Dog Food Chat banner

1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.

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.......

1) unnecessary animal testing on products where not only is it not required by the fda but there are other companies managing to safely offer the same products wiothout doing animal testing

2) the mass marketing and selling of garbage commercial food (iams and eukanuba) with no effort to improve them.

......i dont even need to act on what they might do. their past and present is enough such that they do not deserve my benefit of the doubt.

one can label it a political agenda...semantics. people can wait to see if the ingredients change. that is their choice. the quality control and/or sourcing of ingredients may or may not change. however, if one or both of those items changes, it is not something that will be readily visible on a label or confiirmed by the company. there are plenty of other choices, so waiting to see if a company i am skeptical about keeps its promises (and changes current unethical behavior) is not a hardship in any way.

as far as budgetary concerns, there are actual quality foods available that are cheaper than iams and eukanuba. i dont see value as a reasonable argument in favor of either of those foods.

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

point being there are cheaper foods that actually do have a named meat product as the true first ingredient (Kirkland or Chicken soup foods, for example).........so i will continue to say that even for the price, Iams and eukanuba are not reasonable foods and P&G have never made an effort to make them better in quality or else drastically cut their costs to reflect the low standards of the foods.

do i have an agenda? absolutely. that being that i want to feed a quality food made by a company i feel i can trust to a fairly high degree. P&G has to earn that. if others want to give them their trust, that is their choice. to some its only about the ingredient label and nothing else. for me, there is much more consideration that goes into it.

in short, i am not obliged to trust what a huge conglomerate is feeding me through their PR department/lawyers. it is their job to earn my trust. their past and current behavior as well as their ridiculous assertions that iams and eukanuba are both quality products and reasonably priced go nowhere toward earning any trust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
Gee, does anyone care that a bunch of dogs that eat Iams are getting sick!:eek:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,713 Posts
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).

on point #3 your continued contention that iams and eukanuba are reasonable products is laughable. even some raw feeding members here concede that feeding foods with brewers rice or chicken by product as the main ingredient is highly undesirable vs a food that actually has meat as the first REAL ingredient.

on point #4 you have indicted P&G perfectly by saying "it does not change the facts that the status quo at the MINIMUM was maintained by P&G".

P&G are the ones who claimed, when they made the acquisition, that their goal was to provide "the highest quality food at reasonable prices". they epically failed to do this on both fronts, and your admission that they merely maintained a poor food (and didnt even cut prices to reflect the poor level of the food) confirms this.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
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 ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
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:

Clairol, Crest, Gillette, Giorgio, Iams, Max Factor, Physique, Tide. the fda does not require testing on many of the products for which they still do animal testing. it is a fact that more than 600 companies manufacture safe and effective products that are comparable to Procter & Gamble’s without testing them on animals. Companies with smaller budgets than P&G have been able to develop alternatives to animals while showing a true commitment to eliminating animal testing.

but dont sweat it. just keep an eye on your P&G shares. thats really all that is important.:rolleyes:

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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,419 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,085 Posts
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. :cool:

That's all I'm gonna say.
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top