# Proctor & Gamble to purchase Natura Pet



## jwemt81 (Aug 20, 2008)

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9FGP1IG0.htm

I just wanted to share this with anyone who currently uses a food made by Natura (Innova, EVO, California Natural, Healthwise, and Karma). I'm totally in shock. This is really ironic because we literally JUST switched our dogs from California Natural to Fromm last week only because we wanted something with a bit more protein, so now I'm really glad that we did! It's a sad, sad day in the dog food world. :no:


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

This is terrible .... badddd move Natura


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

SO SO sad! Innova will off our rotation list now. Thank doG for NOW and Fromm.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Are you freakin' kidding me? I'm not the least bit happy about that...

Riley has been on a 1/2 & 1/2 mix of California Natural and Fromm. Looks like we're going to straight Fromm now.

Thank you for the heads-up!!


----------



## marieb (Mar 24, 2008)

Woww that is a really bad move on Natura's part. I'm also happy that I switched Maddie off Innova ...


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

Not shocking news - but totally disappointing. I've fed EVO as part of my dogs' rotation for years.

I would bet that within a year we will see tweaking of ingredients, percentages and sourcing of ingredients to boost the bottom line. Natura will no doubt be the top of the P & G line, but I doubt it will stay at the same level it is now.

I don't buy any P & G products so I will be crossing Natura off my list now. It gave me a little satisfaction to e-mail Natura and express my feelings.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

To everyone that uses this food: 
I understand that you like that it is a private company but what scares you so bad about it being bought by a big company? Do you worry that that they will change the formula or the quality of the food? What if nothing about the company changes? I know with the economy some of the smaller companies were having a hard time surviving. Dont think that I am slamming you, I am just wondering why everyone thinks this is such a bad idea.


----------



## marieb (Mar 24, 2008)

BeauShel said:


> To everyone that uses this food:
> I understand that you like that it is a private company but what scares you so bad about it being bought by a big company? Do you worry that that they will change the formula or the quality of the food? What if nothing about the company changes? I know with the economy some of the smaller companies were having a hard time surviving. Dont think that I am slamming you, I am just wondering why everyone thinks this is such a bad idea.


If I still fed this food, I would be concerned about formula changes and the quality of the food changing. Natura is known for being a small company that does not sell their food to places like PETCO, etc. and I would be concerned that they would try and produce more food and the quality might not be the same.

From the FAQ's on the natura website:
"Why isn't the pet food sold at Petco or Petsmart? We do not sell our natural pet products to mass merchandisers or national chains. All of our pet food distributors and retailers are independently owned pet supply shops, vet clinics, groomers, feed stores, kennels and health food stores. People just like you, who care about healthy animals, operate these stores. We are very loyal to these people, for without them, there would be no Natura."


----------



## Belle's Mom (Jan 24, 2007)

Beaushel - Thanks for posting that. I was just thinking the same thing but was concerned that I was missing something and would sound silly posting it. I am curious to see the responses. I was not sure if history showed that when dog food companies went from private to purchased by large companies that the quality always went down, etc...


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Yes, I think that even though Natura was not a small Mom & Pop company, it was privately held by the people who started it and had a vested interest in the quality of the products. They have their own plant ( interesting to see if that changes) which is important when I'm looking at food. Natura was started because they wanted a higher quality food that what they saw in the marketplace... can't say the same for P&G.


----------



## Augie's Mom (Sep 28, 2007)

I now feed raw, but my concern with these acquisitions is that the ingredient quality usually degrades. These large companies operate on economies of scale and over time will start merging production facilities and the sourcing of food ingredients.

In my opinion, they are buying the company for its name and reputation.

There isn't anything preventing the large companies from producing quality foods in their existing lines yet they choose to use inferior ingredients. Look at the human side of the food chain, why do they put trans fats and high fructose corn syrup in our foods. If they aren't willing to improve the ingredients in the food made for people, realistically will they do it for pets? 

I will step down from my soap box now. :--big_grin:


----------



## jwemt81 (Aug 20, 2008)

marieb said:


> If I still fed this food, I would be concerned about formula changes and the quality of the food changing. Natura is known for being a small company that does not sell their food to places like PETCO, etc. and I would be concerned that they would try and produce more food and the quality might not be the same.


That's my main concern as well. Tucker has food allergies (confirmed by testing last fall), so we have to be very careful when selecting a food for him. He can't eat anything with corn or wheat products without getting massive ear infections, itchy skin, and a dull coat. I always loved how Natura was a smaller sized company and only sold their products to select stores. There are only two places that carry their products where we live, a locally owned pet shop and a boarding kennel/training facility. Now that it's going to be mass produced by P&G, I worry that the ingredients will change and the quality will go down. So many owners with allergy dogs depend on foods like California Natural. When we decided a couple of weeks ago that we wanted to switch our boys to a food with a little more protein, we looked for a company that was comparable to Natura, small and family owned and that makes formulas that Tucker can tolerate, which is why we ended up going with Fromm. So far, both Tucker and Tyson are doing wonderfully on it and the absolutely love the Duck & Sweet Potato formula. I guess we will be sticking with Fromm from now on.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

I'm sure I am not the only one to email the WDJ about this to ask them to look into any changes that might happen. I just rotated CA Nat back in and just picked up two bags of Healthwise today. I can only hope that P&G will keep the quality because the really do want to be into holistic foods instead of calling it holistic and cutting corners. I really hope there was something in the contract of sale from Natura specifying that the quality can not be changed.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

BeauShel said:


> To everyone that uses this food:
> I understand that you like that it is a private company but what scares you so bad about it being bought by a big company? Do you worry that that they will change the formula or the quality of the food? What if nothing about the company changes? I know with the economy some of the smaller companies were having a hard time surviving. Dont think that I am slamming you, I am just wondering why everyone thinks this is such a bad idea.


