a dog food line, with "experts" claiming history predicts the future, and they can see it all. These experts say these changes will happen, and because of their egos, they think they can not be wrong, thus we must all abandon ship.

Do we all pack up an abandon the Innova products, because of theories of demise of quality. Yes I liked it better to have a Merrick and Orijen like owned company and manufacturing, like Innova is now, but does a larger owner NECESSARILY screw that up? As a given?

Seriously won't we see the changes, if they occur.....we can abandon ship then right, or do we just assume that every cruise-liner sailing in cold waters will strike an ice block and sink.

Am I crazy to still be considering feeding Innova Puppy after the merger, with bags with dates made after they are P and G line.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

Historically anytime a boutique food has been bought by a larger company this has always happened.

There WILL be changes made to the foods. Only time will tell, but it will happen.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

93-5G20 said:


> I have got a puppy where I am looking at foods heavily right now.
> 
> With the merger-acquisition of Innova lines by P&G, the postings and sites are going crazy. Some sites say they are removing Innova from their recommended lists, one site doing that has 3 of their top 10 as Innova lines. And all of this because of a deal that is not even completed.
> 
> ...



One aspect I do agree with is this......

Many people use the example of Iams and Eukanuba as profiles of what happens when a large company "screws" up a "GREAT" food. 

Nonsense I say. I found old ingredient lists for Iams...they were NEVER a GREAT food. Ever. In fact, the older ingredient lists I saw didn't even differ that much. People run around online claiming that Iams used to be like EVO. Laughable. 

All that being said...I don't like PG taking over Natura. It isn't good. Decisions will center more around the bottom line and cost savings measures will take hold at some point. 

Can I PROVE this will happen? Certainly not. 

The only way PG will leave things alone is if it is profitable. They don't care about the nutrition of our pets. They care about quarterly Analyst calls and hitting earning numbers. I'm not saying Natura didn't care about profits...but we're talking about the difference between the NBA and your kids Saturday morning hoops league in terms of the how important profitability is now. Just wait til Wal Mart decides they want a couple Natura products on their shelves...and their demand for a $25 price point. 

All in all...why bother with Natura? We have other options with less uncertainty.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

93-5G20 said:


> To say this we must assume:
> 1. P&G hates animals and will screw with customers by hiding what they are doing.




one additional thing you must understand. PG "hating" animals is completely irrelevant and would be akin to saying "the big Oak Tree in your front yard 'hates your Dog." PG is completely neutral in their feelings towards anything but money. 

PG doesn't like Dogs. They don't dislike Dogs. They don't really give a rip about Dogs. They care about profits. Period. Anything they do that remotely smells of ethical behavior isn't because they WANT to be ethical. It will only occur because their public relations experts deem ethical behavior to be more PROFITABLE.

Practically speaking, our ONLY hope is that EVO is deemed to be a very profitable line of food for PG. If they discover they can pillage the ingredients, rape the brand but keep the label and make more money....we're screwed.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

I'm simply playing the odds here based on history.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

PUNKem733 said:


> Historically anytime a boutique food has been bought by a larger company this has always happened.


What do you mean by "this" and can you give us some examples?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

ziggy29 said:


> I'm simply playing the odds here based on history.


What is the history and can you give examples?


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

So the animal testing that P&G does has no affect on anyone here buying their products? That surprises me......................


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

I could be wrong, as I often am in here, but I think if one were to go back to the original Royal Canine German Shepherd food - back when it was in it's infancy, you will find that the food was created based upon scientific data collected from the studies of German shepherds. It is a fascinating study and example of a company trying it's best to actually make a food - in the kibble form - that would be beneficial to the dog. Remember this was back in the 60s or 70s, I can't recall dates very well anymore. Just some ancient history for you guys, but it is a case where when bought out, the formula changed and the product went to crap.

P&G is a toothpaste company. What do they know about dog food? All they know is that Nutra makes a lot of money every year - and could make tons more by substituting cheaper raw ingredients. I hope they prove me and everyone else wrong - but it's all about money now.


----------



## steve (Sep 29, 2009)

I totally agree with the original poster. Yes assumptions can and will be made but, i feel that time should tell the final answer whether they have changed. 
There is way too much for them to lose by altering or changing ingredients with the power of the internet to keep them honest.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

kevin bradley said:


> One aspect I do agree with is this......
> 
> Many people use the example of Iams and Eukanuba as profiles of what happens when a large company "screws" up a "GREAT" food.
> 
> ...


The primary reason large companies buy smaller companies to increase customer base/market share and profitability. If the acquired company already has everything in place to be profitable, no purchasing entity in their right mind will do anything to endanger that. 

In the past I worked for a large international company that took over several smaller ones while I was there. One instance was purely a move to acquire more customers. However, the kicker was that their product was definitely cheaper and of inferior quality than ours. Today I doubt if any of those "original" lines remain. And no one is worse off for it.

Meanwhile, other companies were acquired because they were offering totally different lines in areas we had never been in. Other than get rid of duplicate background staff (payroll, ap/ar, etc.) they were basically left alone. But they benefited from the resources we offered, not the least of which was a larger client base.

Also, not every distributor carried every product line. There was no use trying to get the Pricepoint Boys to buy something that the GoldStandard Stores carried (and vice versa). Business just doesn't work that way.

There are pros & cons to EVERY acquisition. And each one must be taken on its own merits. P&G is no exception. They do not have a large pet food presence, least of all in the market segment Innova occupies. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE BOUGHT. They weren't "taking out" competition to Iams & Eukanuba, they were ADDING ANOTHER TIER TO THEIR MIX.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

whiteleo said:


> So the animal testing that P&G does has no affect on anyone here buying their products? That surprises me......................


Exactly what tests do they run and why is it bad? Animal testing of medical products and maybe some food products is a good thing. Better than testing on humans. I own a good bit of stock in P&G and buy their products A LOT. So obviously it doesn't bother me unless you can come up with some reason why it should. MANY food and drug companies run animal tests on their products and in research for future products. In some cases, its probably required.


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

There are definitely people panicking a bit too much over this "not-yet-finished" deal and of course many over-exaggerate.

At this point, I really feel like i KNOW there will be changes to Natura products and i WILL be disappointed and WILL discontinue feeding any furkids Natura products once those changes occur. Do i hope there won't be changes? Of course. I like EVO and my pups have always done well on it.

To me, it seems almost common sense that the food won't be as great after this merger happens. Why? Because as someone said, profits. I'm not saying that EVO will eventually be on the same level as Iams, of course not! P&G is not that retarded. They know about all the crazy animal lovers out there that are pissed off and they don't want to lose existing customers. So when there are changes, it will be gradual.

In my opinion, in order for them to make more profits, P&G will market more, put Natura products in Petsmart, Petco, etc. Then they'll realize "hey, we don't need to put high quality meat in the kibble. let's save a few bucks and downgrade it a little"

Has nothing to do with their feelings towards animals. Its 100% business and its life. The bigger guy bought the little guy. What can we do? Absolutely nothing. There will always be smaller companies that create the premium kibbles we love.


----------



## cochon (Sep 28, 2009)

Just because it's required doesn't make it OK. I think animals deserve more rights and consideration than to just be used as test subjects. I don't see what gives us the right to take an animal like a dog, that's highly intelligent, has real emotions, and feels pain and put it through a painful experience. It may be legal, but I don't see how it's ethical, especially in cases where it's not a life and death situation (i.e. cancer research). And to me that doesn't just apply to dogs. All animals I have come across have pretty unique personalities and understand a lot more than people give them credit for. So no, I don't think testing on rats or guinea pigs is OK either just because they can't talk.


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

I agree Cochon but how we feel towards the testing of animals is just that, how we feel. Not everyone agrees nor do I push anyone to feel the way I do. But to get into it is opening up a huge can of worms. Once we get to animal activist territory, the claws come out of all parties haha. Sooo...moving on! :tongue:


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Should of figured RFD........... I don't have time to answer, I have to go make a living.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

BabyHusky said:


> In my opinion, in order for them to make more profits, P&G will market more, put Natura products in Petsmart, Petco, etc. Then they'll realize "hey, we don't need to put high quality meat in the kibble. let's save a few bucks and downgrade it a little"
> 
> Has nothing to do with their feelings towards animals. Its 100% business and its life. The bigger guy bought the little guy. What can we do? Absolutely nothing. There will always be smaller companies that create the premium kibbles we love.


Agreed. If P&G thinks it could extract the most money out of the Natura line by changing nothing, it would change nothing. But larger companies can have deeper pockets to market the product, to rapidly ramp up production (hard to do without compromising quality or consistency). Sometimes they may have to cut corners to meet price targets from large retailers (Wal-Mart is notorious for this). And if the company thinks that Wal-Martizing the product to make it cheaper will pay off in terms of higher sales, if they think it's best for the bottom line, they will do it. They have that fiduciary duty to shareholders that a privately-held business does not have. 

