# Proprietary information



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

How do you feel about it when companies use this as a reason for not being able to disclose information?

What things do you feel are okay for a company to keep unknown because of this, and what do you feel is simply not okay?

I have had a few companies tell me that where the food is made is proprietary information, and to me, this is kind of a big red flag and not something I would want to hear from a company I would purchase from. It's actually pretty much a reason for me to completely discount a company as one that I would do business with if they cannot even tell me where the food is made, as I feel this SHOULD be public knowledge. 

What about things like ingredients?


----------



## Dobelover (Mar 14, 2013)

I agree! If they won't tell you where it's made that to me is certainly a red flag! When it comes to ingredients they don't have to tell you...it's like when we buy chicken...it doesn't say on the package where the chicken came from...but if you ask, they may tell you. It's always nice to know where it came from but not always possible. I wish it was. Before we fed raw, we looked at the company who made the food and did a lot of research. We always went with a smaller company where all that info was available. I'm from Canada so we looked at companies who made and sourced all ingredients from here..from reputable sources.


----------



## doggiedad (Jan 23, 2011)

i agree. if they can't tell you what's in and where it's sourced don't use them.
i think they're hiding something if they can't tell you.


----------



## sozzle (May 18, 2011)

meggels said:


> How do you feel about it when companies use this as a reason for not being able to disclose information?
> 
> What things do you feel are okay for a company to keep unknown because of this, and what do you feel is simply not okay?
> 
> ...


They shouldn't have anything to hide in my eyes and I agree it should be public knowledge. Maybe because it is a cover for money laundering/prostitution/spare body parts etc


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Well sometimes you have to look at it from their perspective; there is no legal protection for food formulas. They cannot be patented since they are considered recipes.


----------



## danea (Oct 25, 2008)

*monster'sdad*
But is it a big issue? A company would still need to hire a nutritionist to mix their formulas, wouldn't he know approximate amounts of ingredients anyway, just by looking at a competitor label?
Of course, it won't be exact match, but pretty close.
What is the point, for example, in hiding the amount of meat and calling it proprietary?


----------



## bett (Mar 15, 2012)

no tell, dont sell.
or use.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

bett said:


> no tell, dont sell.
> or use.


Did Fromm or Eagle tell customers they were giving up their EU Certification before doing so? Nope......

Why does Fromm put "Wisconsin" cheese in the food? Answer: Because cheese is an MSG-Loaded flavor enhancer. Will they tell you that? Never. Is it a reason to not use the food? No.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

danea said:


> *monster'sdad*
> But is it a big issue? A company would still need to hire a nutritionist to mix their formulas, wouldn't he know approximate amounts of ingredients anyway, just by looking at a competitor label?
> Of course, it won't be exact match, but pretty close.
> What is the point, for example, in hiding the amount of meat and calling it proprietary?


Its not that big a deal to me because I would only use foods that other people I know have used and have had good results. There are more rules in US governing pet food than baby food, so it doesn't concern me a bit. Pro Plan uses "animal fat" because that is the law on how it is must be labelled. I know for a fact it is Chicken, Beef, Pork and Turkey fat in a mix they like and other people I know love the results they get, so if I switched it would be on the basis of informed opinion and the visible inspection of other dogs eating it. I don't care that Pro Plan won't tell you.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

But they could start putting pork fat in the "animal fat" and that would be proprietary and you would never know if they changed the formula unless your dog started having an adverse reaction etc. it's within labelling rules.

They SHOULD have to answer questions. All companies should be more transparent.. People and pet food companies.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Caty M said:


> But they could start putting pork fat in the "animal fat" and that would be proprietary and you would never know if they changed the formula unless your dog started having an adverse reaction etc. it's within labelling rules.
> 
> They SHOULD have to answer questions. All companies should be more transparent.. People and pet food companies.


They could but why would they? Would Pro Plan risk 100,000's of dogs getting ill? I doubt it. 

All I am saying is don't put that much confidence in labelling. When you see "lamb meal" does it ever occur to you it could be 100% lamb by-products? Everyone is obessed with trace elements of chicken feathers but "lamb meal" can and may contains some wool.

Or "white fish meal", that is a by-product as well, from the boats working for McDonald's.


----------



## danea (Oct 25, 2008)

agree, know point in relying on a label only. 
I just don't understand why hide something when knowledgeable person (nutritionist) would still know almost exact amounts of ingredients just by looking at a label and duplicate the formula. What is the point in hiding information from an average consumer?


----------



## bett (Mar 15, 2012)

monster'sdad said:


> Did Fromm or Eagle tell customers they were giving up their EU Certification before doing so? Nope......
> 
> Why does Fromm put "Wisconsin" cheese in the food? Answer: Because cheese is an MSG-Loaded flavor enhancer. Will they tell you that? Never. Is it a reason to not use the food? No.


your point is?