I don't like this as P&G tests on animals for other products. I don't support their products period and go out of my way to buy other brands when I'm in the store. A friend of mine is a chemist- was offered a job @ P&G. Declined also because of their testing on animals. :yuck:

Crossing Innova LBP off of my list for the new puppy. :no:

I'll spend more to give Acana or Fromm. Probably will go with Fromm since it is made in the USA.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...5DNjgU&sig=AHIEtbSAO7i93ddaVEI37A9qwdZFchRi-A


----------



## Bock (Jun 23, 2008)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

BeauShel said:


> To everyone that uses this food:
> I understand that you like that it is a private company but what scares you so bad about it being bought by a big company?


Because P&G is a public company and that = evil to them. Silly, but that's the way many feel.



marieb said:


> Natura is known for being a small company that does not sell their food to places like PETCO, etc.


There are many places like where I live that do not have small specialty food stores that sells products like Natura. We just got a PETCO 4 years ago and felt like the world was opening up to us. PETCO is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this will bring Natura Products to people that never had a chance to buy it, other than those willing to pay freight charges to get it direct.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

So if Natura was such a wonderful company (and my Shadow is eating CN) why would they sell out to P & G? Money? Tucker is on Fromm. I will have to decide what to do if something needs to be done.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

msdogs1976 said:


> Because P&G is a public company and that = evil to them. Silly, but that's the way many feel.


Or maybe they don't like animal testing. Or maybe they are concerned about cross contamination if they start producing it in the same factories as the foods that have corn in it (especially if they have a dog with corn allergies). Or maybe they are concerned that the quality will suffer under a giant corporation instead of the small company that they were. Why does it always equal silly to you when people feel strongly about the food they feed their dogs?


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

What about where they get their ingredients from? Will they still be careful to pick suppliers who do not use ethoxyquin?

I also do not support companies that do animal testing. I will not feed Natura Products ever again. I am so disappointed. 

I'm glad that I just switched to Fromm as well.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Fromm does not make a formula that Shadow can eat! All of the fish formulas do something awful to his coat. Why they have to add chicken to the pork formula is a mystery to me. That would be the only other food he could try from them, but he's allergic to chicken, so no Fromm for him. Drives me crazy...


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Kimm, have you looked into Blue Buffalo? They have an adult lamb & rice formula. It does have fish in it as well. I'm not sure how it would work with his coat since it has the fish AND lamb. They also have a "basic" turkey & potato recipe. Is he okay with turkey or is it too close to chicken? They have a venison canned food and I'm really hoping that they come out with a venison dry food. We'd love to get venison in Enzo's protein rotation once he's a little older.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

msdogs1976 said:


> Because P&G is a public company and that = evil to them. Silly, but that's the way many feel.
> 
> There are many places like where I live that do not have small specialty food stores that sells products like Natura. We just got a PETCO 4 years ago and felt like the world was opening up to us. PETCO is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this will bring Natura Products to people that never had a chance to buy it, other than those willing to pay freight charges to get it direct.


I could care less if it is publicly traded or if it is privately owned as long as a committment to excellence is/was maintained.

My problem lies with their TESTING ON ANIMALS.  I don't think any animal picked up for free in the newspaper knows that it's fate is to have mascara put into it's eyes, etc. I won't support a company that does animal testing like this. It is a far cry from testing foods for being palatable or seeing if the aroma is pleasing to a hungry animal. Sorry, but it isn't silly.



fostermom said:


> Or maybe they don't like animal testing. Or maybe they are concerned about cross contamination if they start producing it in the same factories as the foods that have corn in it (especially if they have a dog with corn allergies). Or maybe they are concerned that the quality will suffer under a giant corporation instead of the small company that they were. Why does it always equal silly to you when people feel strongly about the food they feed their dogs?


:wavey:What she said!



nixietink said:


> What about where they get their ingredients from? Will they still be careful to pick suppliers who do not use ethoxyquin?
> 
> I also do not support companies that do animal testing. I will not feed Natura Products ever again. I am so disappointed.
> 
> I'm glad that I just switched to Fromm as well.


Agree 100%. You just can't be sure if they'll maintain the committment to excellence that Natura had. I am very eager to see what happens within the company and their products. Will the food still only be made in the Natura plants? If so, I think that is a good sign.


----------



## Goldilocks (Jun 3, 2007)

Wow - I am just in total shock. I cannot believe Natura would sell to a huge company that makes toothpaste and floor cleaner amongst other products. Time will tell if the quality remains the same, however, I have a hard time trusting that it will or even if they say it's the same that it actually is. Glad I am feeding mostly raw. Very sad news.....


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Enzos_Mom said:


> Kimm, have you looked into Blue Buffalo? They have an adult lamb & rice formula. It does have fish in it as well. I'm not sure how it would work with his coat since it has the fish AND lamb. They also have a "basic" turkey & potato recipe. Is he okay with turkey or is it too close to chicken? They have a venison canned food and I'm really hoping that they come out with a venison dry food. We'd love to get venison in Enzo's protein rotation once he's a little older.


Shadow is allergic to chicken, turkey, corn, milk products, borderline allergic to duck and rabbit. The fish formulas make his coat go crazy. It even concerned his ortho surgeon when he saw him. His response was, "I've never seen anything like that!" :uhoh: 

I checked the Blue Buffalo. The addition of fish concerns me a bit. I can't remember if it was the BB that also has barley grass. We know Shadow also has environmental allergies, but we keep most of the problems under control by avoiding food he has problems with and the accumulative/cumulative effect. He did great on Canidae and then they changed the formula. I can take a look at canned food, but for some reason I think Tucker may go nuts!