And no, RFD, I don't have "evidence" or a "link" handy to support this, though I'm sure I could find some. This is just an observation based on common corporate behavior. I don't blame them -- their job is to maximize shareholder profits. But often that means cheapening the quality or offshoring production. I've owned enough large company stocks before to have seen this. And as a result, I tend not to give these acquisitive megacorps the benefit of the doubt.

--
ETA: This is rather timely... 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aumt9p5CaCEU&pos=12]

Why stop at Wal-Mart wanting to control the supplier's shipping? Why not production? Why not demand they produce in China? This is the danger of marketing a "niche" high-quality, high-cost product to the big box retailers. The tendency is an emphasis on wringing costs out of production rather than on maintaining highest quality standards.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

What no one seems to have thought about is ... if P & G wanted a medium to low grade kibble company they could have bought one. Why would they buy a high end company if they want to produce med to low end? If I were in business and I wanted to produce high end dog food, I would buy a high end producer. Same with other grades.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

cochon said:


> Just because it's required doesn't make it OK. I think animals deserve more rights and consideration than to just be used as test subjects. I don't see what gives us the right to take an animal like a dog, that's highly intelligent, has real emotions, and feels pain and put it through a painful experience.


So you think we should immediately test all new drugs on humans and bypass animal testing all together? What about palability tests for dog food? How do we test for that? What about longivity tests for dog food or feeding protocols or vaccination protocols? Just assume and don't bother testing?


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> What no one seems to have thought about is ... if P & G wanted a medium to low grade kibble company they could have bought one. Why would they buy a high end company if they want to produce med to low end? If I were in business and I wanted to produce high end dog food, I would buy a high end producer. Same with other grades.


cause its well known and has word of mouth. rffd, you have stock in proctor and gamble,so you have a biased opinion...i am biased as well, as i really am pissed that icant feed evo herring now.

but im not as biased as you since im happy with canidae grain free...and since you claim all kibbles are the same might as well feed canidae instead of evo for 20 dollars morel


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> What no one seems to have thought about is ... if P & G wanted a medium to low grade kibble company they could have bought one. Why would they buy a high end company if they want to produce med to low end? If I were in business and I wanted to produce high end dog food, I would buy a high end producer. Same with other grades.


If it's about mass marketing to bigger boxes, they have the resources to crank up production (possibly at the expense of quality) and the marketing prowess to convince the masses their crappy food is "premium."

They could considerably cut Evo's quality, market the hell out of it as the "best" and chop $5-10 off the price, and it would still be (probably easily) the highest-quality food the big box stores carried. That would still be a disappointment to those who are willing to pay up for the best quality.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

I think more than anything, P & G purchased the name/brand. It is well known as "premium" kibble that people are willing to pay a little more for. So although the brand/name will be the same on the outside, God knows what P&G will put inside that bag! They will ride the profits at the expense of the quality until the consumer discovers that the product is crap. Then when the margins fall, P & G will sell off the unit to someone else. 

RFD, excuse yourself from this discussion on the grounds of conflict of interest. You're making a killing off your P&G stock and everyone knows it. roflmao


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

Doc said:


> RFD, excuse yourself from this discussion on the grounds of conflict of interest. You're making a killing off your P&G stock and everyone knows it. roflmao


LMFAO!:biggrin:


----------



## bort (Apr 30, 2010)

I found this forum about a week before the announcement. I came here because both my dog and my best friend's dogs had issues with their most recent bags of Evo (different size bags, different kibble bought at different stores). Can I say with absolutely certainty that things had been changed? No, I can't. I can tell you that the newest food smells different, our dogs started refusing it/skipping meals and were having intestinal issues. I've been visiting many dog forums and have ready other stories similar to mine. Regardless of if there was a change or not, it's a food that's not working for us right now.

Maybe P&G will do a great job with Natura - that would be wonderful. If P&G's ownership gets some dogs off crap like Beneful and Pedigree that's great. I'm not comfortable with their animal testing. More than that, I'm not comfortable with a company who manufactures and markets crappy food to make a good food. Rationally, I know Natura has set formulas and manufacturing processes - it's not like P&G is starting from scratch. But it's just hard for me to reconcile one arm of your business making horrible food and another arm making good food.

I have other options - I don't need to feed Evo. There are foods on the market that are a better fit for my dog and that I am more comfortable feeding *right now*. If Evo remains unchanged, I may put it back in our rotation at some point. But I don't think it's ever a bad idea to look at other options and make changes to improve your dog's diet.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

No one has come up with any claim that P&G is doing any dangerous animal testing. They may be just taste testing dog foods. Or testing dog shampoos for results or any of a zillion harmless tests. No one has said they are killing or harming dogs in any way. All I have see is "tests" ... nothing about what kind of tests.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

all animal testing requires animals to be euthanized aftert esting procedures have fiinished. so proctor and gamble is killing all of the snimals they test. i saw a video of their testing,it looked cruel. they put chemicals in dogs eyes..held them there with machines it was bad.

intro to psych came n handy...


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

So RFD big stock holder of P&G, don't you feel alittle hypocrisy going on because you:

1. Don't tolerate anyone using training methods other than positive reinforcement

2. Don't condone pinch collars because they hurt dogs

Yet, to line your own pockets you'll buy stock and profit from a company that does horrible things to animals, now I know really what kind of person you are.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

whiteleo said:


> So RFD big stock holder of P&G, don't you feel alittle hypocrisy going on because you:
> 
> 1. Don't tolerate anyone using training methods other than positive reinforcement
> 
> ...


the only items i use from proctor and gamble are gillette razors, and that is because iget them for free. i am getting the new proglide razor soon,im not gonna lie im excited to try it out also.


----------



## 93-5G20 (May 21, 2010)

A lot of knee jerk reactions.
1. Dog food has nothing to do with destructive animal testing, we have an understanding of poisonous foods. We don't need to animal test for human food, so thinking its needed for dog food, is nuts. Sure they will feed it to dogs to see if they like it, and if causes the runs. Last I checked a lot of animals were killed because they were turned into dog food.

2. Every business entity is out to make money. Natura is a prime example. The take a product and sell it only in small specialty stores, which garner higher prices. They make plenty of money, but for some reason that escapes others. Next they sell their business and cash out. Gosh they were motivated by money all the way along, how on earth did you ever feed this dog food to your dog in the first place.

3. Its called economies of scale. Its how to be profitable without needing to change quality.

4. History is not a faithful predictor of the future. If so, all historians would be billionaires in the stock market. With an understanding of the past comes new adaptive changes by participants, its a moving target.

5. Iams and Eukanuba are decent B level foods. They are not top tier A level, but they are reasonable, and much better than a large group of C and D and F foods. Sure Iams users of the early 80s had the ego boost of using the super food then, but time moved on. Did PG really kill these foods off, or did they just become runners on the field, but not winners of the race. 

6. We have people claiming to using the best knowledge and education to feed their pets the best. Then some of these same people use superstitions and folklore to justify moving away from a product. "I know it will change for the worse, I can feel it, the old owners were lovely, the new owners are monsters." No data, no proof...and the classic, "Well I don't have any examples, but everyone knows there are tons and tons of examples, why do I need to show you just one, and that one does not come to mind now has nothing to do with it either. "

7. How many shifts do they run at the Innova manufacturing plant? Do they run just one? Two? If they don't have a 3rd shift, then the plant has a lot more capacity to run. 

8. Price equilibrium of demand....changes in prices balancing the greater demand of lower prices, to maximize profits vs higher priced lower volume sales. IE those PG bastards might use economic analysis to lower prices.....but the problem of course is the small pet store owners will charge what they will, so the consumer will not necessarily see a price break.

9. California Naturals, would be an easy move into other retailers with EVO and Innova being specialty retailers only.

10. Theories that the food has already changed are nuts. Maybe you are buying counterfeit goods, somebody manufacturing a bag and filling it up with Ol' Roy and selling it to you. If the bag size weight should match what is on the website. You would have to have a very shaddy store owner to have this happen.

11. Just because you believe the sky is about to fall, does not make it true. Innova brand is successful because of word of mouth, and really, word on the internet. If PG screws with the formula, it will come out, and the brand would be destroyed. PG can not be oblivious to that fact. Iams and Eukanuba may not be the best foods now, but they are still decent food, and are now priced that way too. Other foods got better, vs Eukanuba totally going to crap.

I am more than willing to never buy Innova products again, but for reason other than superstitious fear, which is all that is offered. As I said some sites are removing Innova as a recommended product were it was before in the top 10. Am I supposed to duck my head in the sand with these personalized opinions? What about actually using the best evidence and the best observations.

Should I ignore one of the best foods on the market, because some fanboy's disappointment that large business is now owned by another large business?

Sorry if I don't buy into the theory that because a product is high priced its better, or because something that is sold by a national chain is worse. FWIW, PG would be fools to do anything to screw with their customers.....which are the business owners.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

buddy97 said:


> 1. then you will have to help me understand why P&G owned Iams was doing testing on dogs and keeping them in horrific conditions in the early 2000's.
> 
> 4. history is quite often a good predictor of the future. it is one of the primary reasons we study history.
> 
> ...



