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



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

Original thread has become off this specific topic, but very interesting in its own right......so creating this thread for the first discussion That thread

========================

Responding

You can do anything you want, you have the right to consider what you want, etc etc etc. I am not swung by most your walloping protestations, as they are hype over substance.
1. Your claims of nasty animal testing by P&G pretty strong counter arguments. One being that facility done by the sting done by the activists was a facility being contracted for some work to P&G and the animals in question are not part of anything that P&G was doing. Earlier in this thread those are addressed. P&G very much disputes the activists claims. So you have decided to go with what FEELS correct to you. I maintain your view is not well thought out, its childlike in survey of the facts. Yes a child can believe with all their heart that there is a monolithic corporation out to feed garbage to pets, as the torture them, or we can put the children's book down and see what is going on. Yes you have a right to FEEL what you do, I am not disputing your FEELINGS.

2. Others have already shown your claims about number one ingredients not being meat, are not correct. You also don't have the wet weights to make your claims that they will boil down to be lower than the remaining top ingredients. The percentage of protein, along with other non-meat sources of protein my give some insight.

3. The ingredients posted, for a kibble, are reasonable products for Iams and Eukanuba. The horrors of these foods are very much a fabrication of your imagination and feelings. On paper they seem to be OK, not as good as Orijen, or RAW, but reasonable.

4. You complaining about how Iams and Eukanuba were not turned into the super food company you dreamed of them becoming, is a child's dream shattered. Though you may feel P&G owed this to you, or whatever, it does not change the facts that the status quo at the MINIMUM was maintained by P&G.

5. You choice to not feed Innova products any longer is not at all based on the contents of whats in the bag. It simply does not matter to you what the dog eats, its about the label on the outside. As I said your feelings are to be respected, you have right.....la de da, and lets salute the flag together....but I think its far more important to talk about what is in the bag, what the food is, than your personal politics. Plus I think its juvenile to use the evil corporation model...yes yes you have that right.

6. *The respected owners of Innova have said via their due diligence, that Innova will function as it has, with the same manufacturing, and the same distribution channel, and the same formulas.* You want to ignore all that fine. So do Innova competitors, and Net-savvy product line sales reps.

7. Milking a product line which is highly profitable, by changing nothing at all, is the most cost effective solution to maximizing profits. IE there is not really a profit motivation to using lower quality ingredients. It can be considered a marketing cost to just keep everything the same, even if it does cost more at times, certainly the marketing hit would be large if they do screw with the formulas. I would expect them to create new ones, and a lock and key on the old....SEE COKE CLASSIC CASE STUDY.

8. Since Innova and P&G say they will remain in the independent channel. Some may want to act as if this is false, but that action is premature. 

9. If customers do not want to buy Innova products because of the change of the outside of the bag, everyone has the right. If small stores see the demand for Innova food to be not high enough to continue stocking it, then by all means they need to act first for their profits. (Only corporations should not make profits, we all know that) 

10. Small retailers dropping the Innova product line, without any PRODUCT changes, then telling customers why, is not a great idea. First they are removing a popular food, and that food is popular because of its high quality. There customers if they want to continue, need go to a different store. They may try a formula on their pet, but if it does not work better, they will go with Plan B. Plan B is NOT YOU. As I said before a retailer dropping Innova only because of HYPE, is a fool. That does not change, and all anyone is tossing around is hype. Posters say the won't feed because of their long established feeling about using any of Protor and Gambles products. Fine fine, everyone has the right, but PETA wants dogs to be Vegans, and we are not going to please everyone.

11. If the Knee-Jerk reaction were to be ultra widespread and the entire specialty local retailers jumped off Innova, and their local competitors. (In my area, we have 10 none Petco-Petsmart-Walmart specialty retailers....about 3 carry Innova....if two jump ship, but 2 start new, its a wash) But if the retail side collapsed as some competitor market reps want to see. There would be no choice but to move over to big box retailers. If ultra high end foods go to Petco, its not good for the eco-system of the specialty retailers. Yes we used to have corner hardware stores.....check that lately? Innova and PG say they want to remain and expand in the specialty side for Innova, I think that is the best business plan for them. They have shared goals of expansion of the high end specialty side.

Summary. Innova is bought out. Both company's are saying the formulas the ingredients and the manufacturing will all stay the same. And the distribution channel will remain the specialty shops. Tons of hype and breathless claims of doom are out there. But the products themselves remain true. 

My point is simply why not wait until a change happens before moaning about the ramifications of it. There still remains a very good chance fears will never be realized. SEE end of the earth by 1970 because US and USSR blow each other up....widely believe by some in the 50's

Its far too early to claim what is in the bag is not worthwhile when Innova products have done so well for so many pets. If something in the bag changes, lets talk.



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.......
> 
> ...


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> 6. *The respected owners of Innova have said via their due diligence, that Innova will function as it has, with the same manufacturing, and the same distribution channel, and the same formulas.* You want to ignore all that fine. So do Innova competitors, and Net-savvy product line sales reps.
> 
> .


that sound nice, but the soon to be former owners will have no say in ANY of that. P&G will be making these decisions going forward.

of course, any of you who are P&G stockholders will certainly feel more secure in believing everything P&G is putting out there. that is your right. i dont think you really have to worry. if there is anything P&G will be loyal to, it is their stockholders.

i dont really see why it should bother anyone if their is a mass exodus from Natura products. for people like me, P&G will have ample opportunity to prove they will maintain the standards of the products and will take a more ethical approach to animal testing. i will reevaluate how things stand in a couple years. in the meantime, there are plenty of other food choices (including adding even more raw food to the repetoire).

as far as small business owners, they have no choice but to listen to their customer base and act accordingly. it is the only responsible thing for them to do.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

Buddy is correct on one major point and everyone should listen and listen closely. 

Iams/P and G are notorious for doing some pretty freaking horrible animal testing on many products. How can you claim to even LIKE Dogs with a company that EVEN HINTS of doing this stuff? Seriously? Why are you even on this site? Whats next, you gonna defend China and Michael Vick as Dog Aficionado's? 

How anyone could jump to their defense, especially in lieu of whats transpiring down in the Gulf, is damn amazing to me. 

Christ people!...you think P and G gives a rip about our Dogs? Seriously? They bought Natura because it will help their bottom line. NO OTHER reason. They will leave EVO alone only so long as it helps their profits. Period.


Why even debate this crap any longer? We have better options...Acana, Orijen, hell I'd even buy Eagle Holistic.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Gee, does anyone care that a bunch of dogs that eat Iams are getting sick!


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

whiteleo said:


> Gee, does anyone care that a bunch of dogs that eat Iams are getting sick!


I do!
P & G Doesn't.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

buddy97 said:


> on point #2, others with knowledge actually confirmed that meat is not the first true ingredient in those products. you are completely incorrect and so off base in your beliefs that it is astounding. everyone who understand how dog foods get labelled understands a meat product IS NOT the first ingredient in those foods listed. those who understand chimed in to confirm this. you are only continuing to confirm your lack of understanding on that subject. dogs dont get to eat the product before it is cooked, so those precooked labels are meaningless. the primary ingredients in the 3 foods listed ARE brewers rice in 2 of them and chicken by products in another.
> 
> you still fail to understand that dog food manufactures CANNOT afford to start with so much fresh meat such that after 70% of its weight is cooked out still remains the true first ingredient. (go ahead, email iams/eukanuba and ask them to confirm that meat is the first ingredient by weight after cooking--I HAVE, AND THEY WONT because it clearly isnt).
> 
> ...


buddy anyone with half a brain knows what will happen to natura products. remember buddy you are dealing with raw fed stock broker,and his partner 93-5g20.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

kevin bradley said:


> Why even debate this crap any longer? We have better options...Acana, Orijen, hell I'd even buy Eagle Holistic.


I'm with you on this one. 
It's over. It's done. Natura is no more the natura we've trusted. It's just another branch of a huge company that makes some of the worst dog foods on the market. Oh well!
There's still Orijen. There's still Acana. There's still other foods out there, that even though they may not be the absolute BEST in every way possible, I'd rather support. Like Blue. 
I don't feed my dogs kibble, couldn't care less about it for my sake. I'm disappointed to have disappointed customers. I'm disappointed that there goes one of the foods I most recommend to my customers. I'm disappointed that wallets get fat at the EXPENSE of the health of our pets. That's corporate America, folks! Honestly, brilliant business move on their part. I'm sure former owners of natura are rolling in their cash, and most pet owners will have no idea anything has changed. Money all around! I have a feeling even vets will make out big on this one when Innova fed dogs fill their waiting rooms next year. 
As for 93-5G20, have a wonderful day at the P & G office, sir!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

kevin bradley said:


> Iams/P and G are notorious for doing some pretty freaking horrible animal testing on many products. How can you claim to even LIKE Dogs with a company that EVEN HINTS of doing this stuff? Seriously? Why are you even on this site? Whats next, you gonna defend China and Michael Vick as Dog Aficionado's?