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

Kim, I'd continue with CN until you find a reason not to. If the allergies are that severe, it isn't worth your sanity to experiment with foods when you know what he does well on. As much as it would be hard for me to buy from P&G, if you have to, you have to. If they change the formulas you might eventually have to change, but I wouldn't jump the gun in your case.


----------



## Doodle (Apr 6, 2009)

We are in the same situation as Kimm. CN lamb and rice has been the ONLY food we've tried that Brady has done well on because he is allergic to chicken, eggs, wheat and oats. I also am concerned that the quality of the ingredients will change with the buy out. For anyone who is interested, I just checked the Natural Balance website. They have a limited ingredient lamb meal and rice formula that is almost identical to CN:

Lamb Meal, Brown Rice, Ground White Rice, Rice Bran, Canola Oil, Lamb, Tomato Pomace, Natural Flavor, Sodium Chloride, Potassium Chloride, Choline Chloride, Natural Mixed Tocopherols, Taurine, Vitamin E Supplement, Iron Proteinate, Zinc Proteinate, Copper Proteinate, Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Potassium Iodide, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B-1), Manganese Proteinate, Manganous Oxide, Ascorbic Acid, Vitamin A Supplement, Biotin, Calcium Pantothenate, Manganese Sulfate, Sodium Selenite, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B-6), Vitamin B-12 Supplement, Riboflavin (Vitamin B-2), Vitamin D-3 Supplement, Folic Acid.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

fostermom said:


> Or maybe they don't like animal testing. Or maybe they are concerned about cross contamination if they start producing it in the same factories as the foods that have corn in it (especially if they have a dog with corn allergies). Or maybe they are concerned that the quality will suffer under a giant corporation instead of the small company that they were. *Why does it always equal silly to you when people feel strongly about the food they feed their dogs?*


Didn't say that. I said it was silly to consider all big corporations evil. As far as dog testing goes, we had a Eukanuba employee respond to some of those allegations here sometime back. Can't find her post but below are a couple of links that give a different take on the animal testing concerns, including the company's response. But we believe who we want to believe. And it is a popular thing right now to be anti-corporate America. 

http://is-it-true-that.askavetquestion.com/is-it-true-that-iams-charged-cruelty-animals/

http://www.iamsagainstcruelty.com/iac/jsp/actionAgainstAnimalCruelty/boycott.jsp

Most all of these smaller companies are going to eventually be bought out if they have any sales punch to them. What are you going to do then?


----------



## 58loosy (Apr 18, 2010)

It's my last bag of puppy calif. natural she is 8mos. was going to go to adult but I definitely won't now. My springer is on wellness or blue geez can't think of the name, lol. What do you think of those 2 brands?


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Kimm said:


> Shadow is allergic to chicken, turkey, corn, milk products, borderline allergic to duck and rabbit. The fish formulas make his coat go crazy. It even concerned his ortho surgeon when he saw him. His response was, "I've never seen anything like that!" :uhoh:
> 
> I checked the Blue Buffalo. The addition of fish concerns me a bit. I can't remember if it was the BB that also has barley grass. We know Shadow also has environmental allergies, but we keep most of the problems under control by avoiding food he has problems with and the accumulative/cumulative effect. He did great on Canidae and then they changed the formula. I can take a look at canned food, but for some reason I think Tucker may go nuts!


I'm always looking at different foods. I've become a little bit obsessed with reading ingredients lists. I'll be sure to let you know if I see anything that looks like Shadow could handle it.


----------



## Doodle (Apr 6, 2009)

58loosy said:


> It's my last bag of puppy calif. natural she is 8mos. was going to go to adult but I definitely won't now. My springer is on wellness or blue geez can't think of the name, lol. What do you think of those 2 brands?


Wellness recently got bought out by a big company too. They call themselves WellPet and acquired Wellness, Eagle Pack, Diamond and a couple of others.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

Kimm, have you tried Natural Balance? I looked at their website and they have 2 kinds that are limited ingredient diets and don't contain any of the things you mentioned that Shadow was allergic to. They have a Sweet Potato & Venison formula as well as a Sweet Potato & Bison formula. I'll keep looking around and let you know if I come up with any other ideas in case CN changes their formula.


----------



## 58loosy (Apr 18, 2010)

What company was it? Do you think it's okay, he had skin problems that cleared up when starting on wellness quite a few mos ago. It is Blue buffalo that was recommended.


----------



## Enzos_Mom (Apr 8, 2010)

My pup is on Blue Buffalo and does very well on it. Some dogs have a hard time with it because of the richness. I've heard that it can cause diarrhea in some dogs.


----------



## Doodle (Apr 6, 2009)

Enzos_Mom said:


> Kimm, have you tried Natural Balance? I looked at their website and they have 2 kinds that are limited ingredient diets and don't contain any of the things you mentioned that Shadow was allergic to. They have a Sweet Potato & Venison formula as well as a Sweet Potato & Bison formula. I'll keep looking around and let you know if I come up with any other ideas in case CN changes their formula.


Please look back on page 3 of this thread...I also posted the ingredients of Natural Balance's lamb and rice formula which is very similar to CN lamb and rice. It also doesn't contain Shadow's allergens. At least we have alternatives....


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

I purchase Eukanuba -- have fed it on the advice of my breeder, who has been breeding goldens for more than 30 years. I am very happy with Eukanuba--I feed the large breed lamb and rice. Eukanuba, as well as Iams, is manufactured by Proctor and Gamble.

It's a free country, and certainly we're all free to purchase, or not purchase food from certain companies. I am very happy with a Proctor and Gamble product.