I agree Iams and Yukanuba are utter trash that is _SLIGHTLY_ above crap like Ol roy.


----------



## 93-5G20 (May 21, 2010)

1. Regarding the animal cruelty, which is not really germain to the topic of whether or not PG ownership will destroy a brand which is highly regarded to quality. 
Here is the accusations: IamsCruelty.com
Here is the response. Animal Testing Facts from IAMS at IAMS Truth

I watched the video, which is of a contracted facility which Iams programs were also part of. I read the responses and charges. I believe that PETA is looking for a whipping boy, an logically there is truly no reason why Iams would be the Nazis of animal food. They have zero economic interests to doing and continuing what PETA is taring them with. I am at peace with my opinions of the hype.

2. There not much showing PG screwed up Iams and Eukanuba. Another poster shows the labeling did not change too much. Not much I could find beyond independent posters declaring formulas changed, nothing on websites I could find.

3. Right now there are people and other sites ranting that this is the doom of EVO/Innova foods. This seems all very premature. It also is counter to what the current owners of Innova are saying.

*In this transaction, P&G will be acquiring our manufacturing facilities in Fremont, NE and San Leandro, CA along with the full complement of Natura employees. P&G intends to operate Natura Pet Products as an independent entity, essentially intact, for the foreseeable future. With the exception of John, Ann and me, Natura’s current operating management team will remain in their respective positions and your contacts within Natura and our mutual business relationship will remain unchanged. All of the distributor contracts will be honored and continued as they are today. For the foreseeable future Natura will operate as a separate business unit within P&G Pet Care. *

That quote from a website biased against the buyout.

Follow up Information about Natura Sale

In posting here, this topic I wanted to find out for myself if I should continue to purchase or not. I have found most the information I needed. The arguments for the sky will now fall, on Innova are pretty much panicky fear mongering. ere is no point to researching dog food, if you are going to buy into superstitions and dire predictions with zero real evidence. I am looking for better information than an email a chain letter type posting and analysis.

Until all pets are vegans, PETA won't be happy, they protest the killing of rats after all.

Some foods cause very very loose stools and diarrhea in specific pets, avoid those foods at all costs, toss or donate the bag to a homeless person with dog.

For me, unless I want to hate all corporations, I am OK with continued feeding, but trust AND verify continues, and if BAD changes happen I will certainly make new decisions at that time. 

There is plenty of honest money making high end dog foods, its a profitable business model and its more profitable by being good corporate citizens. Look at Ellen and her investment into HALO food. HALO actually went to Petco, while at least the current talk on EVO/Innova is they will continue to stay in the independent pet store market. 

You make the best quality you can and treat your customers right, and never willing do a sudden acceleration error like Toyota. If there is something beyond, I heard a rumor before, I bet that rumor will happen again, even if the first rumor was false.....I would love to see it.

If something REAL changes, I am sure it will be verifiable and shown by sites like this. If history predicts the future, historians would all be billionaires.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

> Superior quality and value are two reasons P&G has grown to be such a large company. The P&G resources now available could actually boost product quality because we are able to utilize some of their learnings and nutritional expertise.



LOL!! Some of the best dog food in the world is gonna gain "expertise", and may have it's quality boosted with the "help" of a Co who owns some of the worst foods. LOL!!!


----------



## 93-5G20 (May 21, 2010)

buddy97 said:


> _Thank you for taking the time to write. I appreciate your concern and will certainly forward your comments to our management team.
> 
> Natura has been extremely successful with their unique formulas, providing high quality nutrition to dogs and cats. Quality is and always has been paramount for Natura. We will continue to provide the current formulas to our customers.
> 
> ...


I posted links and opinions on the animal testing claims you are making. I remain unconvinced of the fable of the evil corporation in this specific case. You can base you beliefs on the shady evidence. Because of this, you will not used Innova products in the future. 

This is fine, but don't pretend that it has anything to do with the quality of the food, now or then.

I notice that the claim that PG screwed up Iams and Eukanuba is now gone, with the lack of evidence apparant. Yes I understand you wanted Iams and Eukanuba to become miracle products after PG, and you are disappointed they did not. But that is vastly different that the assertion that PG killed them.

Iams and Eukanuba are indeed reasonable products. I have a 10 pound dog, making dollar per pound of food, trivial for me. I want the small amount of food to be of the highest quality, its a small amount of food. Other owners are feeding 5 to 9 times as much food as I am, so VALUE is a real life consideration.

Yes the workers and PHDs at Iams and Eukanuba can provide expertise and manufacturing know how, and buying power to Innova. Though I can read a message board poster telling me that they are all idiots over at Iams and Eukanba, I understand that the real world is different. I am sure people are doing good work with animals best interests in heart even at PG. So I am not surprised or confused that people in both companies think they can be better at what they do by being together. So long as nobody is getting laid-off because of the merger it should be fine for employees.

Read the letter you posted. Notice it addresses some key concerns for the rest of us who are not agenda based.
1. They are keeping the formulas as they stand.
2. They understand the importance of the independent specialty store distribution channel, and will use that for growth.

*"We will continue to provide the current formulas to our customers."*

*"P&G is committed to growing the Natural brands and understand the critical nature of growing the portfolio through the independent pet specialty channel"*

For me this covers most of my concerns, they say they are keeping the formulas, there is no need to change natural foods anyways. They will continue with the current pet shop owners. By using the petshop owners they have now, I get the strong checks against changes in the product. 

I am pragmatic, I want the best food, I want to understand that its what it claims to be, and I want to support stores which have owners as sentries that watch out for what is going on in the market.

The people screaming abandon ship have agendas other than feeding their pet. I am sorry I don't want to participate with people who want dogs to be vegetarians. (ie PETA)

Claim all you want that you know the sky is falling, but lets see it before the panic. 

There are people that will based off shaky reports Iams being a bunch of animal Nazi's who don't want to buy anything from that company. Thats fine if that is what they need to believe to make them feel virtuous. But to then transfer that agenda to say that the products are now not good, and will degenerate for sure, is more of a manipulation for an agenda.

Buddy97 will not use Innova because PG owns them, but that has nothing to do with the actual food itself.

Everything being indicated by both companies showing they understand the market and the food, and they understand how they could screw it up. Innova keeping the formulas, using the manufacturing plants which are already built, new, and running, and keeping the distribution channel inside the specialty shops, giving extra examination bode well for the food. 

When there is a change, and IF there will be, may be many many years before that problem is real. I can spend all day talking about what problems may happen, or save tons of energy and only focus on what are the problems that actually occur.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

It's funny that you are so adament about your claims but not so with the hundreds of boutique stores that are now selling out their lines of Natura products.

Who knows better than the actual people who deal with the customers on a daily basis, I think they probably would know if they have had claims of their dog all of a sudden not doing well on a food he's eaten for awhile and then getting diarreah suddenly,(change in ingredients) possibly, slowly but surely, especially if they were at that meeting when they talked about wanting to go to farmed salmon instead of wild caught.

It sure doesn't make sense of all those stores selling out and not wanting to carry the Natura products if they didn't know something we don't, THEY CAN"T ALL BE DUMB BUSINESS OWNERS NOW CAN THEY?


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

Iams and Yuckanuba are not reasonable products, are not decent quality, are not "OK".

S*** is crap is sewage.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

buddy97 said:


> i didnt claim p&g screwed up iams and eukanuba. i said they did not do anything to turn them into the high quality foods they claimed they would. i also NEVER said my decision was based on the current quality of Natura dog food. the fact that you think iams and eukanuba are reasonable product says everything. IMO, to say such a thing, an individual would have to either have little knowledge of canine nutrition, have very low standards, or of course be another P&G stockholder.
> 
> you make the following statement: *Iams and Eukanuba are indeed reasonable products. I have a 10 pound dog, making dollar per pound of food, trivial for me. I want the small amount of food to be of the highest quality*
> 
> ...


buddy when it comes to dog food companies you dont know anything for a fact. iheard orijen changed their 6 fish formulas a while ago and told noone,and dogs got sicl.


----------



## 3RingCircus (May 24, 2010)

bort said:


> I found this forum about a week before the announcement. I came here because both my dog and my best friend's dogs had issues with their most recent bags of Evo (different size bags, different kibble bought at different stores). Can I say with absolutely certainty that things had been changed? No, I can't. I can tell you that the newest food smells different, our dogs started refusing it/skipping meals and were having intestinal issues. I've been visiting many dog forums and have ready other stories similar to mine. Regardless of if there was a change or not, it's a food that's not working for us right now.


Both Bailey and Barnum were on EVO Red Meat, which used to be called EVO Red Meat Large Bites. For the last two months, they both had horrible gas from the EVO and that was right after the name and the packaging changed. Seems a little suspicious to me.

Both dogs have been switched to another brand of kibble. However, I plan to change to either cooked or raw. Haven't quite decided which one.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

what do they call evo red meat nowadays? i thought it was the same?