Getting a little hysterical are we? :smile: To listen to you folks, you would think that P&G does animal tests just for the fun of it. Just because they like to watch animals suffer for no good reason. There are very strict laws on when and how animal tests can and will be carried out. I don't remember seeing anything about P&G breaking these laws. 

What I'm seeing is a bunch of anit-big business people harping about nothing they can substanciate. Y'all seem to think that any large corperation is inherently evil and shouldn't be allowed to exist or .... horror or horrors ... actually make a profit.



> How anyone could jump to their defense, especially in lieu of whats transpiring down in the Gulf, is damn amazing to me.


How does Obama's inability to handle the gulf leak possibly have anything to do with P&G? 



> Christ people!...you think P and G gives a rip about our Dogs? Seriously? They bought Natura because it will help their bottom line. NO OTHER reason.


What other reason could any company have to buy any other company? Seriously!!! All companies are in business to make money. That is any company's primary reason for existing. The first things I look at in any company I buy are now much money is it making and how fast are the profits rising. Any person that buys companies solely because they do good things soon will be broke.



> They will leave EVO alone only so long as it helps their profits. Period.


If it doesn't help profits, it should be changed. It only makes sense.



> Why even debate this crap any longer? We have better options...Acana, Orijen, hell I'd even buy Eagle Holistic.


You keep debating because I raise questions you can't help but reply to. :smile:

BTW: There is nothing holistic about Eagle Pack Holistic. :biggrin: Marketing gimmick.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> Getting a little hysterical are we? :smile: To listen to you folks, you would think that P&G does animal tests just for the fun of it. Just because they like to watch animals suffer for no good reason. There are very strict laws on when and how animal tests can and will be carried out. I don't remember seeing anything about P&G breaking these laws.



Raw, just because its "legal" doesn't mean its right. There's some pretty hardcore evidence that many companies engage in this crap. Oh, I'm sure they have "reasons" for it the same way the Nazi's had "reasons" for doing the crap they did.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> How does Obama's inability to handle the gulf leak possibly have anything to do with P&G?
> 
> What other reason could any company have to buy any other company? Seriously!!! All companies are in business to make money. That is any company's primary reason for existing. The first things I look at in any company I buy are now much money is it making and how fast are the profits rising. Any person that buys companies solely because they do good things soon will be broke.
> 
> If it doesn't help profits, it should be changed. It only makes sense.


Well, I guess in my view...I'd like to think it was about a little more...pre-takeover. I don't disagree that Natura was already in the business of profit. However, I'm pretty comfortable saying that there was probably a bit more driving what Natura did and why.

Re. Obama not "fixing" the oil mess?....oh brother


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> There are very strict laws on when and how animal tests can and will be carried out.


Much like the "very strict" rules on pet food companies? 
Surely, you can't think that P&G's pockets aren't lined enough to get around whatever rules they dang well please. 

I'm not anti-big-companies. 
Heck, I guess I'm anti-commercial pet food to begin with. 

I see P&G as the "cheesecake factory" of the business world. A menu that goes on and on and on, but no true dedication to quality and value in any one area. 

Being great at business doesn't mean that it's not going to piss a few people off. As pet owners, many people want to believe that everyone cares about their dogs just as much as they do. We can't expect this. It's silly. I get that. BUT, do I think that the quality of Natura products will surely decline in the hands of P&G? Absolutely. Does that annoy me? Absolutely.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

kevin bradley said:


> Raw, just because its "legal" doesn't mean its right. There's some pretty hardcore evidence that many companies engage in this crap. Oh, I'm sure they have "reasons" for it the same way the Nazi's had "reasons" for doing the crap they did.


You are really out in left field if you compare American corperations to Nazi's. That's a real reach. You gotta come up with something better than that. Be specific as to exactly what they are doing. Stop dealing in inuendo and use facts if you have them.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

hey, I'm not anti big companies either.

What I am ANTI is the purposeful abuse of animals to ram new and "improved" products through the pipeline with a "safe" stamp of approval. 

Why the hell do they do this? We really need a better freaking Toothpaste? A better Shampoo? 


Stupid.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

kevin bradley said:


> Well, I guess in my view...I'd like to think it was about a little more...pre-takeover. I don't disagree that Natura was already in the business of profit. However, I'm pretty comfortable saying that there was probably a bit more driving what Natura did and why.
> 
> Natura found a niche and they filled it. They did it to make a profit by not competing with main stream pet food companies because they were too small to compete.
> 
> Re. Obama not "fixing" the oil mess?....oh brother


Obama said in a press conference the other day (paraphrasing), "I am in charge and have been since day one. BP doesn't do anything without my permission and they do what I tell them to do." So he is taking ownership of the mess.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

buddy97 said:


> are they breaking the law by testing on animals where they dont need to? no is it ethical? that is another story altogether.
> 
> P&G does animal testing in regards to the following lines:
> 
> ...



Buddy, I'm the first to admit that I need to do a better job of knowing which companies do this crap and refusing to buy their products. 

Do you have a website that lists companies that DON'T do this garbage? I need to make a commitment to NOT buy products from any company even remotely tied to this activity. 

Any sites you can recommend much appreciated. thanks


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> You are really out in left field if you compare American corperations to Nazi's. That's a real reach. You gotta come up with something better than that. Be specific as to exactly what they are doing. Stop dealing in inuendo and use facts if you have them.



Raw, I'm not saying that companies reach the levels of atrocities that the Nazi's did. 

I am saying that they have similar rationalizations of "why" they do the stuff they do with regards to animal testing. 

Yeah, I'm a bit in left field because frankly, I wouldn't endorse brutality to Dogs even if it led to saving human lives. I'm probably in the minority there...sorry, just the way I feel. I happen to value Dogs on par with humans. They've earned it.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

kevin bradley said:


> Buddy, I'm the first to admit that I need to do a better job of knowing which companies do this crap and refusing to buy their products.
> 
> Do you have a website that lists companies that DON'T do this garbage? I need to make a commitment to NOT buy products from any company even remotely tied to this activity.
> 
> Any sites you can recommend much appreciated. thanks


here is one site:

Global Action Network: Animal Testing: Choose Cruelty-Free Products: Companies that DON'T Test on Animals


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

Just wanted to say hi to the corporate shill.If you don't work for P&G I'd let someone hit me over the head with a bat. 

Thanks for the laughs. You might get a more serious response from me if you don't actually say garbage like Iams and Eukanuba are good foods.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

buddy97 said:


> P&G chooses to do animal testing on many of their products where they are not required to.


Exactly what are those tests on what products on what animals and what is done to the animals? I have asked this a half dozen times and no one seems to know. EVERYONE seems to know that P&G tests on animals but no one knows what tests on what animals for what products. That makes their accuzations questionable at the very least.



> in fact, cosmetic testing is not required by law in the United States and animal testing for cosmetics is actually banned in the EU.


Seems I remember many years ago that there was some hair dye that caused cancer in several users. I don't remember what company put it out or any details at all. Was this product tested before being released to the public? Are hair dyes required to be tested now? If not, why not?

I see ads on TV every day asking people to join one class action suit or another against a multitude of companies for products they sold that some lawyer thinks he can win a case proving the product was unsafe. Were these products animal tested?



> i really am not understanding why anyone want to excuse unnecessary animal testing by P&G. when you buy shares for a company, it certainly doesnt obligate you to look the other way in regards to unethical behavior by said company, or worse, issue vague denials that they are doing anything wrong.


I havn't seen any creditable proof that they do. All I see are baseless accuzations and inuendoes.


----------



## luvMyBRT (Mar 8, 2010)

I just did a basic yahoo search and link after link came up on P&Gs testing on animals, plus petetion after petetion for people to sign boycotting P&G. I could copy and paste, but I am pretty sure anyone is smart enough to do a basic search.