I believe someone has posted information regarding P&G's position on animal testing--this in a link to an article on CBS Business Network, saying P&G may benefit from BP's oil spill--why? It is the manufacturer of Dawn, the only detergent safe enough to clean the wildlife--P&G has already shipped a couple of thousand bottles--

http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10006677/how-bps-oil-spill-will-create-a-gusher-of-money-for-pgs-dishwashing-liquid/

Speaking of business, if any of you are that set against P&G as a company, or their acquisition, you might want to double check your mutual funds--for example, Vanguard, Fidelity--they own shares--actually 59% of P&G's shares are owned by mutual funds according to Yahoo Finance--if you all are that much against the company, I would assume you wouldn't want to invest in it either. Just an FYI.


----------



## 58loosy (Apr 18, 2010)

I guess blue buffalo won't be good for Lucy we started on c.n. for sensitive stomach, could go to natural balance?


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

Its very possible you won't have formula changes...as the company bought this brand because it is considered valuable to them. P&G has different segements.

The advantage that might come from this is that P&G is a sound company with financial backing that might result in keeping the same ingredients...or even improving the quality of the ingredients.

Natura might have sold because they were stuggling....its when a company is struggling when you should worry about the quality going in to the ingredients. Its those struggling companies that do all they can to help the bottom line..


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

If I remember correctly NB was part of recall a few years ago??? I'm not sure I want to jump to another product until I know the one he is doing well on doesn't help him anymore, especially one that may have been part of a recall. Sigh As for animal testing, I don't like it. I don't eat meat anymore and I wear pleather. If I have anything leather in my closest, it's old! Oh, I do have two leather leashes that I purchased 6 years ago. They will be here for eternity because I won't buy another.

I don't want to panic. I'd go with Purina if I could, but they add corn to everything! Chicken, too??? I can't remember.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

msdogs1976 said:


> Didn't say that. I said it was silly to consider all big corporations evil. As far as dog testing goes, we had a Eukanuba employee respond to some of those allegations here sometime back. Can't find her post but below are a couple of links that give a different take on the animal testing concerns, including the company's response. But we believe who we want to believe. And it is a popular thing right now to be anti-corporate America.
> 
> http://is-it-true-that.askavetquestion.com/is-it-true-that-iams-charged-cruelty-animals/
> 
> ...


Probably go ahead and switch to feeding raw.

Who says it's popular to be anti-corporate America? I think that almost any post here from people who are upset with the news has been because of concerns that the formula in the foods will change. It's not uncommon for that to happen when a larger company acquires a smaller company.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Yup
Soon no longer a "boutique", "fancy", "hazardous to health" food ... like some call it around here ...
Soon ...
Never fails


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

marieb said:


> If I still fed this food, I would be concerned about formula changes and the quality of the food changing. Natura is known for being a small company that does not sell their food to places like PETCO, etc. and I would be concerned that they would try and produce more food and the quality might not be the same.


This is what concerns me, too. I'd no longer trust the quality of the ingredients once they're answering to a big company, its board members and shareholders. I can't help feeling that the bottom line is going to be their top priority, at the expense of quality.

I like that Natura has been a smaller company and I've trusted that they stand by their claim of producing a safe, high-quality food. I've never met the owners, I've never toured their facilities, so it's possible that what I'm paying for is a false sense of security. Is their food that much better for dogs than some of the massed-produced ones? I don't know. I think any manufactured food can be a roll of the dice, but I _feel_ better about a small, privately held company.

And I can't argue with the results I've seen with CN. One small formula change could undo everything. Yes, I realize that Natura could always institute a formula change at any time too, but I feel that it would be more likely to happen when they're answering to a huge corporation.

Like others have mentioned, I too don't like the fact that P & G tests on animals. I think it speaks to their ethics as a company. If they'll torture animals, I can't trust them to be overly concerned with the safety of mine.


----------



## 58loosy (Apr 18, 2010)

so confused what to change my puppy to in a couple of mos. she has been on califoria natural, just looked at blue buffalo it had a recall in 07' also.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Doodle said:


> Wellness recently got bought out by a big company too. They call themselves WellPet and acquired Wellness, Eagle Pack, Diamond and a couple of others.


WellPet didn't aquire Diamond as far as I know. They have Eagle, Wellness, Old Mother Hubbard and Holistic select.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Lucky's mom said:


> Natura might have sold because they were stuggling....its when a company is struggling when you should worry about the quality going in to the ingredients. Its those struggling companies that do all they can to help the bottom line..


They're not struggling at all. They've been wanting to sell for awhile now. The owners just want to retire, that's all. They're in their seventies and feel it's time.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

kwhit said:


> WellPet didn't aquire Diamond as far as I know. They have Eagle, Wellness, Old Mother Hubbard and Holistic select.


Here is the Wellpet site http://www.wellpet.com/ You're right in that they didn't acquire Diamond, although from what I've read previously, they are farming out some of the manufacturing to Diamond.


----------



## Doodle (Apr 6, 2009)

kwhit said:


> WellPet didn't aquire Diamond as far as I know. They have Eagle, Wellness, Old Mother Hubbard and Holistic select.


I read it in one of the latest issues of The Whole Dog Journal...maybe they had misinformation???


----------



## Doodle (Apr 6, 2009)

Wellness also has 3 limited ingredient foods designed for dogs with allergies. The carb is the first ingredient and the protein second, which, IMO is not ideal, but if the CN gets changed, some of us may not have many choices.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Doodle said:


> I read it in one of the latest issues of The Whole Dog Journal...maybe they had misinformation???


Now you have me curious...I think I'll call both my Diamond rep. and my WellPet rep. today...

Which issue of WDJ had this info?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I know I won't be popular for saying this, but I never trusted NaturaPet in the first place. I don't particularly trust any companies, but NaturaPet's marketing has always been very misleading. For example, their Karma food line is marketed as "organic," even though it cannot be USDA labeled as organic food. It uses mostly organic ingredients, so they use that to make you think you're getting USDA approved organic dog food, which you aren't.