----------



## 3RingCircus (May 24, 2010)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> what do they call evo red meat nowadays? i thought it was the same?


EVO Red Meat Formula for large bites and EVO Red Meat Formula Small Bites. It used to be called EVO Red Meat Large Bites and EVO Red Meat Small Bites. The change was made about three months ago.

Gone is the calories per cup on the bag. Gone from the website is what you can add to your dog's diet while on EVO.

I happened to save an old bag's feeding guidelines and those have changed too.

While I didn't save the ingredients list, I know that changed as well. I believe the sunflower oil is new as well as the herring oil. I don't remember the other oil they had - salmon oil? The order is different.

All I know is EVO's new formula was making my dogs gaseous. I hadn't changed their feeding amounts.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Believe me when I say this takeover was in the works for a very long time, big corporations don't just decide to buy a company, I'd say a year at least this has been in the works!


----------



## 93-5G20 (May 21, 2010)

whiteleo said:


> It's funny that you are so adament about your claims but not so with the hundreds of boutique stores that are now selling out their lines of Natura products.
> 
> Who knows better than the actual people who deal with the customers on a daily basis, I think they probably would know if they have had claims of their dog all of a sudden not doing well on a food he's eaten for awhile and then getting diarreah suddenly,(change in ingredients) possibly, slowly but surely, especially if they were at that meeting when they talked about wanting to go to farmed salmon instead of wild caught.
> 
> It sure doesn't make sense of all those stores selling out and not wanting to carry the Natura products if they didn't know something we don't, THEY CAN"T ALL BE DUMB BUSINESS OWNERS NOW CAN THEY?


100s of boutique stores are now selling off their Natura food, and will not carry it or sell it to coustomers. Really? Are you so sure of this? Nothing would be more wonderful for the product reps for other dog food companies, which would love to spur on such hype.
We have a recent proposed change in ownership, and posters are already saying that problems are occuring in stores. Odd.

The basis of the dog food quality is its ingredients and its quality of production. Its seems that given there is no change in the product as of yet, and the companies say there won't be, and that the distribution channel would be kept, yes I would have to say that a business owner stopping to sell a product based upon hype only, *is a fool*.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Have you read all the post here? obviously not! Do you do Facebook? maybe you should check out the stores who have signed up on the page "Just say No to Natura selling out to P&G" and maybe you'll actually learn something....


----------



## 93-5G20 (May 21, 2010)

buddy97 said:


> of course, you not only believe everything P&G tells you but you also believe Iams and Eukanuba are fine products, so your perspective is quite different than mine.


You will not buy Natura food because of reasons other than the food and its quality. Just don't suggest it has anything to do with what the acutal product is. Don't bother to consider the ingredients or what not. It's your policy based off your personal politics.

You have missquoted and missinterpreted what I have said. Iams and Eukanuba or reasonable products, different dog owners have different considerations. That I have a toy breed means the cost of food to me is basically trivial. To a giant or large breed the costs are much higher. So I make the point that price is a factor. While Iams may not be the best food, I consider it reasonable, and far from the poison you make it out to be.

I do see shades of gray and am not restricted to black or white.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

OK, I'm done, this guy is a P&G shill, a corporate stooge.


----------



## 93-5G20 (May 21, 2010)

I believe this now to be a political football more than a question on contents of the dog food and nutrients 

If I was working for a competing boutique kibble, I would be all over getting stores to drop Natura lines of food. That is purely for profit though.

At this point its all about trying to predict what is going to happen, vs what is happening, or what are the way things stand. When I see a poster saying to trust them that the deal was in the works for a year, and that they understand that some companies are all about flowers and hugs while others are out to sicken animals by selling them posionous food, while they torture animals, it becomes too much. Evil corporations and pet food stores selling products pro bono, and other children's stories.......

I believe you act on what is going on, verse running after the loudest shouting lemming.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Do you doubt that a corp. as big as P&G just decided 2 months ago to buy Natura? I don't think so! Anyone with business sense knows that! 

And the other stuff your garbling on about, I have no idea what your trying to spit out!


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

93-5G20 said:


> The basis of the dog food quality is its ingredients and its quality of production. Its seems that given there is no change in the product as of yet, and the companies say there won't be, and that the distribution channel would be kept, yes I would have to say that a business owner stopping to sell a product based upon hype only, *is a fool*.


My customers are disappointed in the sellout. They don't want Natura products, and I don't want a product that's going to sit on the shelves for months. 
Call me a fool, but I'm going to listen to what my customers want, and they don't want natura anymore. I own a small business, and daycare/boarding/ grooming is our specialty, not retail... we have limited space to carry dog foods, and I'm not about to waste it on products my customers are no longer interested in. 
My customers made the decision, not me. The entire public is not blind. I would continue to carry the products if there was as much of a demand for them. The ONLY Natura product my store has a demand for still is California Natural, but I've had a few request Merrick's hypoallergenic formula instead, and I may carry that.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

CorgiPaws said:


> My customers are disappointed in the sellout. They don't want Natura products, and I don't want a product that's going to sit on the shelves for months....... we have limited space to carry dog foods, and I'm not about to waste it on products my customers are no longer interested in..


that is the only smart thing you can do as a small business owner.

as a consumer, i have seen indirect benefits of the acquisition, as three local independent shops that have dropped Natura products are now carrying Orijen and Acana.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

buddy97 said:


> P&G acquiring Natura IS what is going on, and people have a right to react to what they believe the acqusition means.
> 
> i am proud to say i am acting on what is currently going on under the P&G brand as well as what has continued going on.......
> 
> ...


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> Iams and Eukanuba or reasonable products, different dog owners have different considerations. That I have a toy breed means the cost of food to me is basically trivial. To a giant or large breed the costs are much higher. So I make the point that price is a factor. While Iams may not be the best food, I consider it reasonable, and far from the poison you make it out to be.


If we want to make this about cost, Kirkland is considerably better than Iams and Eukanuba -- at about half the price per pound.


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

buddy97 said:


> i cant think of a single product by either iams or eukanuba that uses an actual named meat that is the first true ingredient in the food, yet they still use the deceptive statement _Chicken as the #1 Ingredient: Real chicken as the #1 ingredient provides an excellent source of protein._....id love for anyone to name me a single food they sell where this is a true statement (unless someone wants to count chicken by producr meal).
> 
> .


I haven't gotten into this topic....just reading the posts have been enough fun :smile: but I thought I'd post a response to this particular comment. Here are the examples you asked for: 

*Venison*, Potato, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Brewers Rice, Ground Whole Grain Barley, Chicken Meal, Fish Meal, Dried Egg Product, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Dried Beet Pulp, Potassium Chloride, Chicken Flavor, Brewers Dried Yeast, Fish Oil (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Salt, Vitamins (Vitamin E Supplement, Ascorbic Acid, Beta-Carotene, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Choline Chloride, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), DL-Methionine, Calcium Carbonate, Rosemary Extract 

Ingredients
*Salmon*, Brewers Rice, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Potato, Ground Whole Grain Barley, Chicken Meal, Fish Meal (source of fish oil), Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Dried Egg Product, Dried Beet Pulp, Chicken Flavor, Brewers Dried Yeast, Potassium Chloride, Salt, Vitamins (Vitamin E Supplement, Ascorbic Acid, Beta-Carotene, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Choline Chloride, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), DL-Methionine, Rosemary Extract 

Ingredients
*Turkey*, Brewers Rice, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Potato, Ground Whole Grain Barley, Chicken Meal, Fish Meal, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Dried Beet Pulp, Chicken Flavor, Dried Egg Product, Fish Oil (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Potassium Chloride, Brewers Dried Yeast, Salt, Vitamins (Vitamin E Supplement, Ascorbic Acid, Beta-Carotene, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Choline Chloride, Dicalcium Phosphate, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), DL-Methionine, Rosemary Extract. 

Ingredients
*Chicken*, Chicken By-Product Meal (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Ground Whole Grain Barley, Chicken Flavor, Brewers Rice, Dried Beet Pulp, Dried Egg Product, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Brewers Dried Yeast, Fish Meal, Potassium Chloride, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Flax Meal, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Fish Oil (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Choline Chloride, Fructooligosaccharides, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), Dried Chicken Cartilage (Natural source of Chondroitin Sulfate and Glucosamine), Vitamins (Ascorbic Acid, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), Vitamin B12 Supplement, Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), DL-Methionine, Vitamin E Supplement, Beta-Carotene, L-Carnitine, Citric Acid, Rosemary Extract. 

Ingredients
*Ocean Fish*, Brewers Rice, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Fish Meal (source of fish oil), Ground Whole Grain Barley, Animal Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Dried Egg Product, Fish Digest, Dried Beet Pulp (sugar removed), Brewers Dried Yeast, Potassium Chloride, Dicalcium Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Vitamins (Vitamin E Supplement, Ascorbic Acid, Beta-Carotene, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of Vitamin B1), Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of Vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of Vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Choline Chloride, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), DL-Methionine. 