Here's one for example:
Procter & Gamble - SourceWatch

I am sure someone will come up with an excuse that it's not the "proof" that they are looking for, that is doesn't list the exact animals and tests or dates, etc....but (imo) it's pretty "shady" that I can find so much information on the topic. 

That's all I'm gonna say.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> Exactly what are those tests on what products on what animals and what is done to the animals? I have asked this a half dozen times and no one seems to know. EVERYONE seems to know that P&G tests on animals but no one knows what tests on what animals for what products.
> 
> .


this act is getting old. you have asked this question several times, yet i have easily acquired this information with some basic research. if you were truly interested you would find it as well. apparantly the extent of your "research" is continually whining on this board for members to prove to you what is common knowledge in the corporate world.

the answers are available.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

From the article posted above:


> The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) investigated PETA's complaint and cited the laboratory for failure to provide veterinary care and pain relief; adequate space; and employee training; along with almost 40 other violations of the Animal Welfare Act.


Granted the complaints were filed by the worst "animal welfare" organization of all time (PETA) the results of the investigation conducted by the USDA are rather alarming. One investigation uncovering nearly fourty violations of the animal welfare act. 

Now, some of this may have stopped since then, maybe. But even so, it's no reflection of some kind of changed morals. Being truely sorry, and being sorry you got caught are two entirely different things. 


And as for your "strict laws" on animal testing:


> Over 90% of the animals used in experimentation are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the only federal law which over sees animal testing. Rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish are expressly eliminated from all safeguards. Species not covered under the AWA do not even have to be reported


----------



## luvMyBRT (Mar 8, 2010)

buddy97 said:


> next thing you will want is for one of the forum members to personally provide video footage of the animal testing or again, it didnt happen.


Funny you should mention video footage. There is a video in the link that I posted, but I haven't watched it. I'm too afraid of what I might see....


----------



## killertomato (May 27, 2010)

So what do you guys/gals think of whats on this list? 
(I'm trying to make my entire house cruelty free... I'm about 50% now, it's a slow process when you have to wait until you run out of something to replace it.)

*The List of Animal-Testing-Free Pet Foods | Living Cruelty Free


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

killertomato said:


> So what do you guys/gals think of whats on this list?
> (I'm trying to make my entire house cruelty free... I'm about 50% now, it's a slow process when you have to wait until you run out of something to replace it.)
> 
> *The List of Animal-Testing-Free Pet Foods | Living Cruelty Free


Not a fan of PETA or anything PETA related. 
I think there ought to be blance in all things. For example, the HSUS made that "cruelty free" vegetarian dog food. Totally overboard. While I eat meat sparingly, and am big on animal rights, there IS a circle of life to be maintained.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

buddy97 said:


> apparantly the extent of your "research" is continually whining on this board for members to prove to you what is common knowledge in the corporate world.


It's whining when one asks someone to prove rediculous claims they make? You should have some kind of rudementary evidence of what you say. Something a little more than "common knowledge in the corperate world" is hardly evidence. "Common knowledge" is often wrong. "Common knowledge" in the dog world is that dogs are omnivores and we know the accuracy of that statement. :smile: 



> the answers are available.


Then it shouldn't take much effort on your part to produce them.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> It's whining when one asks someone to prove rediculous claims they make? You should have some kind of rudementary evidence of what you say. Something a little more than "common knowledge in the corperate world" is hardly evidence. "Common knowledge" is often wrong. "Common knowledge" in the dog world is that dogs are omnivores and we know the accuracy of that statement. :smile:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it shouldn't take much effort on your part to produce them.


actually i posted the pertinent information you wanted. i then removed it as i decided as a stockholder you could make the same effort i did to find this information. it wasnt hard. of course, if you dont want to know this information, i dont expect much effort will be taken. you may find this petty, but i think if you do a little work to find this information, it may stick with you a little better.

im sure your next post wont be about your inability to find any of this information even after diligent research.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

buddy97 said:


> you may find this petty, but i think if you do a little work to find this information, it may stick with you a little better.


You made the statements. It's up to you to prove your own statements. Don't try to pull that psychology stuff with me about it sticking with me. Thats school girl stuff. LOL I've been doing this a lot longer than you have. :smile:



> im sure your next post wont be about your inability to find any of this information even after diligent research.


Let me say this one more time in a manner you should understand. I'm not going looking for information to prove your statements. You say they are easy to prove ... do it.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> You made the statements. It's up to you to prove your own statements. Don't try to pull that psychology stuff with me about it sticking with me. Thats school girl stuff. LOL I've been doing this a lot longer than you have. :smile:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me say this one more time in a manner you should understand. I'm not going looking for information to prove your statements. You say they are easy to prove ... do it.


its 4am here,and ihave work and a doctors appointment at 9am so idc about the other posts. i will say that anyone with a half of a brain knows natura is going down for the count. raw food dogs,im sorry but to have stock i na company that makes crud dog food,and does cruel unecessary tests on animals is not descriptive of good character on your part.

all animals participating in tests must be euthanized. and most of the products being tested will not ''need'' animal testing but they do it anyway.

you are gonna lose stock money its that simple.

im trying to milk proctor and gamble for all theyre worth to be honest. they had a promotion the other day for their new Gillette proglide razor..you could win a free one if you were the first 20,000 people to sign up. i ordered 5 to be delivered to 5 different addresses i can attain them. sure it wont dent their pockets but its a start in their demise.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> i will say that anyone with a half of a brain knows natura is going down for the count.


Maybe and maybe not. P&G didn't become one of the world's largest corperations by buying companies they couldn't run profitably. I feel confident they know what they are doing.



> raw food dogs,im sorry but to have stock i na company that makes crud dog food,and does cruel unecessary tests on animals is not descriptive of good character on your part.


"Crud dog food" is in the eye of the beholder. P&G's present dog food products aren't top of the line. They have their niche just as EVO, etc fills their niche. They are profitable in their niche just as EVO is in it's. There is obviously a demand for dog food like Eukanuba, etc. and P&G fills that demand.

We will have no more statments questioning anyone's character. We will stick to the facts in this and future discussions.



> all animals participating in tests must be euthanized. and most of the products being tested will not ''need'' animal testing but they do it anyway.


You say they don't need to do animal tests and they may not be legally required, but they may do a lot of good. I don't know. No one has any documentation as to exactly what testing they do, if any, and what it's for and what animals are involved.



> you are gonna lose stock money its that simple.


Don't think so. I'm not in the habit of investing in companies that loose money. I've owned P&G for over 10 years and their earnings have trippled in that time. I wish all my stocks were so good. :smile: I don't see any reason their earnings won't tripple again in the next 10 years.



> im trying to milk proctor and gamble for all theyre worth to be honest. they had a promotion the other day for their new Gillette proglide razor..you could win a free one if you were the first 20,000 people to sign up. i ordered 5 to be delivered to 5 different addresses i can attain them. sure it wont dent their pockets but its a start in their demise.


OH NO!!!! Those razors probably cost them $.10 each to produce. There goes $.50 out of P&G's $40,000,000,000 in profits this year. Guess bankruptcy is right around the corner. :biggrin: BTW: Send me those razors. They are great products.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> You made the statements. It's up to you to prove your own statements. Don't try to pull that psychology stuff with me about it sticking with me. Thats school girl stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> .


well, it is always worth a try.

in fairness, i will say this. any information i have collected does not verify that P&G currently does animal testing on products where it is not mandated by law. there is much information about animal testing done by this company, but without being absolutely certain that they currently do unnecessary testing, it is not fair for me to imply that it is currently happening. 

it does not change my overall position, as i am not convinced their past behavior has been ethical. additionally, in my view, saying iams/eukanuba fills a niche and is profitable for them does not make me feel that they were ever interested in producing quality dog food. 

as ive stated before, they will have ample opportunity to prove they are committed to doing so.

here is a statement from another forum about a members correspondence with Natura. i can only say this was posted in early May. i have no way to verify if this will occur or if this exchange truly took place. if it did and this change were to occur, i dont see how there wouldnt be less meat product in the formula. it may be hogwash, but time will tell me that. it makes sense to me to be feeding something else, including more raw food, while i step aside and see what changes may occur. i would be happy if all the predictions about what will happen to Natura products prove to be unfounded.

here is the post:

_So I filled out a survey about Natura that must've been emailed to me by P&G for a coupon for Natura food (even if I don't use the coupon I wanted to give my feedback). This was one of the questions:

Currently, EVO Red Meat contains five different red meat products. Consideration is being given to adjusting the EVO Red Meat formulation to include two types of red meat protein, Lamb Meal and Beef which will result in a more balanced formula. This change may reduce the level of protein in the food from 42% to as much as 31%. The new EVO Red Meat will have a more balanced distribution of calories from protein, carbohydrate and fat. The formula will remain grain-free.