By the same token, they call their Innova brand "holistic" without ever defining what that means (and unlike "organic," there's no legal standard for "holistic" either), and EVO is labeled as "ancestral," which is yet another word that sounds great but has no legal definition, nor any internal standards defined by NaturaPet.

It's like that Beneful food with the carrots on the front; it's marketing meant to make you feel the food is biologically appropriate or extra-special or more healthy than other foods. It's not evidence-based terminology with a binding definition. Are there carrots in Beneful? Who knows? Is EVO actually formulated to be like a wolf's diet? Who knows, what would that actually mean (wolves don't eat kibble from bags), and why is that desirable?

I don't regard NaturaPet as more trustworthy than Purina (Nestle) or Eukanuba (P&G). I regard them all with the same level of suspicion. Eukanuba used to be the brand marketed as high-end, but then NaturaPet created better marketing that allowed them to sell dog food that was even more expensive, P&G didn't try to compete in that market at first, so instead, now that it's a great, profitable niche, they'll just buy them and continue their marketing plan.

As far as I'm concerned, the only standards that matter on dog foods are the ones that are defined, binding, and observable: GA numbers, AAFCO standards, USDA standards, ingredient definitions, etc.

And why is a food more desirable if Petco's not allowed to carry it? Or if it's not available at the supermarket? Keeping your product out of the supermarket has always been about creating the feeling that it's a special product. It's completely NOT about maintaining quality.


----------



## marieb (Mar 24, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> And why is a food more desirable if Petco's not allowed to carry it? Or if it's not available at the supermarket? Keeping your product out of the supermarket has always been about creating the feeling that it's a special product. It's completely NOT about maintaining quality.


I disagree with this. I don't think that the food was more desirable because you couldn't buy it in grocery stores or PETCO, I liked this food because it was made at their own plant and I knew that it wasn't being as mass-produced as some dog foods - like "Beneful." My concern would still be about maintaining quality.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Is it possible that those of us who feed the foods are maybe more intelligent than to fall for what you call misleading marketing (I actually haven't seen them market, I've only seen their website) and pretty pictures? Possibly we read the ingredients and the guaranteed analysis? You may poo poo us dummies all you like, but some of us are actually smart enough to read labels and do research beyond what is on a dog food website.

We understand that you like the food you feed. Is anyone telling you to change?


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Personally, I'd rather see my $$$ go towards ingredient quality than some fancy misleading ad with birds chirping in the background

http://www.eukanuba.com/EukGlobal/US/en/jsp/naturallywild/NaturallyWild.jsp
Volume ON !!!


----------



## marieb (Mar 24, 2008)

fostermom said:


> Is it possible that those of us who feed the foods are maybe more intelligent than to fall for what you call misleading marketing (I actually haven't seen them market, I've only seen their website) and pretty pictures? Possibly we read the ingredients and the guaranteed analysis? You may poo poo us dummies all you like, but some of us are actually smart enough to read labels and do research beyond what is on a dog food website.
> 
> We understand that you like the food you feed. Is anyone telling you to change?


I also agree ...


----------



## randalp24 (May 1, 2009)

...bummer...just recently switched Rocky over to Innova, after doing extensive reserach on dog food. He is doing great on this food. I really don't want to have to switch him again, so I will be paying close attention to see how all this shakes out.


----------



## Blondie (Oct 10, 2009)

Awww darn! I'm so disappointed about this. I don't want anyone messing with my dog's food, especially a big corporation that makes products like Fabreeze and chemical laden items. I'm glad I learned of this here and now, so there's time to swith to something else. Perhaps I'll try that Fromm that other's have mentioned? It's back to the drawing board. And I just got done with all of that dogfood research that I spent so much time on and telling all of my coworkers who are dog owners and were feeding crap to their animals! UGH!


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> Here is the Wellpet site http://www.wellpet.com/ You're right in that they didn't acquire Diamond, although from what I've read previously, they are farming out some of the manufacturing to Diamond.


Yep, Diamond is one of their manufacturers. I'm not sure exactly which brands/formulas are manufactured by Diamond - I think it's Eagle Pack, but I'm not positive and I don't know if that's the _only_ product manufactured by them.

I know their Core Ocean formula and Old Mother Hubbard treats are NOT manufactured by Diamond. (Or at least they weren't as of about six months ago.) Those were the only two products that I asked about because those are the only two Wellpet products that we use.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

LifeOfRiley said:


> Yep, Diamond is one of their manufacturers. I'm not sure exactly which brands/formulas are manufactured by Diamond - I think it's Eagle Pack, but I'm not positive and I don't know if that's the _only_ product manufactured by them.
> 
> I know their Core Ocean formula and Old Mother Hubbard treats are NOT manufactured by Diamond. (Or at least they weren't as of about six months ago.) Those were the only two products that I asked about because those are the only two Wellpet products that we use.


That's surprising to me since Eagle Pack had their own manufacturing plant.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

If Purina made a food I can feed my Shadow, I would be switching him. If I remember correctly, I may be wrong. Maybe it's one of their selects formula that Shadow can eat??? I will have to check it out.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> That's surprising to me since Eagle Pack had their own manufacturing plant.


Oh, I could be wrong -- it might not be Eagle Pack. I remember reading on another forum that Eagle Pack was manufactured by Diamond, but I never checked it out because it wasn't a food I was considering at the time.


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

This is positively HORRIFIC news 

H O R R I F I C !!!!


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

Because Proctor & Gamble is a publicly owned conglomerate that doesn't know squat about dog food. They make soaps, toothpaste, and other highly consumable people products.

Being public, they will, by necessity, care more about share-holder profits than they do the quality of what goes into the dog food.

The Bean Counters win above all in companies like this.

Dammit.