These are all from Eukanuba. I didn't look at Iams. I'm not stating an opinion on these foods, I am just answering your question. There were many more but I got tired of cutting and pasting!


----------



## ruckusluvr (Oct 28, 2009)

dont forget 4health and diamond naturals....

much much better than iams and euk, but half the price


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

chowder said:


> These are all from Eukanuba. I didn't look at Iams. I'm not stating an opinion on these foods, I am just answering your question. There were many more but I got tired of cutting and pasting!


Yeah, but when a "wet" ingredient is listed as the first ingredient, after it has had the moisture removed you lose 70-80% of its content by weight, and thus the *real* dry content of that meat is lower. That means the next dry ingredient on the list is probably the "true" main ingredient.

In a couple of these Eukanuba examples, the real main ingredients would be chicken by-products and brewers rice, which are junk. And the meat "meals" which usually include the bulk of the meat content in dry kibble are way down on the list below other fillers. The fourth one listed which starts with (wet) chicken is particularly bad once you get past the chicken.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

chowder said:


> I haven't gotten into this topic....just reading the posts have been enough fun :smile: but I thought I'd post a response to this particular comment. Here are the examples you asked for:
> 
> *Venison*, Potato, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Brewers Rice, Ground Whole Grain Barley, Chicken Meal, Fish Meal, Dried Egg Product, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Dried Beet Pulp, Potassium Chloride, Chicken Flavor, Brewers Dried Yeast, Fish Oil (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Salt, Vitamins (Vitamin E Supplement, Ascorbic Acid, Beta-Carotene, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Choline Chloride, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), DL-Methionine, Calcium Carbonate, Rosemary Extract
> 
> ...


sorry, but every single one of those does not have a meat as the TRUE first ingredient. they are allowed to get listed first because AAFCO allows them to be listed by weight before cooking. it is a policy that is deceitful and scams the less knowledgeable, average grocery store dog food buyer.

for a named meat to end up as the first true ingredient after all the water weight (which makes up 65%-70% of its weight) is removed, the massive amount of meat that would be required to be used would make the bag cost many times what they charge. a named meat in meal form (which will have very little water content) listed before any non meat ingredients is the only way a named meat is the true first ingredient. this is why every kibble with large confirmed meat content used one or more named meat meals before any non meat ingredients.

i can assure you the first true ingredient in each of those foods are:

brewers rice
brewers rice
chicken by product
brewers rice

....which is why those foods SHOULD be dirt cheap.

now, if anyone wants to explain to me why brewers rice being the primary ingredient in your dogs diet is a good thing....im all ears.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

I really get cracked up by people who think some kind of meal (chicken for example) is actually dehydrated chicken. It's not. Chicken meal is the ground up remains of the chicken's carcass after the human usable meat has been removed. It is the garbage that would otherwise be thrown away (minus the by products) if not for the dog food companies buying it. It's the bones, connective tissue, and what little meat is left on the carcass after the deboning machines have removed the good meat. It is measured in dry weight because it's mostly bone that doesn't hold water anyway.

The chicken you and I eat is the "wet chicken". It's the good nutritious parts. Not the leftover garbage. Chicken quarters ... wet meat, chicken breasts ... wet meat, chicken drumsticks ... wet meat. Wet meat is the good meat. Meal is the garbage.

Chicken meal is used in dog food so much that because its super cheap. The highly paid peeps in the marketing department that make you think this throw away stuff is really good nutritious stuff for your dogs to eat. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Dog food companies are super marketers.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> Chicken meal is used in dog food so much that because its super cheap. The highly paid peeps in the marketing department that make you think this throw away stuff is really good nutritious stuff for your dogs to eat. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Dog food companies are super marketers.


Yes, we know. Kibble is kibble is kibble. You've told us that a hundred times already. We might as well chuck our bags of Orijen and feed Ol' Roy. It's all the same. Kibble is kibble.

Wake me up when you discover how to play a different tune.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

ziggy29 said:


> Yes, we know. Kibble is kibble is kibble. You've told us that a hundred times already. We might as well chuck our bags of Orijen and feed Ol' Roy. It's all the same. Kibble is kibble.
> 
> Wake me up when you discover how to play a different tune.


kibble isnt the same!!!!! iams,and eukanuba are the ebst!!!!!!

isnt that right mr rawfed stock holders?


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

ziggy29 said:


> Yes, we know. Kibble is kibble is kibble. You've told us that a hundred times already. We might as well chuck our bags of Orijen and feed Ol' Roy. It's all the same. Kibble is kibble.
> 
> Wake me up when you discover how to play a different tune.


RFD actually DOES have a valid point here, and it has nothing to do with all kibbles being the same. 

Chicken Meal is not just dried chicken, it IS the remainder of the chicken AFTER most of the "good" meat has been removed. I don't hate to see a meat meal in the first ingredients, as I do believe that ANY animal product is superior to veggies/fruits/grains... but I DO like to see "wet" meat in there as well. Of the first five, I like three to be animal protein sources, and one to be water inclusive. 

The issue with things like Chicken Meal is you will never know how much muscle meat it is, and how much bone it is. I'd be willing to bet that the bone content is higher than the meat. 

No kibble company is perfect. Diamond foods get recalled. Menu foods get recalled. P & G now own Innova, Wellness has gone downhill. Nature's Variety sources from China. I like Champion, and while I respect WHY they don't make a canned food, I sure wish they did. I guess what it really comes down to is each individual owner deciding WHAT they're willing to compromise, and what works for their pet. But for anyone to say that all kibbles are the same is just silly.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> I really get cracked up by people who think some kind of meal (chicken for example) is actually dehydrated chicken. .


i havent seen a single person suggest chicken meal is simply dehydrated chicken, only that as an ingredient there is little moisture in it before cooking.

i guess you just needed to have a chuckle

i understand the reality that no manufacturer is going to have enough chicken meat, for example, in their product such that after cooking it makes up any significant portion of the meat product in the food. however, the ones that dont use any named meat meals at all most certainly have a very small amount of meat product of any kind.

are named meat meals the most desirable meat? absolutely not. will they make up the bulk of the meat product in any kibble with a high meat content? most certainly. this is why i add fresh meat products to my dogs diet.

now, any assertion that something like brewers rice as the main ingredient is still better than chicken meal as the main ingredient is still a ridiculous argument.


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

Just an interesting note : 

Orijen large breed puppy (which is what I feed one dog) lists 7 fresh meat sources and 3 'meal' sources in their ingredients.

Evo small bites (which my little dog eats) lists 2 fresh meat sources and 3 'meal' sources in their ingredients. 

Before I get jumped on, I realize that in the case of Orijen, some of the fresh meats are farther down the list and therefore technically may be considered not that major an ingredient. I just thought it was interesting. My dogs get all meat canned added and eat very little kibble so it really doesn't upset me all that much.


----------



## Gia (May 29, 2009)

It is also good to remember that there are different grades of meat meals. Some are less expensive, because they contain more bone. The meals that are considered "low ash" have more meat and less bone. Thus there are less minerals.
Chicken Meal

This is one of the reasons to know where the ingredients come from, imo. Chicken meal is chicken meal is chicken meal, doesn't really hold up. There different grades of EVERY component in pet foods. Even corn and wheat have several different grades, if you are feeding a dog food with these grains in them, you want to make sure that it contains the highest quality possible. Non GMO, less weeds or other things mixed in, less pesticides and less overall contamination.

I believe it really does matter what and where the ingredients are sourced in our pets food. :smile:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

buddy97 said:


> i havent seen a single person suggest chicken meal is simply dehydrated chicken, only that as an ingredient there is little moisture in it before cooking.


I haven't seen it in this thread but I have seen it in other threads that discuss meals.



> are named meat meals the most desirable meat? absolutely not.


Just as a side note. I don't remember where I got this bit of information but the meat that a meal is named after only has to make up 50% of the meat in that particular meal. For example, chicken meal only has to have 50% chicken in it. The rest can be anything.



> now, any assertion that something like brewers rice as the main ingredient is still better than chicken meal as the main ingredient is still a ridiculous argument.


LOL who said that? :smile:


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

thought i would post the following email from champion as i was seeking their parameters of what constitutes their named meat meals. i will say this doesnt fully answer the question i asked them, which is essentially: is the meal truly produced from what is left after all the "good" meat has been taken from the human grade chicken for other purposes. (yes, i understand the general definitions of what a named meat meal is made up of, but as with everything they are likely not all created equal). so my effort is only to find out what champions standards are for the meat meals they are procuring.

i have followed up this email to try to get a more detailed answer. it is interesting to note about the European Standards and whether that is the reason why so many of the foods we consider higher grade are so unavailable in Europe and other parts of the world.

clearly, meal being "made from" chicken passed fit for human consumption does not adress the question of the parts of the chicken they are using.