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

bett said:


> your point is?


The point is pretty obvious.


----------



## Dobelover (Mar 14, 2013)

monster'sdad said:


> They could but why would they? Would Pro Plan risk 100,000's of dogs getting ill? I doubt it.
> 
> All I am saying is don't put that much confidence in labelling. When you see "lamb meal" does it ever occur to you it could be 100% lamb by-products? Everyone is obessed with trace elements of chicken feathers but "lamb meal" can and may contains some wool.
> 
> Or "white fish meal", that is a by-product as well, from the boats working for McDonald's.



You are wrong. The word "meal" means that even though the meat has been cooked, dried, and ground, it is still meat, and has not had any blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach or rumen contents added to it.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Dobelover said:


> You are wrong. The word "meal" means that even though the meat has been cooked, dried, and ground, it is still meat, and has not had any blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach or rumen contents added to it.


sorry chumm, the word "meat" is not part of the definition and hair is allowed to the same extent as is feathers in chicken by product meal.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Dobelover said:


> You are wrong. The word "meal" means that even though the meat has been cooked, dried, and ground, it is still meat, and has not had any blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach or rumen contents added to it.


Man, and you where offering up 101 classes yesterday! He is correct, it can still theoretically be 100% "by-products" from offals. That's what by-products are, muscle meat and/(or) offals plus whatever is unavoidably in good processing practices. Chicken, Poultry and unnamed Meat are the only types that have a by-product sub-group. The rest are for all practical purposes "by-product" meals but not labeled as such because there is no requirement to do so.


----------



## Dobelover (Mar 14, 2013)

Dobelover said:


> You are wrong. The word "meal" means that even though the meat has been cooked, dried, and ground, it is still meat, and has not had any blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach or rumen contents added to it.


Nope..I'm not wrong  I know for a fact...i'm in that industry


----------



## Dobelover (Mar 14, 2013)

monster'sdad said:


> sorry chumm, the word "meat" is not part of the definition and hair is allowed to the same extent as is feathers in chicken by product meal.


Nope, I'm not wrong. I know for a fact, I'm in that industry 
But believe what you want


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Dobelover said:


> Nope..I'm not wrong  I know for a fact...i'm in that industry


How much you wanna bet your wrong?

Based on your other posts, I think you are a concerned pet owner and that is about it. I think you should get a dictionary and look up the word "meal".

The word "tissue" is used in the definition of "lamb meal", not "meat" or "muscle meat" and it is quite clear some amounts of wool are permitted, but even that is open-ended and relative. And by the way "bone" is tissue as well.

*"Lamb Meal - the rendered product from lamb tissues, exclusive of blood, hair, hoof, horn, hide trimmings, manure, stomach and rumen contents except in such amounts as may occur unavoidably in good processing practices." *


----------



## Dobelover (Mar 14, 2013)

Considering I work in a facility I think I have a pretty good idea of what goes on....in more ways than you know.


----------



## Dobelover (Mar 14, 2013)

Definitions

Let’s start by defining some common ingredients listed on a pet food ingredient panel - chicken, chicken meal, chicken by-product, and chicken by-product meal.

Chicken: the clean combination of flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts or whole carcasses of chicken or a combination thereof, exclusive of feathers, heads, feet and entrails.

(Translation: Chicken meat, skin and bone)

Chicken Meal: Chicken (see above) which has been ground or otherwise reduced in particle size.

(Translation: Chicken meat skin and bone that is ground into small pieces. Chicken meal is a dry, solid material that can be made into kibble.)

Chicken by-product: the clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice.

(Translation: Chicken necks, unborn eggs, feet and organs)

Chicken by-product meal: the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered chicken, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines, exclusive of feathers, except in such amounts as might occur unavoidable in good processing practice.

(Translation: ground up necks, unborn eggs, feet and organs)

When defined on a pet food label, chicken meal and chicken are exactly the same thing! The difference is in how the product came to the supplier. If the pet food company received the product as wet meat then they can call the ingredient chicken. They then go on to process it into a dry form so that it can be made into kibble. However, if they received the product already processed then it must be called chicken meal.


----------



## DaViking (Sep 27, 2011)

Dobelover said:


> Definitions
> 
> Let’s start by defining some common ingredients listed on a pet food ingredient panel - chicken, chicken meal, chicken by-product, and chicken by-product meal.
> 
> ...


Lol, and...? You are talking in circles. This doesn't have any bearing on what you said about lamb meal and what a lamb meal can and can not include.


----------



## InkedMarie (Sep 9, 2011)

To answer Meg's question, for me, I won't feed a food if the company won't give me the information. There are way too many other dog food options out there.


----------