BeauShel said:


> To everyone that uses this food:
> I understand that you like that it is a private company but what scares you so bad about it being bought by a big company? Do you worry that that they will change the formula or the quality of the food? What if nothing about the company changes? I know with the economy some of the smaller companies were having a hard time surviving. Dont think that I am slamming you, I am just wondering why everyone thinks this is such a bad idea.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

marieb said:


> I disagree with this. I don't think that the food was more desirable because you couldn't buy it in grocery stores or PETCO, I liked this food because it was made at their own plant and I knew that it wasn't being as mass-produced as some dog foods - like "Beneful." My concern would still be about maintaining quality.


So where you can buy it isn't the issue, but rather the size of the company and the amount that's manufactured every year?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

fostermom said:


> Is it possible that those of us who feed the foods are maybe more intelligent than to fall for what you call misleading marketing (I actually haven't seen them market, I've only seen their website) and pretty pictures? Possibly we read the ingredients and the guaranteed analysis? You may poo poo us dummies all you like, but some of us are actually smart enough to read labels and do research beyond what is on a dog food website.
> 
> We understand that you like the food you feed. Is anyone telling you to change?


I didn't come anywhere near calling you or anyone else a dummy. I took specific objection to the way the food is marketed and speculated that they would continue to market it in this fashion.

If you like the ingredients, the GA, and everything else verifiable about the food, that's great. All I was saying is that I don't like it when a company uses manipulative marketing, as NaturaPet does. I didn't say or even imply that folks who feed it have fallen for anything.

Edited to add: I apologize, though. Obviously, you read my post and you felt like I was calling you a dummy. That means I wasn't clear or careful enough to explain what I really meant, which makes it my fault. I have nothing for respect for you (though we do agree REALLY strongly somtimes!)


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> Personally, I'd rather see my $$$ go towards ingredient quality than some fancy misleading ad with birds chirping in the background
> 
> http://www.eukanuba.com/EukGlobal/US/en/jsp/naturallywild/NaturallyWild.jsp
> Volume ON !!!


I'm with you. Those "Naturally Wild" foods are Eukanuba's attempt to compete in that market niche without really changing anything about the food, just like the Iams "Natural" line. Same kind of manipulation. I feed Eukanuba, but I don't trust the brand (or the company that owns it) any farther than I can throw it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

NuttinButGoldens said:


> Because Proctor & Gamble is a publicly owned conglomerate that doesn't know squat about dog food. They make soaps, toothpaste, and other highly consumable people products.
> 
> Being public, they will, by necessity, care more about share-holder profits than they do the quality of what goes into the dog food.
> 
> ...


I don't understand why everybody thought this _wasn't _the case when NaturaPet was independent? It was a for profit company before, just a smaller one. The fact that it wasn't publicly traded allowed it to keep its profits and size secret, and I don't see how being privately held (which means you don't actually know for sure who owned or co-owned it) means that it is somehow more trustworthy.

But if it was so small, how did it have six nationally available brands?


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

What are you feeding Brian? I've always fed my two super-premium foods, but I may have to change that at some point. Hopefully I won't have two. 

It was mentioned recently (not by you Brian) that those of us who do not feed raw may not care about our dogs as much as those who do. I think that is hogwash. No pun intended. I no longer eat meat, but I care enough about my dogs to make sure they get what they need. I also cared enough to spend 6k on one of them before he was a year old. I know I love them...


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I didn't come anywhere near calling you or anyone else a dummy. I took specific objection to the way the food is marketed and speculated that they would continue to market it in this fashion.
> 
> If you like the ingredients, the GA, and everything else verifiable about the food, that's great. All I was saying is that I don't like it when a company uses manipulative marketing, as NaturaPet does. I didn't say or even imply that folks who feed it have fallen for anything.
> 
> Edited to add: I apologize, though. Obviously, you read my post and you felt like I was calling you a dummy. That means I wasn't clear or careful enough to explain what I really meant, which makes it my fault. I have nothing for respect for you (though we do agree REALLY strongly somtimes!)


Thank you for clarifying. It did come across to me like you thought those of us who use, and like, Natura brand foods were easily led by "marketing". I feel as strongly about the foods that I feed as you do. I try to be very careful not to insult the foods that other people feed. What you want to feed is your choice, just like what I want to feed is my choice. I think we both want what is best for our dogs, and that's the important thing.

I want to say that I smile every time I see your signature. I love the boy in the back. He is just full of himself and so happy, and it's obvious from the picture. As I say about Danny, he appears to embrace life.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Kimm said:


> What are you feeding Brian? I've always fed my two super-premium foods, but I may have to change that at some point. Hopefully I won't have two.
> 
> It was mentioned recently (not by you Brian) that those of us who do not feed raw may not care about our dogs as much as those who do. I think that is hogwash. No pun intended. I no longer eat meat, but I care enough about my dogs to make sure they get what they need. I also cared enough to spend 6k on one of them before he was a year old. I know I love them...


I think the fact that we all argue this passionately proves how much we care about our dogs. We may draw different conclusions from the evidence or feel swayed by different kinds of marketing or company structures, but we're all making a huge effort to select the absolute best for our pups.

Participating in this thread puts everyone in the top 1% of dog owners, as far as I'm concerned. Bad food choices are made by people who buy whatever's on sale at the Walmart and supplement with the leftover mac and cheese. We're all here trying to figure out what's the best among some excellent choices.

I feed the dogs Eukanuba Premium Performance 30/20. I always have trouble keeping weight on them, so I give them the richest thing Eukanuba makes. All the dogs I know who are on a Eukanuba formula are happy, healthy, and glossy, and I don't know how I could expect more from a food than I get right now.

PS - I should add that I do throw in some other stuff from time to time, like lean cooked meat and raw egg. Oh yeah, and we give Omega 3 and glucosamine/chondroitin supplements.