_Hello Derek,

Thanks for writing to us on the often confusing subject of chicken or fish meal ingredients. I’ll begin by stating that every animal ingredient that enters Champion Petfoods’ premises is either:

1: PASSED FIT FOR ‘HUMAN CONSUMPTION’ (this is the case for all of our fresh meats, where the ingredient itself is passed fit for human consumption and then delivered fresh) or, 

2: PRODUCED FROM ANIMALS PASSED FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION (this is the case with all of our meal ingredients, such as chicken, turkey, fish or lamb). 

There can be no exceptions to points one and two.

The ‘passed fit for human consumption’ designation is actually part of the European Union’s pet food legislation (Regulation 1774) and the CFIA certifies all of our ingredients meet this standard. The standard we are held to is that ALL animals used to produce pet food ingredients must pass both pre & post mortem inspection by a federal meat inspector or officer within a federally approved processing facility. Again, there are no exceptions to this rule. 

In order to quality as an EU 1774 ‘passed fit’ ingredient, the ingredient processor (such as our chicken renderer, for example) can handle ONLY ‘passed fit’ ingredients. They cannot have ANY animal ingredient on their premises that is not certified to human-grade standard. There are no exceptions to this rule, and all animal ingredient suppliers are registered with the CFIA, who audits us 4 times each year. 

So, while the CFIA will allow rendered animal parts of varying quality to be used in pet foods (there are no real regulations in Canada), because Champion’s products and factory is EU certified, we are held to a much higher standard than domestic Canadian or US pet food makers (which explains why many of the ‘top’ foods in North America can’t be sold within the European Union).

ORIJEN is made with special 'low ash' chicken meal. This ingredient is prepared by removing the bones before cooking, which creates a very high protein and low ash ingredient. The result is a moderated amount of calcium and phosphorus in the final ORIJEN kibble.

In closing, I confirm that every animal ingredient used to make either ACANA or ORIJEN is either (a) passed fit for human consumption & delivered fresh, or (b) produced exclusively from animals passed as fit for human consumption (meals). Please let me know if you require further clarification on this point, and thanks again for taking the time to investigate.

Warm Regards,

Bonnie
Customer Care
Champion Petfoods LP
p 780.939.6888
f 780.939.6858_


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

buddy97 said:


> thought i would post the following email from champion as i was seeking their parameters of what constitutes their named meat meals. i will say this doesnt fully answer the question i asked them, which is essentially: is the meal truly produced from what is left after all the "good" meat has been taken from the human grade chicken for other purposes. (yes, i understand the general definitions of what a named meat meal is made up of, but as with everything they are likely not all created equal). so my effort is only to find out what champions standards are for the meat meals they are procuring.


The thing is, when they use "human grade" meat sources I'm pretty sure they aren't using the "good stuff" that people regularly eat and pay several dollars a pound for. In other words, you can bet that the "beef" won't contain the meaty cuts used to produce filet mignon or ribeye, and the "chicken meal" won't contain the breast meat. It's going to contain scraps that can't easily be sold at a much higher price to people for human consumption.

The question is: How does the nutritional content compare to the parts that are sold for human consumption? There are parts of a chicken, of cattle, of lamb and other animals, that most people would never want to eat because they are grossed out by it. But if these are still perfectly good nutritionally *and* dogs don't care, then using the parts people don't want to eat is a non-issue (and is, in fact, a productive way to "use" all of the animal). But if these "scraps" that people don't often eat are considerably weaker nutritionally, that is somewhat significant.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

First, there is no legal definition for "human grade". They can call anything "human grade". The term means nothing.

Second ... ALL meats in a human processing plant is passed for human consumption. It is ok for humans to eat. However, once that meat, bones, etc is loaded on the truck to go to the rendering plant, it is no longer of a quality that is passed for human consumption. It is from that point forward, garbage. It is usually not refigerated when shipped to the rendering plant and is usually pretty rotten by the time it arrives there.

But, yes, all the ingredients in meals were at one time from animals passed for human consumption. That is a correct statement. Was it in that condition when it arrived at the rendering plant. Absolutely not.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

So what's this European standards? DO they have higher standards on pet food over there?


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

PUNKem733 said:


> So what's this European standards? DO they have higher standards on pet food over there?


It's a lot of legalese, but here's a link to EU regulation 1774, which is what Champion refers to in terms of "human grade" foods and animal by-products:

Animal by-products not intended for human consumption

Bookmark it if you ever suffer a case of insomnia...


----------



## 3RingCircus (May 24, 2010)

Bailey went to the local dog park yesterday. A husky owner we know well had to stop feeding their Husky EVO for the same reason we did - gas.


----------



## sassy (May 25, 2010)

*Internal Control*

Time will tell for sure whether the food quality will change or not, I won't stake my dogs life on whether they tweak the quality and quantity of ingredients (They legally don't have to tell us squat)
I guess if any have any doubts pls read the new book out called 
Animal Factory by Dave Kirby- Corporations and Greed with the permission of many have all eliminated the family farm.
It opened my eyes with all the recent mergers in the Pet food industry , the same thing is occurring.Conglomerate control will mean despite the brand you end up with the same quality in different names.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

sassy said:


> I guess if any have any doubts pls read the new book out called Animal Factory by Dave Kirby- Corporations and Greed with the permission of many have all eliminated the family farm.


Economic factors eliminated the family farm. There is no way on earth that family farms could produce anywhere near enough food to feed the world's population. We would be in a mess right now if not for factory farms. There would be food wars all over the world. Do they produce the same quality food that family farms produce? Heck no, but they produce enough food to feed the world. 



> It opened my eyes with all the recent mergers in the Pet food industry , the same thing is occurring.Conglomerate control will mean despite the brand you end up with the same quality in different names.


It's easy enough to stop buying pet food. I haven't bought pet food in 8 years.


----------



## sassy (May 25, 2010)

*buying food*

Actually I a heading that way, just slow getting there. I am a big cheerleader of Home made and Raw. However have been in situations where neither were idea-So I keep some good quality kibble around in case- I use it daily in small amounts so my pup won't refuse it- if needed in an emergency.She may not like it but won't starve.
I feed a a lot of hunters meats rabbit, deer ect. Whatever they will donate-
most is cooked but some is rare /raw.

Government and regulations helped push the family farms down the road and while I agree we can't replace the existing structure eventually it collapses and then chaos will prevail.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

sassy said:


> Actually I a heading that way, just slow getting there. I am a big cheerleader of Home made and Raw. However have been in situations where neither were idea-So I keep some good quality kibble around in case- I use it daily in small amounts so my pup won't refuse it- if needed in an emergency.She may not like it but won't starve.


In 8 years of raw feeding, I have never had the occasion to even come close to need to feed kibble. I can't think of a situation where this would be necessary. Worst case scenario I can visualize is that you might need to feed ground beef or ground turkey for a couple of weeks. Both are easily available in any grocery store.



> Government and regulations helped push the family farms down the road and while I agree we can't replace the existing structure eventually it collapses and then chaos will prevail.


The efficiency of the factory farms is what killed the family farm. I only see them getting more and more efficient. I don't see any collapse on the horizon. With the increase of the population, I only see prosperity for the factory farm.


----------



## sassy (May 25, 2010)

*Buying Food*

You hardly run down to the local grocery in the middle of a Hurricane Katrina or any other Emergency. And we never think of them happening, nor to us.I am trying not become so complacent that I don't prepare. Everyone should have a back up plan for their animals in the event of emergency. I plan a kit for them just as for myself and family.Although not a Victim -I have been in situations w/o power and water for extended period of time(I now own a generator)
Of Course I could always go shoot my own if needed.

Technology was not available to family farms , nor feasible at the time.
Education was not priority at the time, now necessary.
They had no Voice.
Yet they were economically, enviromentally suited for the model they evolved in,they fell out of favor for the new globally suited model and well as all good things peak, will run out of steam- that's what's happening.
I'm just someone who doesn't want to get stuck in one mold.

Massive conglomerates aren't sustainable - They aren't to big to fail.IMO.
I love having a spirited conversation.


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

sassy said:


> You hardly run down to the local grocery in the middle of a Hurricane Katrina or any other Emergency. And we never think of them happening, nor to us.I am trying not become so complacent that I don't prepare. Everyone should have a back up plan for their animals in the event of emergency. I plan a kit for them just as for myself and family.Although not a Victim -I have been in situations w/o power and water for extended period of time(I now own a generator)
> Of Course I could always go shoot my own if needed.


Interesting you should mention that.....we actually ran out of dog food after Hurricane Fran when the county was closed down and powerless for a week. We couldn't get out and the roads were blocked and the freezer was defrosting. I found out that 4 dogs and 3 cats are really happy eating ground beef and rice! (yes, I know they didn't need the rice but it filled them up since I didn't know how long we'd be living off the freezer remains, plus I didn't want them to get the runs. ). That was my first big hurricane and I have been much better prepared for all that have come since then.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

> I love having a spirited conversation


Then you have come to the right place! Welcome aboard! And don't mind RFD, he's a knucklehead LOL :wink:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

sassy said:


> You hardly run down to the local grocery in the middle of a Hurricane Katrina or any other Emergency.