They then asked how supportive I would be of the change. : ETA: They also hinted that they might put chicken fat in the EVO Red Meat formula. _


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> Maybe and maybe not. P&G didn't become one of the world's largest corperations by buying companies they couldn't run profitably. I feel confident they know what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Raw, 

You keep turning the debate into P and G and their ability to make money...

Not sure why that is relevent. No one in the world would debate PG's ability to run a profitable corporation. 

Indeed, they are excellent at making money. So is BP, Exxon, Wal Mart who sells Old Roy dog food. 

One thing is for certain...to make money in America has little to do with the Quality of your product. In FACT, I would say there actually might be an inverse relationship.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

buddy97 said:


> but without being absolutely certain that they currently do unnecessary testing, it is not fair for me to imply that it is currently happening.


Cool, thank you. I appreciate your honesty. :smile:



> it does not change my overall position, as i am not convinced their past behavior has been ethical. additionally, in my view, saying iams/eukanuba fills a niche and is profitable for them does not make me feel that they were ever interested in producing quality dog food.


In the case of iams/eukanuba you are exactly correct. Neither has ever been meant to be a top quality food. Both are designed to be mid range foods at a price that will maximize sales. This COULD be the reason for buying Natura ... to get into the top of the line niche. That way they have both top of the line foods as well as midrange foods. Maybe someay they will also get into the super cheap niche. Who knows? Buying Natura is a business decision, not a decision to save the world's dogs.



> as ive stated before, they will have ample opportunity to prove they are committed to doing so.


All I'm saying is let's give them a chance. No one knows what EVO will be like a year from now. I have seen nothing creditable that says they will change anything just to create a midrange food from EVO. They already have 2 midrange foods. Why would they want another? All they would have to do is put eukanuba in another bag with a different label to have that. They wouldn't need to buy another whole company.



> here is a statement from another forum about a members correspondence with Natura. i can only say this was posted in early May. i have no way to verify if this will occur or if this exchange truly took place.


Me either. This is pretty useless information in it's present form. This person doesn't even know who is doing the survey. It could be a competitor, could be P&G, could be Natura. Could be just someone wanting to create bad feelings about Natura for whatever reason. The questions don't even make sense.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

kevin bradley said:


> Raw,
> 
> You keep turning the debate into P and G and their ability to make money...
> 
> Not sure why that is relevent. No one in the world would debate PG's ability to run a profitable corporation.


There are a couple of reasons I brought that up. The latest was in response to that triplefresh kid's claims about how he is starting the demise of P&G. :biggrin:



> Indeed, they are excellent at making money. So is BP, Exxon, Wal Mart who sells Old Roy dog food.


I think I cover that in my previous post that wasn't made when you wrote this.



> One thing is for certain...to make money in America has little to do with the Quality of your product.


Well actually it does but I know what you are saying. Many companies don't make top of the line stuff. THey don't mean to. They are trying to fill a price niche. One company will produce the best widget they can that will sell for less than $20. Another may decide to make the best widget for less than $40 and a third will produce the best widget they can no matter what the price. All the concepts have their place and companies in each of these scenarios can make money. Do you think Walmart is trying to make the best quality dog food they can? Of course not. BTW: Did you know that Ol' Roy is the top selling kibble in the world? Sit out in front of Walmart someday and watch the bags of that stuff coming out the door.



> IN FACT, I would say there actually might be an inverse relationship.


Thats possible. There are a LOT of people who care more about price than quality of any product.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> .... BTW: Did you know that Ol' Roy is the top selling kibble in the world? Sit out in front of Walmart someday and watch the bags of that stuff coming out the door.


Ah, so now I know where to find you when you aren't online. :biggrin:



RawFedDogs said:


> ....Thats possible. There are a LOT of people who care more about price than quality of any product.


In this economy, that's perfectly understandable.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> Thats possible. There are a LOT of people who care more about price than quality of any product.


True that, but the reverse is also true to a point: there are also some people who will pay more for the best quality, for whom top quality is more important than saving money.

Which is why P&G won't mess with anything if they are wise. I mean, the Natura line is geared toward people who are willing to pay up for quality. These are people who would rather pay more and get the best quality than save $5 a bag with compromised quality. If these people valued lower prices more than top quality, they'd be feeding different food.

That said, I just can't believe that there won't be suits in corporate looking at ways to squeeze one more cent out in the quarterly earnings report. *That is the fiduciary duty corporate executives have to shareholders, an obligation which owners and managers of privately held companies don't have.* An owner of a privately held firm may decide that they are currently making "enough" profit and they aren't willing to sacrifice their quality or their values to squeeze a little more out of it. They may not be willing to cut corners or lay off good employees to move production to a cheap-labor site. The executives in a publicly traded corporation, on the other hand, are generally held accountable by shareholders to maximize profits. 

So if they think they can squeeze another penny or two per share out by changing to cheaper, lower-quality suppliers, so be it. These are changes which, if done right, won't even appear as changes on the label. And while there's no "proof" this will happen (indeed, I think it will be a little while before significant "cheapening" of Natura's line is even on the table as the fury takes time to wind down), the nature of publicly traded corporations makes it hard for me to believe that there won't eventually be pressures to "cut costs" and "increase earnings". These corporations all too often make decisions based on the next quarter rather than the next few decades.


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

I would like to add a post somewhat in defense of Raw. 

I'm glad he's on this forum. I enjoy differring opinions, as much as all of us go at it at times.....and he's pretty damn knowledgeable on alot of the nutritional aspects of feeding. 


Let me say this....and I THINK his stance centers around the fact that none of us KNOW for certain that P & G will destroy Evo, Innova, and the other Natura foods. 

...And in all honesty, on paper, based on my meager research, he's correct. I've seen the older ingredient lists on Eukanuba and Iams. Honestly guys, there were very minor changes to the food itself from an ingredients perspective. I would go far as to say that if you LOVED Iams and Eukanuba(god help you) 15 years ago, you probably at least like them today. 


However, we've never(to my knowledge) seen a takeover like this one. Iams sure as hell was NEVER in the same category as EVO. What made this so hard for many of us was the fact that EVO was considered by most to be on this elite pedestal with Orijen. Whenever someone asked me about the best food, I would respond by telling them to flip a coin between the 2. 

Will PG change EVO's INGREDIENT List? Honestly, I'd be a bit surprised if they immediately altered the entire ingredient list. I think Linsey or Natalie put it best when they predicted quiet and subtle changes to the formula. Thats probably realistic though we don't know for certain. 

The aspect that hits me hardest is the fact that EVO will never be owned/produced by a family owned company any more. There's so much uncertainty. It's all about hopes and fears and maybe's/maybe not's......

And when I feed my boys every day, I don't like uncertainty.


----------



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

CorgiPaws said:


> I'm with you on this one.
> It's over. It's done. Natura is no more the natura we've trusted.
> As for 93-5G20, have a wonderful day at the P & G office, sir!


Personal politics over facts, and for a moderator. What has changed from the Natura product in the form of whats in the bag, and how its distributed?
How has the Innova products changed in any way. They are made in the same manufacturing plant. It seems we don't need views like what is the best color sweater for your dog to be dressed in, for a forum on dog feed.
There are quantitative and qualitative measure for dog food to be evaluated. All you want to do is advocate a theory of an evil corporation. 
The animal testing story is very controverted and disputed, as well as new programs put in place. It would seem you don't want different dog food formulas given to dogs, prior to the sale to the public. Great. But feeding different formulas to dogs is not crazy testing. We understand what is poisonous to dogs, none of that testing is needed. Your theory is that the corporation only cares about profits, how is dangerous animal testing...profitable in any way? Thought that through yet?
I would love a job in the dog food industry, I am looking for work, another industry would be fine too, got any leads?
I think TOTW, Chicken Soup, Kirkland, are great bargain priced foods. Halo is great for tree huggers and Ellen fans in general, she does good animal work, notice the post office stamp thing? Orijen seem to be the consensus best in class food, though I have to work to get my puppy to eat it, great stools on that stuff. As far as the best no brainer food, Natural Balance, not the best, but very high up there, and hardly ever a negative report, even on things like gas or whatever.
I think analysis of dog food should be about what the food is, how its manufactured, the ingredients, and the formulas actual effects in the real world. You seem to feed your own RAW diet, and makes wild claims and guesses on dry foods....which is no service at all to your customers. I image you make profits, but you should, and your motivation to make profits in your store, like a corporation, does not make you evil.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> I image you make profits, but you should, and your motivation to make profits in your store, like a corporation, does not make you evil.