----------



## jwemt81 (Aug 20, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> I think the fact that we all argue this passionately proves how much we care about our dogs. We may draw different conclusions from the evidence or feel swayed by different kinds of marketing or company structures, but we're all making a huge effort to select the absolute best for our pups.
> 
> Participating in this thread puts everyone in the top 1% of dog owners, as far as I'm concerned. Bad food choices are made by people who buy whatever's on sale at the Walmart and supplement with the leftover mac and cheese. We're all here trying to figure out what's the best among some excellent choices.
> 
> I feed the dogs Eukanuba Premium Performance 30/20. I always have trouble keeping weight on them, so I give them the richest thing Eukanuba makes. All the dogs I know who are on a Eukanuba formula are happy, healthy, and glossy, and I don't know how I could expect more from a food than I get right now.


I totally agree!  I know so many people who buy whatever they see on sale at Wal-Mart (cough, cough...Ol' Roy...cough, cough) or Target and then buy a totally different food that's on sale the next time they buy dog food and they wonder why their dogs have coat and weight issues. I have a friend who thinks that Beneful is the best food in the world because of all the pretty vegetables on the package. :doh: I definitely just want what's best for my dogs. We wouldn't have to be so picky about food if Tucker didn't have food allergies, but I'm just so glad that we have found something that works for both of our guys!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

fostermom said:


> Thank you for clarifying. It did come across to me like you thought those of us who use, and like, Natura brand foods were easily led by "marketing". I feel as strongly about the foods that I feed as you do. I try to be very careful not to insult the foods that other people feed. What you want to feed is your choice, just like what I want to feed is my choice. I think we both want what is best for our dogs, and that's the important thing.
> 
> I want to say that I smile every time I see your signature. I love the boy in the back. He is just full of himself and so happy, and it's obvious from the picture. As I say about Danny, he appears to embrace life.


I think we're all influenced by marketing to one degree or another, whether it's the boutique nature of the food or the reputation that lots of professionals feed it, or this or that ingredient.

I guess my main point is that I don't see Natura as less manipulative or less corporate than P&G. They use marketing terms that sound good but don't really have a clear meaning. Eukanuba does it too! The bag is covered with pseudo-science and pictures of dogs running about. As T&T pointed out, they have the same kind of marketing on their "Naturally Wild" foods as Natura uses on the EVO line.

By the same token, there's clearly a lot to like about the NaturaPet foods, just like there's a lot to like about Eukanuba.

Thanks for the nice comment about Jax. He is totally full of beans.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> I feed Eukanuba, but I don't trust the brand (or the company that owns it) any farther than I can throw it.


Well, the company that owns Eukanuba now owns Natura...


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Thank you Brian! My sister and nephew feed their dogs Eukanuba also.


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I feed Eukanuba, but I don't trust the brand (or the company that owns it) any farther than I can throw it.



I have to throw my 2 cents in here, but that's kind of sad! I wouldn't feed my dogs a food from a company that I didn't trust. Not to say that trust won't ever be broken.. my trust was broken in the Timberwolf Organics brand when they arbitrarily changed the ingredients without even updating that information on their bags or website and then claimed they were simply using up old bags. Uhh.. ok. My trust now is pretty much broken with Natura.. a company I stood behind 100% as a company I trusted and liked a lot, who I felt really put out a variety of products that would fit most dog's needs and satisfy those customers who wanted something different than the typical grocery store brand, who I now feel "sold out" to the big company with interests other than those of the best dog nutrition possible. Oh well. It sucks.. If I fed Innova or EVO or one of the other Natura brands, and I wasn't concerned with allergy issues and food switching issues my dogs may have, I would consider switching at this point to a brand/company I was more comfortable with. But my point is, I wouldn't feed a food from a company I don't trust. Why do you?


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

It's been said the GRF is a powerful thing--here we are debating P&G and it's stock drops 37% today--could the forces of the GRF be at work?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/markets/procter_and_gamble_stock/index.htm

Actually, there might have been some technical snafus in today's volatile market. But the coincidence with P&G and the GRF message board was too good to pass up!


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

rappwizard said:


> It's been said the GRF is a powerful thing--here we are debating P&G and it's stock drops 37% today--could the forces of the GRF be at work?
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/markets/procter_and_gamble_stock/index.htm
> 
> Actually, there might have been some technical snafus in today's volatile market. But the coincidence with P&G and the GRF message board was too good to pass up!



LOL when my boss mentioned something about P&G stock dropping today, that was my first thought too!! Then I realized that people who already owned P&G stock probably wouldn't be the ones pissed at them for acquiring a "holistic" dog food line.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

missmarstar said:


> I have to throw my 2 cents in here, but that's kind of sad! I wouldn't feed my dogs a food from a company that I didn't trust. Not to say that trust won't ever be broken.. my trust was broken in the Timberwolf Organics brand when they arbitrarily changed the ingredients without even updating that information on their bags or website and then claimed they were simply using up old bags. Uhh.. ok. My trust now is pretty much broken with Natura.. a company I stood behind 100% as a company I trusted and liked a lot, who I felt really put out a variety of products that would fit most dog's needs and satisfy those customers who wanted something different than the typical grocery store brand, who I now feel "sold out" to the big company with interests other than those of the best dog nutrition possible. Oh well. It sucks.. If I fed Innova or EVO or one of the other Natura brands, and I wasn't concerned with allergy issues and food switching issues my dogs may have, I would consider switching at this point to a brand/company I was more comfortable with. But my point is, I wouldn't feed a food from a company I don't trust. Why do you?


Your words pretty much mirror my thoughts too. I also once fed Timberwolf - only to drop them later. My dogs are finishing a bog of EVO now as part of their breakfast kibble rotation. I will not be purchasing another bag of EVO. 