I know you are a person who prepares for the unexpected. I KNOW you, like me, would have been a couple of hundred miles inland when Katrina hit. It was known for a week that it was coming. Plenty of time to take care of things. :smile:



> Everyone should have a back up plan for their animals in the event of emergency. I plan a kit for them just as for myself and family.Although not a Victim -I have been in situations w/o power and water for extended period of time(I now own a generator)


In the event of emergency you have a well stocked freezer. You do the same for your dogs that you do for yourself. Anything you have for yourself, in a pinch, you could feed to your dogs.



> Technology was not available to family farms , nor feasible at the time.
> Education was not priority at the time, now necessary.


All of that is somewhat true, however, you can raise 1,000 cows cheaper/cow than you can raise 3 cows or even 100 cows. Buying high tech equipment is not cost effective if you have a 100acre farm. It becomes feasable if you have 1,000 acres.



> Yet they were economically, enviromentally suited for the model they evolved in,they fell out of favor for the new globally suited model and well as all good things peak, will run out of steam- that's what's happening.
> I'm just someone who doesn't want to get stuck in one mold.


Family farms are not economically suited and never have been. Size makes many things possible that isn't possible to the family farm. Food would probably cost 10 times what it does now if not for factory farms. They are a good and necessary thing. They are not going away. IF they go away, you have a lot more problems than what is the quality of food you are going to buy.



> Massive conglomerates aren't sustainable - They aren't to big to fail.IMO.
> I love having a spirited conversation.


They definately are sustainable. I agree they aren't too big to fail. The economy we are in today was not caused because companies were too large and many of the bailed out companies should have been allowed to fail. Bankruptcy laws are there for a purpose.


----------



## sassy (May 25, 2010)

*Cont*

We can always agree to disagree- My parents were depression babies -My father never knew what starving was Totally Self Sufficent-Life was hard work but satisfying. But gave all that up to join the war effort. Now at 83 , Sees the world differently now wishing he were still back on the farm-
Well my mother was a rich child, who went from having maids to being an Orphan when everything collapsed -She later became a maid, at 5 sold oranges on the street to feed herself and hid from authorities with her 7 brothers and sisters to keep from being institutionalized.
So I come from a real world view-


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

This country was built by the small family farm and has started on its way to hell on the back of factory farms. Let's see, the Gov't use to pay farmers Not to grow crops and support them with quotas and price supports. Then they pull the quota and price supports but still wouldn't let them plant all of their fields. Then the small farmer was raped by the large suppliers that charged them 2 to 3 times as much for the same product that Mr. Big Farm got at 1/2 the price; not including "company rebates" for volume. Therefore, the big guys wholesaled their crops for less then it cost the little guy to grow it. So the little guy sells out and grows houses, McDonalds, and highways on his family farm. In this case, bigger is not better. 

Now the small family farm is moving into specialty crops, organic, sustainable agriculture. And urbanites flock to the "farm" to buy local, homegrown food. Let the big boys mass produce their tasteless crops but the demand is slowly drifting.


----------



## EdnJack (May 12, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> No one has come up with any claim that P&G is doing any dangerous animal testing. They may be just taste testing dog foods. Or testing dog shampoos for results or any of a zillion harmless tests. No one has said they are killing or harming dogs in any way. All I have see is "tests" ... nothing about what kind of tests.


The tests that almost everyone seems to be referencing are part of a series of tests conducted by Iams to substantiate claims of improved muscle growth. The test consisted of taking muscle biopsies, performed on anaesthetized animals, that were treated horribly before, during, and after the procedures themselves, with some dying uncared for on the cold testing room floor. It's a far cry from the harmless tests that companies like to imply are the only type of tests.

I've also seen the eye-poking video mentioned above. It hurts to think that this can go on an nobody thinks animal testing means any more than trying out a new shampoo that may leave a dog greasy until his next bath.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

sassy said:


> We can always agree to disagree- My parents were depression babies -My father never knew what starving was Totally Self Sufficent-Life was hard work but satisfying. But gave all that up to join the war effort. Now at 83 , Sees the world differently now wishing he were still back on the farm-


You can't pull that on me. Hehe ... My Dad was one of 12 children of a share cropper. I remember my grandmother (his mother) living in a chicken house. I remember when she didn't have electricity or running water. My dad also joined the war. He died at 89 a few years ago a rich man. He got it all from hard work, not cheating the "little man". He was very good to his employees. Some of them worked for him for 45 years. 

When my mother and dad married, they used a metal trash can containing a block of for a refigerator. He knew both poor and rich.

I don't know what this has to do with small farm vs. factory farm. :smile:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Doc said:


> Then the small farmer was raped by the large suppliers that charged them 2 to 3 times as much for the same product that Mr. Big Farm got at 1/2 the price; not including "company rebates" for volume. Therefore, the big guys wholesaled their crops for less then it cost the little guy to grow it.


This is exactly what I mean by effeciency of the factory farms. 



> Now the small family farm is moving into specialty crops, organic, sustainable agriculture. And urbanites flock to the "farm" to buy local, homegrown food. Let the big boys mass produce their tasteless crops but the demand is slowly drifting.


There will always be a demand for cheap food. I said earlier that the food produced on factory farms are not as good as family farms but MUCH more efficient. Again, if all the family farms returned and the factory farms disappeared, they couldn't produce nearly enough food to feed the world and food would be many times more expensive than it is today.


----------



## Doc (Jan 17, 2009)

RFD, you forgot the "walking 10 miles to school in a blinding snowstrom uphill both ways with cardboard in the bottom of their shoes to patch the holes. And getting up at 4:30 to milk the cows and cook and coming home to wash and clean house and cook". And for Christmas all we got was an orange and a stick of Peppermint candy.

Corporate Farms are raping us. And giving our jobs and money to illegal aliens.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

No, only 3 miles and whoever carried the most firewood got to sit closest to the stove. :smile: And yes, milked the COW ... there was only one. :smile:

Corporate farms are feeding us and keeping food prices down. You are right bout the illegals.


----------



## jeserf (Oct 20, 2009)

hm, where I live, more and more people are turning to 'family' farms - CSAs, farmers markets, delivered meat and dairy. I buy most of my produce at the farmers market and much of my yummy treats these days, too (evil pumpkin whoopie pies). 

I know that one of the stands sells lots of icky bits to people for their dogs. They're a family farm...they deliver on the off season and have a stand at the market. 

The issue is not whether the family farm is dead, but whether economic disparity is going to make poor people, and eventually middle class people, sicker and sicker and wealthy people those that can afford quality food. There are lots of family farms, and what 'kills' them is not the factory farm, but massive subsidies they get.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

the latest 2 emails i got from Diana and Bonnie at Champion are as follows:

_Hi Derek,

Thank you for taking the time to write to us. 

Rendered ingredients are chicken meal, turkey meal and salmon meal. It is not possible to achieve a protein level more than 20% without using these ingredients and any diet with only 25% protein is a high in carbohydrate diet. All ORIJEN formulas contain 70% fresh meat ingredients. Fresh meat is not 100% protein as it consists of fats and moisture

Some marketers state they do not have rendered ingredients, but these foods are lower in protein and also use non-animal proteins (like feed peas) and non-animal fats (like coconut oils) which are seriously inappropriate for cats and dogs.

As an exporter, Champion Petfoods must meet all international pet food regulations, including those of the European Union which are the toughest in the world.
In order to export to the EU, the government of Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) must certify not only our factory, but also our ingredients and our ingredient supplies. The standard they are required to verity is that our factory and foods contain only those animal ingredients that have been passed as fit for human consumption. All our meat ingredients can only be processed in facilities that are dedicated to the processing of human grade ingredients (this means that our rendering plants cannot have on their premises any part of any chicken, turkey or fish that has not been passed as fit for human consumption by the Government of Canada). The same goes for the transport and warehousing of our ingredients – all must be passed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and all are audited on a quarterly basis.


What all of this means is that our chicken, turkey and fish meals are of an exacting and exclusive standard, and some such as our salmon and herring meals are produced exclusively for ORIJEN and exactly to our own specifications. There is no possibility of any 3D animals or any restaurant waste, and all is certified by the Government of Canada. These expensive and highly nutritional ingredients deliver high quality amino and fatty acids, eliminate the need for vegetable proteins (like field peas) and palm or coconut oils and perhaps most importantly allow us to safely increase the protein levels (thereby reducing the carbohydrate content) of our foods.

I hope that this has been helpful and please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Kind regards,
Diana 
Customer Care
Champion Petfoods LP
Phone: 780.939.6888
Fax: 780.939.6858_


i responded: "i understand that champion is "starting" with a chicken with high quality muscle meat. im simply unclear if the muscle meat is what most of the meal is made from. this is really the crux of my question." 

this was the follow up email:

_Hi Derek,

There are definitely different qualities of meat meals out there, just as there are many different grades of meat for you to choose from at your local grocers. If you start with ingredients that are mostly muscle meat (as is the case with our meat meals), this results in a quality meal that is very high in protein. *yes, most of the content of our meals will be muscle meat.*

Best Regards,

Bonnie
Customer Care
Champion Petfoods LP
p 780.939.6888
f 780.939.6858_


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

Good to know, hopefully it's true. I just couldn't see Champion using only bones, guts, feathers, and other undesirables in their meals.