Straw man. No one here is saying profits are evil. Anyone who owns a business needs to be able to profit in order to make ends meet, in order to keep producing a useful product, in order to keep people employed (and perhaps grow to create more jobs in an economy that desperately needs them).

What becomes a problem is when *no* amount of profit is ever enough, and just about anything you can do to maximize profit is acceptable -- whether cutting corners on the quality, whether firing employees to re-establish production where labor is much cheaper, whether values and business ethics take a back seat to getting a couple more cents on the bottom line this quarter.

That's when the relentless pursuit of "a little more profit" starts to become arguably unethical. Yet that is what the directors of a large, publicly traded corporation have a _fiduciary duty to provide for their shareholders_. What might be "enough" profit for me the privately-owned business owner may not be enough for shareholders in a publicly-held corporation. Stockholders have little patience for executives who leave money on the table.


----------



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

CorgiPaws said:


> BUT, do I think that the quality of Natura products will surely decline in the hands of P&G? Absolutely.


Total assumption, without any evidence....but you are SURE. Will the guaranteed analysis now be forged? Will the ingredients be lies? Will the new manufacturing line of Innova be shut down? 
You don't feed dry food to your animals, so you have no issue in crossing off a high quality product off your list. You have no dog in the hunt.

For your customers you have no interest in telling all of them to stop using a product, because you have created reasons outside of whats in the bag, for them to not buy it.

Why? Simply because you believe you can switch them to other feeds, that you sell. Zero loss to you. 

If customers still want Innova they have to go to a competitor right? Yes? So what on earth, could be your new motivation against people continuing to feed Innova? Yes? What customers do at your competitor have no impact?

Basically, why not focus on whats INSIDE the bag?


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> Total assumption, without any evidence....but you are SURE.


Here's what she wrote (my emphasis added):



> BUT, do I *think* that the quality of Natura products will surely decline in the hands of P&G? Absolutely.


Show me where she said she was "sure." She said that she absolutely "thinks" the quality will decline. Note that she said "think," not "know."

Just because I say "I think it's going to rain tomorrow" doesn't mean I have any proof that it will. Nor is it a guarantee that I'll be correct.

Many of us "think" the same thing as she does, but I won't claim to *know* it. And while I don't want to speak for others, I suspect that most of us who "think" it will happen hope we're wrong.


----------



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

PUNKem733 said:


> Just wanted to say hi to the corporate shill.If you don't work for P&G I'd let someone hit me over the head with a bat.
> 
> Thanks for the laughs. You might get a more serious response from me if you don't actually say garbage like Iams and Eukanuba are good foods.


Iam and Eukanuba are reasonable foods. There are better products which sell for less money. That is why I am reading a site like this, to find the best food, with price being part of the factors. There are tons and tons of brands out there, dogs are eating all these brands, every day. But people read this site find the best in class.
TOTW seems like the highest quality for the price.

So get that bat out and smack yourself silly, or just make statements you have no evidence of, and can not back up, with the latter being your MO.


----------



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

saraj2878 said:


> ....but (imo) it's pretty "shady" that I can find so much information on the topic.


Nothing dies on the internet, some believe that Internet videos prove that FEMA is making internment camps to put people in when the government takes over.

Here is a link, Animal Experts Opinions: The truth about IAMS
It shows the Kennal Club and the AKC and American Veternians saying these claims are bogus.

*The AKC now part of the conspiracy of dog food Nazis?* (still stunned someone did the Nazi comparison on this one)


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> Iam and Eukanuba are reasonable foods. There are better products which sell for less money. That is why I am reading a site like this, to find the best food, with price being part of the factors.


I suspect there will be a need to "agree to disagree" on the "reasonable" part. 

"Reasonable" quality compared to Ol' Roy? Sure. 

Reasonable when you consider that Kirkland is a considerably better kibble for half the price? Not so much, IMO, and for that reason alone from a "value" standpoint -- bang for the buck -- I don't think something is "reasonable" when a superior alternative is available for half the price.

I also believe that Iams and Euk are marketed as if they were considerably better than they really are. Both in terms of the commercials often seen on dog shows and in terms of being priced among the higher priced foods in the big box pet stores, a lot of people probably buy these foods thinking they are getting some of the best kibble available. Many people who want the best for their dogs may assume the big boxes carry "everything" and have the widest selection, not realizing that the "best" quality foods with the most meat content are not sold there. I feel these people are being deceived by marketing, unfortunately for them and their dog; they are wildly overpaying for what they are getting in my opinion. 

But at this point, I think the discussion here has become entirely circular.



93-5G20 said:


> or just make statements you have no evidence of, and can not back up, with the latter being your MO.


This is a common fallacy in debate. Assertions of FACT should be backed up with evidence in order to be taken seriously. *Opinions do not.* An _opinion_ does not have to have factual basis to be valid (if it did have factual basis, it would no longer be an opinion -- it would be a fact).

So frankly I think it's a bullying tactic to repeatedly demand that someone back up a *gut feeling* or an *opinion* with factual evidence.


----------



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

CorgiPaws said:


> From the article posted above:
> 
> 
> Granted the complaints were filed by the worst "animal welfare" organization of all time (PETA) the results of the investigation conducted by the USDA are rather alarming. One investigation uncovering nearly fourty violations of the animal welfare act.


What you decided to skip over, and hide, are the next sentences in your quote. Everything relates to Sinclair Research Center, and things going on their not contracted by Iams.

Iams severed all ties with Sinclair Research Center as a result, but they still maintain that the films taken at Sinclair were of things that lab was doing for others.

If I go to a car repair center, and they screw up your car, am I responsible for your car getting screwed up? Don't you think you should look at the repair center, in this case..Sinclair Research Center 

So basically you want to have people not use Innova because of something a 3rd party contractor did, and to serve the interest of PETA who opposed the kill of Rats, in restaurants because it not done humanely.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> Iam and Eukanuba are reasonable foods. There are better products which sell for less money..


i suppose my definition of reasonable as it pertains to dog food is different than yours.

to me a food of lower quality could be said to have a niche in the market, and im willing to concede that IF the price is commensurate with the quality. most of us, including yourself based on your statement, believe there are better products for less money. in my eyes, that makes Iams and Eukanuba unreasonable, either in price or quality (either the former should be lower or the latter should be higher).

i could easily argue that the smaller shops that carry foods such as Orijen or EVO have customers who are a bit more knowledgeable than the average dog food buyer in the grocery store or in many cases Petsmart or Petco. so, one concern i have is that IF P&G decides to market Natura on a more large scale and sell that product line in Petsmart (for example), they will have the luxury of being less concerned about the products appealing to the customer who researches dog food and spends time on a site like this one. while they may lose those customers by degrading the product (even if not by much) they will easily make up for that and more via their powerful marketing abilities aimed at the less informed. sure, there are a small segment of shoppers at Petsmart who are more knowledgeable, but if you see what the majority of customers carry out of the store it would indicate that segment is a very small percentage of their customer base.

as others have stated, i hope none of this come to fruition.


----------



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

buddy97 said:


> actually i posted the pertinent information you wanted. i then removed it....


Why is PG responsible for all the things done by an Animal lab, Sinclair Research Center, which they contracted with.

The testing in the video relates to other things not being done for Iams at that lab.

Beyond cutting all work for Iams done at that lab, what did you expect Iams to do. 
Buddy you seem to want to defend your stance even though your stance is false, the FDA and PETA found problems in a company not owned or operated in any way by Iams. Do you get that?


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> Why is PG responsible for all the things done by an Animal lab, Sinclair Research Center, which they contracted with.
> 
> The testing in the video relates to other things not being done for Iams at that lab.
> 
> ...


the stuff i posted then removed had mainly to do with animal testing done for primarily cosmetic and cleaning products, not what was purported to have been done under Iams watch.


----------



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

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> i will say that anyone with a half of a brain knows natura is going down for the count.
> all animals participating in tests must be euthanized. and most of the products being tested will not ''need'' animal testing but they do it anyway.