----------



## The Cats Mother (May 29, 2010)

I have no disrespect for anyone here and do not wish to antagonise, however I do beg to differ.

I can imagine Champion Petfoods saying and doing anything it has to in order to protect its profits, just as the large publicly listed companies do.

Whilst their individual formulas may be good... as good as a kibble can get as opposed to raw/home cooked and prepared, as a company they have been known to cut corners and not check regulations in the countries to which they export, in their rush to expand into new markets.

Look what they did in Australia

1) Appointed an "unknown" (now no longer in business) importer/distributor for their products instead of an established pet food importer with a sound track record

2) Left him to organise/negotiate the import licence and gave a "rubber stamp" agreement to have their "wholistic and biologically appropriate" product gamma irradiated in order to meet quarantine requirements for sterilisation of their product because it is cooked at low temps to retain nutrients and flavours - without bothering to check whether 
a) their product was suitable for gamma irradiation
b) their packaging was suitable for gamma irradiation
c) what effects gamma irradiation would have on the product (published studies show this drastically reduces vitamin A content for a start and can also produce radiolytic byproducts unknown to occur in nature (such as carcinogenic alkyl-cyclobutanones)
d) how this might affect the animals consuming the product
e) without labelling their product as gamma irradiated so that consumers could have a choice as to whether they exposed their beloved pets to this radioactively "nuked" product."
f) Lied to their consumers saying they didn't know the product was going to be irradiated. 
g) Changed their story half way through saying they didn’t know it was going to be irradiated to this level - untrue - documents obtained under Australian Freedom of Information legislation clearly state the level of irradiation to be used and clearly show the importer as saying he has contacted them and received their go-ahead for the irradiation to take place
https://www.box.net/shared/nbzrdmzxyk


Result:

a) 100+ Australian cats killed or paralysed as a result
b) Australian Government banned gamma irradiation of cat food after prolonged, determined and very strongly worded lobbying by affected cat owners and the production, by those owners and the associated veterinarians, of peer reviewed studies proving the dangers of feeding gamma irradiated diets to cats
c) Champion forced by moral obligation to partially recompense affected owners (Yes, they did know about the requirement for irradiation although they denied it in a telephone conversation with me the night my cat was diagnosed – Champion told me the first they knew about the irradiation was in August 2008 when their importer served them with the invoices for the procedure, but the documents released under FOI show the Australian importer as telling Australian Quarantine in August 2007 that he has informed Champion and obtained their consent to the irradiation of their product.
d) Owners still out of pocket, still caring for paralysed and incontinent cats, still putting to sleep cats who just can't go on and suffering heartbreak after coming this far
e) Champion washing their hands of the whole affair after said partial compensation and writing a letter effectively telling all affected owners to get lost and get on with it 
f) Some owners (myself for one) still batting away at Australian Quarantine for answers, getting questions asked in the Federal Parliamentary Senate, discovering our scientists accepted the word of the World Health Organisation (under advice from the International Atomic Energy Agency) that the process was safe.

Why didn't we sue Champion?
1) They are domiciled offshore and withdrew their product and themselves from the Australian market once it was made public, effectively quarantining themselves from litigation without enormous difficulty and expense - I know I investigated every avenue...(NOTE IT TOOK THEM OVER 3 MONTHS TO ADMIT IT WAS THEIR PRODUCT CAUSING THE PROBLEMS, MEANWHILE MORE CATS WERE EATING THE PRODUCT AND BECOMING ILL, THE DELAYED ONSET OF THE DISEASE WAS 4 MONTHS FROM COMMENCEMENT OF CONSUMING THE PRODUCT...and during this time they threatened to sue veterinarians who warned other users of the product)
2) They had put a measly offer on the table which made litigation even more unlikely to be successful (so my lawyer advised...)

They were smart, they were crafty, they were mean.

Feed their good kibble by all means (raw/home prepared is always better) but remember the company behind the products and remember they threatened with litigation any Australian veterinarians or consumers who spoke out against them.

If you want documentary evidence, want to know more detail, please PM me.

My cat is still rear-limb-paralysed, still incontinent and in a wheelchair as a therapy aid to help her learn to walk again as a result of their ADMITTED (see their website) lack of due diligence.

Do I blame Champion? Yes.

Do I think the Australian Government/Australian Quarantine=-Biosecurity Services are also to blame? - Yes. 
And I haven't given them a moment's peace since. I am in contact with them almost every week still, 18 months on.

Yes Champion were caught out by Australia’s stringent quarantine regulations, probably the most stringent in the world, and affected cat owners are sick of hearing people defend them on this basis. They should have done due diligence, they should have researched the requirements of this market, they should have stayed behind their importer/distributor every step of the way in their debut into a new market.

They didn't.

So they made a big media show of blaming the Australian Government’s quarantine regulations, then they ran for cover.

Their product may stand up to scrutiny. Their ethics do not.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

^^^ I keep losing more and more faith in kibble for various reasons. Thanks for your post!


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

The Cats Mother said:


> as a company they have been known to cut corners and not check regulations in the countries to which they export, in their rush to expand into new markets.
> .


this makes it sound like a pattern of behavior that has gone on in several countries. most of us have read numerous accounts of what went on in australia, so i am wondering in what other countries there have been issues. (and no, i am in no way excusing how anything was handled by both champion and the aussie govt)


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

Interesting how far off topic this thread has wandered....


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

The Cats Mother said:


> I have no disrespect for anyone here and do not wish to antagonise, however I do beg to differ.
> 
> I can imagine Champion Petfoods saying and doing anything it has to in order to protect its profits, just as the large publicly listed companies do.
> 
> ...


5stars!!!!!!!!


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> So you think we should immediately test all new drugs on humans and bypass animal testing all together? What about palability tests for dog food? How do we test for that? What about longivity tests for dog food or feeding protocols or vaccination protocols? Just assume and don't bother testing?


yes, actually, since in my earlier days, i was involved in medical testing of animals....part of my curriculum.

personally, since i do so loathe coming to the table without a solution to a problem, for even i recognise the need for testing....i propose that all life sentence and death sentence inmates be used.

it's a case for situational ethics and it's not inhumane, for a murdering bastard or pedophile is not human.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

magicre said:


> i propose that all life sentence and death sentence inmates be used.


And after the tests are completed commute their sentences? :smile:


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> And after the tests are completed commute their sentences? :smile:


hell no.

they couldn't be useful members of society when they were on the streets, so why not give them the golden opportunity to be test subjects and then, instead of fooling ourselves that a sociopath or pedophile can be rehabilitated, we will have then given them a purpose for their miserable existence on this earth.


it earns them brownie points, if nothing else.....and justifies the cost of imprisonment.

i can't work up a lot of sympathy for the guy who butchers children and eats them....

but i can muster a whole lot of sympathy for the dog whose muscles we had to twitch with electric shock.....or the tumours we had to grow on them to see if a medicine worked.....it was a dark time.


----------



## jiml (Jun 29, 2010)

The whole reason p&g purchased nutura was to break into the super premium dog food category. Considering many consumers in this price range are health nuts for their dogs that educate themselves on ingredients. I doubt they rush to change formulas. that seems like it would defeat the purpose.

One area where I think a negative change could be made is due to possible expansion of the brand and the need for more sources to supply the ingredients. Even if intentions are good when the supply chain gets spread out its hard to keep an eye on the quality control of the suppliers


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

jiml said:


> The whole reason p&g purchased nutura was to break into the super premium dog food category. Considering many consumers in this price range are health nuts for their dogs that educate themselves on ingredients. I doubt they rush to change formulas. that seems like it would defeat the purpose.
> 
> One area where I think a negative change could be made is due to possible expansion of the brand and the need for more sources to supply the ingredients. Even if intentions are good when the supply chain gets spread out its hard to keep an eye on the quality control of the suppliers



Said perfectly. P & G would be foolish to storm in and turn EVO into a Corn based food. I think we all know this. 

I would guess that the changes will be more subtle and methodical over the years.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

jiml said:


> One area where I think a negative change could be made is due to possible expansion of the brand and the need for more sources to supply the ingredients. Even if intentions are good when the supply chain gets spread out its hard to keep an eye on the quality control of the suppliers


That they say they plan to keep these at specialty/indie stores (at least for now) and not into the big boxes is promising in this regard. I suspect any changes or cheapening of the product (if any) will be subtle and fairly minor as long as this is the case. When and if they started mass marketing to the chain big boxes, that's when I'll know the production has likely been compromised and I'd lose what remaining faith I have.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

and my concern would be outsourcing because they have a greater budget for advertising.....so they could, quite possibly, market the product as premium, be able then to sell it more widely, which would call for greater production, which would mean getting ingredients, possibly, from sources the original company may or may not have used.


----------