Great work Nostradamus. You know the future of Innova, no matter what....PG has no free will. Maybe you should sell short the stock, you are so sure of the future.

So a dog tested by feed it a dog food formula of a mixture of known edible and safe food products.....must killed after its done eating its meal for 8 weeks? You state that as fact. How old are you? What kind of testing do you think a dog food needs? 

Its cruel to test if a grain free formula is good for the animals health? In your world, do the doggies get killed who get feed the placebo diet?


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

ziggy29 said:


> So frankly I think it's a bullying tactic to repeatedly demand that someone back up a *gut feeling* or an *opinion* with factual evidence.


Gut feeling or opinion is fine as long as it's stated as such. When it's presented as fact, there should be evidence to back it up. Even an opinion or gut feeling should have some causitive basis that created it.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> Even an opinion or gut feeling should have some causitive basis that created it.


Only if one is attempting to sway others into sharing their opinion. Otherwise people should be entitled to their opinions without others bullying or badgering them into justifying it. I don't have to justify my opinions to anyone as long as I'm not trying to be persuasive and bring others around to seeing things my way.


----------



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

kevin bradley said:


> ...Will PG change EVO's INGREDIENT List? Honestly, I'd be a bit surprised if they immediately altered the entire ingredient list. I think Linsey or Natalie put it best when they predicted quiet and subtle changes to the formula. Thats probably realistic though we don't know for certain.
> 
> There's so much uncertainty. It's all about hopes and fears and maybe's/maybe not's......
> 
> And when I feed my boys every day, I don't like uncertainty.


Well said.

IMO the new Innova can not afford to make any changes to the current forumlas, even if they thought it would improve the product. The need to make the current formulas pretty much COKE CLASSICs. Don't mess with customers current choices.

Innova will be free to create new formulas, like a 2 meat RED MEAT with more carbs, vs the current 5 meat flavor.

The Innova products are already profitable, buying them out does not increase any costs. They have a product that makes money without doing anything. Shoot they can do nothing more than just holding status quo for 10 years.

PG has buying power, and they can make the Innova product line more profitable doing nothing. How?

Say Innova buys 200 tons of chicken a year. Now I am the chicken buyer for all PG food lines. I now get the price point for 8000 tons of chicken. For a savings of say about 20% per pound. 

I get the chicken for 20% less than Innova does now, and with all the complexity of telling my supplier to ship to another location.

Just with volume buying power, its likely that PG can put 20% of the cost of the current product, back as profit. The shame of it all. PG can make the same product for cheaper, with a proven formula, by doing NOTHING other than proving they have not changed the formula. Dang maybe I should put an application into PG.

BTW TOFW is made by Diamond, but people still love the TOFW formula, especially for the price, and how do they do that? Using the aggregated buying power of Diamond.

If I am a specialty store owner, and my competitors start dropping Innova, you can be damn sure that I would add the product line in. 

As far as surety of PG screwing up the Iams/Eukanuba formulas, its urban legend if you look at the labels.

I don't see the nature of dog food and mammal needs changing radically over the next 20 years, so I would be fine with the Innova line not improving at all. I don't think there is that much more to be gained, in dry kibble, improvements would be in other feeding methods, not kibble. 

Again, Natural Balance is probably the best in class well rounded food out there, there is better, there is more expensive, but I can recommend it to anyone with confidence, as a safe choice with high quality. As with TOTW, and Orijen.....I work for everybody now, its a conspiracy.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

ziggy29 said:


> Only if one is attempting to sway others into sharing their opinion. Otherwise people should be entitled to their opinions without others bullying or badgering them into justifying it.


This is a discussion board. How can you discuss if you don't question? How can you learn if you don't question? Without questions and delving deeper into subjects, its merely a series of unrelated posts. "I think *A* is better." "I think *B* is better." "I think *C* is better." How does that series of statements contribute anything to anyone's knowledge? I want to know why someone thinks *A* is better. I want to know what makes *B* superior to *A* and *C*. I want to know if their logic makes sense. I want to know if they are using logic or emotion to come to their conclusions.



> I don't have to justify my opinions to anyone as long as I'm not trying to be persuasive and bring others around to seeing things my way.


Then why expend the energy to express your opnion? Who cares what your opinion is if no one knows how you arrived at it.


----------



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

ziggy29 said:


> Here's what she wrote (my emphasis added):
> 
> Show me where she said she was "sure." She said that she absolutely "thinks" the quality will decline. Note that she said "think," not "know."


"Natura products will surely decline" that is what she said, that is not close enough to "where she said she was sure" Because of the word "think"? What she "thinks" is what she can be sure of. This is English. 

Are you one of those "depends on what the meaning of "is" is. " She thinks they will surely decline, this is what she is sure of. OK


----------



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

ziggy29 said:


> That's when the relentless pursuit of "a little more profit" starts to become arguably unethical. Yet that is what the directors of a large, publicly traded corporation have a _fiduciary duty to provide for their shareholders_. What might be "enough" profit for me the privately-owned business owner may not be enough for shareholders in a publicly-held corporation. Stockholders have little patience for executives who leave money on the table.


My guess is you don't have a business background. Fiduciary duty is not some sort of in blood mandate. It means they must act in the best interest of the corporation, and to create value to the company. It means they can not for example help their competitors or work for them. They need to profit, and if profitable maintain profitability. 

Most well run businesses use business practices taught in the last 20 years, ever hear of ISO 9001 and Tom Peters? Japanese car companies proved if you build a car that lasts a long time, it will create wealth. Building a car that wears out, is not the best way to get people to buy new cars. 

PG can increase profits by buying a profitable company, and lower the incremental costs of production by using their much larger purchasing power. 

Top end designer dog foods, is a profitable market segment, which demands higher prices because its not sold in big boxes. 

Your theory that making the best dog food with quality ingredients is not the best way to profit....is ignorant. Nobody is clamoring to have Innova change their formulas, it would only cost money to attempt to do so.


----------



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

ziggy29 said:


> So frankly I think it's a bullying tactic to repeatedly demand that someone back up a *gut feeling* or an *opinion* with factual evidence.


I think for people to research what are the best foods, in the bag or can or other, for dogs....you have to deal with the reality of the product itself. Everyone has an opinion. But opinions without substantiation are not very meaningful. Marketing folks can change opinions by using fancy colored bags with nice zipper reseals.

To do analysis of dog food, which is what this site and others attempt to do, you should have more than just another opinion, sorry if that seems to mathematical. This is not a creative writing subject....that is for the marketeers.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> I think for people to research what are the best foods, in the bag or can or other, for dogs....you have to deal with the reality of the product itself. Everyone has an opinion. But opinions without substantiation are not very meaningful. Marketing folks can change opinions by using fancy colored bags with nice zipper reseals.
> 
> To do analysis of dog food, which is what this site and others attempt to do, you should have more than just another opinion, sorry if that seems to mathematical. This is not a creative writing subject....that is for the marketeers.


I have a degree in computer science. I don't think calling it "too mathematical" is an issue for me here, even if the assumption is that I must be clueless at math and logic.

I guess we should *never *express our opinions about how the future will turn out because it can never be proven in the present day? That seems to be the kind of "proof" and "logic" that you and RFD are insisting on.

I'm quite good with facts and logic. I just don't think a discussion, opinion or idea should be invalidated or dismissed solely because it doesn't neatly fall into the realm of the logically provable.


----------



## PUNKem733 (Jun 12, 2009)

93-5G20 said:


> Iam and Eukanuba are reasonable foods. There are better products which sell for less money. That is why I am reading a site like this, to find the best food, with price being part of the factors. There are tons and tons of brands out there, dogs are eating all these brands, every day. But people read this site find the best in class.
> TOTW seems like the highest quality for the price.
> 
> So get that bat out and smack yourself silly, or just make statements you have no evidence of, and can not back up, with the latter being your MO.


----------



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

ziggy29 said:


> I have a degree in computer science. I don't think calling it "too mathematical" is an issue for me here, even if the assumption is that I must be clueless at math and logic.
> 
> I guess we should *never *express our opinions about how the future will turn out because it can never be proven in the present day? That seems to be the kind of "proof" and "logic" that you and RFD are insisting on.
> 
> I'm quite good with facts and logic. I just don't think a discussion, opinion or idea should be invalidated or dismissed solely because it doesn't neatly fall into the realm of the logically provable.


Fortune telling is fine and all, and its fine to believe in things that are not "logically provable." But as the topic of this thread is premature tossing out of high quality food, solely based upon a change of ownership, what is real or not....is important.

Hype, innuendo, fortune telling, are the only thing that seem to be driving the herd against the entire Innova line of foods. 

Has something changed within the bag of food that merits a walk away from the products? Or does it have nothing at all to do with the food?

Since you are familiar with programming, when you take bad data, and process it, what result do you get. Garbage in Garbage out. Right?

Has anything changed, to change current feeding, or is the only concern that things may change. If they may, what is the rush out the door for.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> Has anything changed, to change current feeding, or is the only concern that things may change. If they may, what is the rush out the door for.


if i dont personally trust what changes will be made and i dont have trust in x company overall, it makes much more sense to me to step away from those products for a while and see what transpires. i have several other choices of equal quality, imo, so as a consumer i have the luxury taking that approach.

others may decide to keep feeding Natura products unless they see some tangible change in the ingredient list. that is their choice and that approach is fine for them. i have not labelled that an unreasonable approach, just as i dont see my approach as unreasonable based on what i believe is probable. 

is it my OPINION that subtle changes will be made that may affect food quality but not necessarily be reflected on the ingredient list? yes. is it my OPINION that actual ingredient/supplier changes will be made down the road? yes.

yes, they have the puchasing power to likely make the same food at a cheaper cost. likewise, they have the marketing power to make changes to the product line and still market the food to the masses as one of the better foods on the market. it is my OPINION that both of these things will occur. doing both of those things will create more profit than simply doing the former.

some on here seem to be pounding on the idea that it is unfair to drop ship on Natura because nothing has visibly changed. for those who have a strong opinion that changes will occur and/or dont choose to support x company, it seems perfectly reasonable to walk away from those products and let the new ownership prove they are true to their word.

i have stated several times that i will give them a chance to prove they will at least maintain the current standards. i think this is a persfectly reasonable response for anyone who chooses that path. 

in my personal relationships i feel loyalties and emotional attachments to certain people. in the pet food industry, i have learned to have no absolute loyalties or emotional attachments, and i certainly dont feel obligated to have any here.

the call for loyalty here simply does not resonate with me.


----------



## AddieNMel (Mar 14, 2010)

I wouldnt give up on Natura yet. I personally feed and love Innova. It really is all about what you wish to do. Sure, I dont like the idea of P&G buying Natura, but at least it means I can buy it at a pet store now that doesnt sell puppies. I fed iams for a few weeks after I got my puppy ( shes over a year now) and started feeding Innova shortly after she developed skin issues, it helped a ton.

What I would suggest is ( and what I plan on doing) if you're feeding Natura products is to keep feeding if your pet is doing well and just keep a close eye on the forums,online and of course the bags for any news of change - if a major change is due start switching. It all depends on your priorities - if you dont want to support P&G, go ahead and switch. I dont like the idea, but I do like Innova. 

I sure hope there wont be change, but its hard to say for sure - P&G may keep the same formula because they have a part of a 'niche' market - it was said they wanted a part of the more natural market. They may change because change would be cheaper, and sometimes buisness is run that way. We'll see.

Keep feeding if you're ok with it, and just keep an eye out for change, thats what I'm doing


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

AddieNMel said:


> I sure hope there wont be change, but its hard to say for sure - P&G may keep the same formula because they have a part of a 'niche' market - it was said they wanted a part of the more natural market. They may change because change would be cheaper, and sometimes buisness is run that way. We'll see.


I've been a skeptic that things won't eventually change for the worse, but I would agree that IF the marketing arm of P&G believes that they can maximize Natura's profits by not changing a thing, it won't change a thing. 

I just hope that's what they believe. I remain skeptical that this will be their conclusion in the longer term, but I do hope it is.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

ziggy29 said:


> IF the marketing arm of P&G believes that they can maximize Natura's profits by not changing a thing, it won't change a thing.
> .


there is no doubt they can through their purchasing power alone. the question is, will they stop there. using their marketing power to mass market the products into the big box stores would make the products available to a larger consumer base who, lets be honest, as a whole are less knowledgeable about dog food than the average person who comes on sites like this, researches dog food, and seeks out the stores who sell Orijen, Instinct, EVO, etc...if they go in that direction, their incentive is certainly diminished for the food to stay at a level where it appeals to the much smaller percentage of buyers who have educated themselves somewhat on the dog food market.

my opinion is it is unlikely they would use their purchasing power, then mass market the food, yet maintain the current quality. could they? sure, they could.

i have already decided i will drop their products from my rotation. however, for those who decide to stick with them, dont necessarily expect any changes that are made to be conveniently announced ahead of time (especially any subtle changes).


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> its 4am here,and ihave work and a doctors appointment at 9am so idc about the other posts. i will say that anyone with a half of a brain knows natura is going down for the count. raw food dogs,im sorry but to have stock i na company that makes crud dog food,and does cruel unecessary tests on animals is not descriptive of good character on your part.
> 
> all animals participating in tests must be euthanized. and most of the products being tested will not ''need'' animal testing but they do it anyway.
> 
> ...


This whole discussion has gone beyond ridiculous as this post proves. 

People who are ranting & raving about a company who took over another company whose product is well regarded posting alarmist innuendo in order to support their claims.

I tell you what: if you don't want to buy Innova, don't buy it. Just leave the rest of us alone to make our OWN decisions based on our OWN research!


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

SubMariner said:


> This whole discussion has gone beyond ridiculous as this post proves.
> 
> People who are ranting & raving about a company who took over another company whose product is well regarded posting alarmist innuendo in order to support their claims.
> 
> I tell you what: if you don't want to buy Innova, don't buy it. Just leave the rest of us alone to make our OWN decisions based on our OWN research!


i dont think MOST of us are anywhere near hysterical, the post above not withstanding. some of us have researched things ad nauseum and come to a conclusion on one side or the other. there are also some on here who seem a bit too insistent that people should stick with the products even though some of us made decisions not to based on our own research and/or "gut" feelings.

i dont think it is unreasonable for anyone to continue feeding the products if that is where there comfort level is, nor do i think it is unreasonable for someone to decide to feed something else until they feel confident changes will not occur.

yes, there are some hysterical type comments, but those dont paint an accurate picture of everyone who is choosing to drop Natura products for the time being.


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

ziggy29 said:


> I've been a skeptic that things won't eventually change for the worse, but I would agree that IF the marketing arm of P&G believes that they can maximize Natura's profits by not changing a thing, it won't change a thing.
> 
> I just hope that's what they believe. I remain skeptical that this will be their conclusion in the longer term, but I do hope it is.


they can lower the quality of the meats they use,and they dont need to inform us on the bag...they can start buying from suppliers that use ethoxyquin and as long as they dont add it...they dont have to put it on their bags....change will be cheaper if its unnoticed.


----------



## ziggy29 (Feb 1, 2010)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> they can lower the quality of the meats they use,and they dont need to inform us on the bag...they can start buying from suppliers that use ethoxyquin and as long as they dont add it...they dont have to put it on their bags....change will be cheaper if its unnoticed.


Yes, but *if* enough people discover the changes to the point where it hurt sales, then it wouldn't maximize their overall profits even if their margins were improved on fewer sales.

I hope the saving grace here is that the buyers of Natura's products tend to be more informed and quality-conscious consumers, so it might be harder to "sneak" hidden changes into the product without it being noticed.


----------



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

buddy97 said:


> yes, there are some hysterical type comments, but those dont paint an accurate picture of everyone who is choosing to drop Natura products for the time being.


Before I look it up, as my memory serves, you did not feed Natura products to your dog, before the announcement of ownership change. Correct?


----------



## chowder (Sep 7, 2008)

Just for information sake, I was one of the people who did the survey for Natura on their new formula for their Red Meat and yes, I did receive my coupon for a free bag as payment in today's mail. The letter that came with it was hand signed by the manager and it was on Natura stationary in a Natura envelope so it was an actual survey done by their company. The "coupon" is even a custom filled out coupon where they hand fill in the box with the item you get for free. 

I also told them in the survey that I did not approve of their new formula and the reduction in protein they were planning.


----------



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

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> they can lower the quality of the meats they use,and they dont need to inform us on the bag...they can start buying from suppliers that use ethoxyquin and as long as they dont add it...they dont have to put it on their bags....change will be cheaper if its unnoticed.


riiiigght, surrrrre sure, they got it in for the doggies, they are gonna slip in some ethoxyquin, that's the tickect.

1. They don't need to change the formula, not changing it at all is the safest thing to do, and costs the least amount of money. Why change the Spaghetti Sauce Recipe from grandma
2. With more buying power they can demand better quality for lower prices. Costco is an example.
3. If they were to do secret changes, they would of course come to light, and then it would destroy them. So why would they take the chance? There is no way that active changes like those you and others profess are sure to happen, would not be uncovered. Even the biggest corporate moron knows that.
4. I am sure the individual employees at the company just hate animals.
5. If a product uses ethoxyquin they actually do have to show it, and even more so since the company specifically states:
_Natura's pet foods are preserved with Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols -- alpha, beta, gamma and delta isomers) and Vitamin C. We do not use any chemical preservatives such as BHA, BHT, or ethoxyquin._

Pardon me if I want to use a bit more logic that walking down the isle with devining rods to pick out which is the best food for my dog.


----------



## buddy97 (Mar 29, 2010)

93-5G20 said:


> 5. If a product uses ethoxyquin they actually do have to show it, and even more so since the company specifically states:
> _Natura's pet foods are preserved with Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols -- alpha, beta, gamma and delta isomers) and Vitamin C. We do not use any chemical preservatives such as BHA, BHT, or ethoxyquin._
> 
> .


all of the folloiwing is not to debate whether or not Ethoxyquin has been proven to harm dogs over the long run in the amounts that are allowed in pet food.....it is simply for those that are absolute in their decision to make sure they are feeding an ethoxyquin free food....and is admittedly a bit off topic.

maybe im wrong on this, but i dont see where a company has to state that they are receiving their ingredients from suppliers who use Ethoxyquin, even if the results are very small amounts in the finished product. they may state, as Natura does, what they are preserved with, but they only must state what they preserve with and not what is used by suppliers before they receive the ingredients.

im not saying Natura uses suppliers who use E. they dont state whether they do or not. for example, Diamond has always stated "we dont preserve with ethoxyquin"....of course they eventually admitted that their suppliers do.

this is not really a rant on Natura. im just questioning if it is correct that manufacturers are required to state somewhere on their bags that their is E in their food even if it is a tiny amount. my understanding has always been (an may be wrong) that if it wasn’t added by the pet food manufacturer, is not required to be listed within the ingredients on the label.

the few manufacturers that state clearly their suppliers dont use it have suppliers use NatuOx. all fish ingredients must be preserved with some preservative by suppliers. when a manufacturer says _"we preserve with Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols -- alpha, beta, gamma and delta isomers) and Vitamin C. We do not use any chemical preservatives such as BHA, BHT, or ethoxyquin"_..this in no way addresses what their suppliers are preserving with....it is a statement about what they use during manufacturing.

fo anyone concerned, just email or call your manufacturer and ask for a statement that says 1)all their suppliers preserve with a preservative other than E and 2)that the manufacturer doesnt use E at manufacturing. Natura, and most others, are only making a statement on the latter point.


----------



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

buddy97 said:


> maybe im wrong on this, but i dont see where a company has to state that they are receiving their ingredients from suppliers who use Ethoxyquin, even if the results are very small amounts in the finished product. they may state, as Natura does, what they are preserved with, but they only must state what they preserve with and not what is used by suppliers before they receive the ingredients.




If they say its not preserved with Ethoxyquin, it means the entire product, they are selling the finished product, that is the end unit, any components they use from whatever source they are responsible for. I would also expect them to test their suppliers with random sampling too.

If a company says no Ethoxyquin, and they have suppliers giving it to them with Ethoxyquin, either known or not known, it would be the easiest lawsuit ever. If they were to admit that with an email back it would be even crazier.

Preserved with X, means anywhere in the supply chain to the final product.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

93-5G20 said:


> If they say its not preserved with Ethoxyquin, it means the entire product, they are selling the finished product, that is the end unit, any components they use from whatever source they are responsible for.


Thats not exactly true. You have to watch the wording of their statement and it was so long ago in this thread that I have forgotten but none the less what many dog food manufacturers say is that they don't preserve their food with E or they don't put E in their food. If the E is added by their supplier, they have no legal requirement to say so. They have no legal requirement to state that E is contained in their product unless they themselves added it. If it was already part of an ingredient, they don't have to say so.



> I would also expect them to test their suppliers with random sampling too.


You are expecting A LOT more than you are going to get.



> If a company says no Ethoxyquin, and they have suppliers giving it to them with Ethoxyquin, either known or not known, it would be the easiest lawsuit ever. If they were to admit that with an email back it would be even crazier.


Again, it depends on the wording of their statement and they have a lot of highly paid people in their marketing department that can say something is such a way as to lead you to believe they said something else. If they say it CONTAINS no E then it should be in there. However if they say something like "We don't use E as a preservative in our food." or "No E added to our food." or something similar, it could still be in there added by the supplier before they bought it. You have to watch the wording very very carefully. They are real good at this.



> Preserved with X, means anywhere in the supply chain to the final product.


Nope, not so.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

I think that you all are forgetting a small bit of information in that Natura and P&G have both claimed they will not be changing anything, including their location of operation. They will continue to manufacture in a small factory that is likely incapable of producing in quantities to line the shelves of big box stores such as Petco, Petsmart, Walmart, etc. I personally do not think they will have the abilities to buy in such bulk (8000 tons as opposed to 200 tons) as to get 20% off of their meats. It is my person OPINION that, because of the fact that they say they will not be picking up and moving manufacturing, that they will be unable to produce the quantity they want and still keep the quality at cheaper prices. Does this definitely mean that P&G will change the Innova/EVO product? No, it doesn't. Does this mean I BELIEVE (and for those who do not know the meaning of 'believe,' it is an OPINION), the quality will go down? I most certainly do believe that. Does any of this matter? No, because I never fed Innova/EVO and never will.

As for the argument about animal testing, be it done by their own facilities, to the product in question, or by companies associated with them, it is my personal OPINION that they do not have the ethical qualities I am looking for in a company. The fact that NONE of their products list "Not Tested On Animals" is enough for me to not want to use their products, because I feel that if a company does not print this on their label, most of the time it's because they DO animal testing. I mean, it can only be profitable to put it on the label, considering there are many consumers who do not want a product tested on animals and will specifically look for that label, and people who don't care one way or another aren't going to care whether it says that on the label. To me, even the fact that they associated with a company that did such horrible animal testing makes me question their ethics, even if it was not them that were participating in such cruel acts. The fact that they severed ties with such a company once they were out in the open has no effect on my decision whatsoever, because that only tells me that they cut ties to appease their consumers, not just because it was unethical. I'm not one of them, so I can't say whether or not this is true, but it is what I THINK is true.

I work at a restaurant, and I deal with a lot of people every day. There have been several instances where I've heard people claim Iams and Eukanuba to be the best dog food on the planet, where I've heard people recommending these as the BEST of the BEST. And how much does Eukanuba cost? Well, the last time I was at Petco looking at dog foods, it was $55. That's the prices of a bag of Wellness, or Solid Gold, or many, many, many, MANY of the other more decent brands that I have seen. Personally, I do not believe that Iams and Eukanuba are decent in any way, shape, or form, but I'm not a very educated person in the way of dog foods. One thing I do know, however, is that yes, there are PLENTY of decent brands, or even GOOD brands that are the same prices, or in some chases cheaper, than Iams and Eukanuba. That right there tells me (AGAIN, an OPINION) that they try to sell horrible quality food for higher prices, trying to fit into that higher quality niche that everyone is talking about, especially considering how many people there are out there that THINK it's the greatest brand. If they think that Eukanuba is a great brand for $55 a bag, and then Natura completely flips the formula of Innova/EVO to market it out in greater quantities for higher prices and less quality, do you really think it's not going to work? What I'm trying to get at is that even if P&G loses business in its old Natura consumers, it's not going to hit them, because they can just replace that small loss with even bigger gains in telling people it's the best of the best and having them fall for it, just like they fell for Eukanuba.

AGAIN, all of this is solely based on opinion, not fact.

PS - 


> BUT, do I think that the quality of Natura products will surely decline in the hands of P&G? Absolutely.


To think is solely opinion, no matter whether they use the word "surely" or not. "I most _certainly_ think that the quality will decline." "I _surely_ believe that the quality will go down." Is it grammatically correct? Nope. Does it mean that "think" has a different definition? Nope.


----------