Although I never buy into all the marketing hype and terminology of any company, I did appreciate that Natura had their own dedicated manufacturing plant; that they purchased no ingredients from China; and that they only produced dog and cat food. Their focus and entire success depended on good pet food and customer satisfaction. If they didn't get it right, they didn't have mascara, dish soap and other products to help bolster the bottom line.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

missmarstar said:


> But my point is, I wouldn't feed a food from a company I don't trust. Why do you?


Because there isn't a company I trust. The two words are mutually exclusive. I can trust a small business when I know the staff and the person in charge. Beyond that, the word "trust" is a meaningless thing to apply to a corporate entity, so far as I'm concerned.

As you pointed out in your post, each time you've trusted one of these companies, they've betrayed that trust in favor of their bottom line. If the people at NaturaPet were so trustworthy, why did they sell the company to big ol' evil P&G? If being a small company makes you trustworthy, why did Timberwolf do something wildly unethical?

My dogs are healthy, and I believe the formula I feed them is safe and appropriate. I keep my ear to the ground for recall info and for new information. At this point, I believe the Eukanuba has an established track record of good products. I just wouldn't use the word "trust."

I know you think it's so sad that I don't trust my dog food company, but I was pointing out the unethical stuff that NaturaPet does well before this announcement. I'm completely unsurprised to hear that they made a sound business decision that probably immensely benefited the wallets of the founders of the company.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> Although I never buy into all the marketing hype and terminology of any company, I did appreciate that Natura had their own dedicated manufacturing plant; that they purchased no ingredients from China; and that they only produced dog and cat food. Their focus and entire success depended on good pet food and customer satisfaction. If they didn't get it right, they didn't have mascara, dish soap and other products to help bolster the bottom line.


This may all still be true after the purchase. P&G is going to own them, but are they going to move them or make any changes to production? The brand will still fail if they don't get it right. Or, I should say, the brand is subject to the same risks the company was before it was purchased.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

And now we have to throw out our bags of lettuce because of a recall. I really don't "trust" maybe I should say, "rely heavily" on anyone or anything.

I do wish this company sold to someone like themselves, but this is America and P & G probably made the best deal. This last sentence speaks volumes to me.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Kimm said:


> And now we have to throw out our bags of lettuce because of a recall. I really don't "trust" maybe I should say, "rely heavily" on anyone or anything.
> 
> I do wish this company sold to someone like themselves, but this is America and P & G probably made the best deal. This last sentence speaks volumes to me.


I would much prefer to buy my dog food locally from somebody I can actually talk to personally, which is what I try to do with as much of the people food as possible, but there isn't that option right now for dog food.

My only option, were I to follow that route, would be to buy supplies for a raw or home-cooked diet for the dogs at the farmer's market, and I'm not prepared to do that right now.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Me neither Brian. I spoke with a breeder about feeding raw years ago and she truly believes you do have to provide a number of suppliments. I remember someone telling me feeding raw is not rocket science, but to me it is. How do you really know your dog is getting everything it needs. Blood tests? Poop doesn't prove anything for me. Neither does a great Vet check!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Kimm said:


> Me neither Brian. I spoke with a breeder about feeding raw years ago and she truly believes you do have to provide a number of suppliments. I remember someone telling me feeding raw is not rocket science, but to me it is. How do you really know your dog is getting everything it needs. Blood tests? Poop doesn't prove anything for me. Neither does a great Vet check!


I wouldn't feed raw for a myriad of other reasons, but it does sidestep the whole "trust" debate because you can go get the supplies from your regional farmer.


----------



## Solas Goldens (Nov 10, 2007)

I f I'm reading this right, people are disappointed that yet another small company is being gobbled up by big business, and traditionally big business operates for efficiency and making money.It stands to reason that they will operate the company the same, and find ways to buy/use ingredients in ways that effect a higher profit margin for the company. This could result in a lesser quality, or ingredients that aren't grown or raised naturally.We all know that Natural and organic mean two different things, and that natural doesn't always mean it is really natural.Hmmmmmm. I guess that the posters that use this food will have to watch the product labels for changes and research where the foods ingredients come from. I hate to sound pessimistic, but this sort of thing happens all the time.
I once had a Nanny that was being taught by here spiritual congregation (not sure what here religion was)that proctor and gamble was the devil,and they were going to take over.;-) I don't know about this but she would not use any P&G products. It made it hard to buy stuff for her. LOL!


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Solas Goldens said:


> I f I'm reading this right, people are disappointed that yet another small company is being gobbled up by big business, and traditionally big business operates for efficiency and making money.It stands to reason that they will operate the company the same, and find ways to buy/use ingredients in ways that effect a higher profit margin for the company. This could result in a lesser quality, or ingredients that aren't grown or raised naturally.


Exactly.
Like I said before, I may very well have been buying a false sense of security from Natura all along, but I feel better with a small, privately held company because I believe that they generally have more at stake. It's their livelihood on the line if their product (and consequently their company) fails. 
It won't really matter to P&G if the product line fails - they'll just discontinue it, absorb the loss and move on. Or, more likely, they'll raise prices by a few cents on their thousands of other products, from other divisions, and probably recoup their initial investment and losses in no time. They have nothing to lose.


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

Of course it's for profit. There's nothing wrong with that.

But anyone who has been in business knows that certain priorities are different between privately held companies and publically traded companies.

Take a look at Google:

Before going public: Great services, trusted, respected, "Do No Harm".

Post going public: Where privacy is concerned, one of the most feared companies on the planet now. "Do No Harm" no longer found. Consumer distrust is very high.

And I will leave it with these thoughts.

This is Natura:

http://www.naturapet.com/

This is Natura on Proctor & Gamble:

http://www.pg.com/en_US/index.shtml

The most prominent thing on that bland, corporate page is the stock price.

Any questions?



tippykayak said:


> I don't understand why everybody thought this _wasn't _the case when NaturaPet was independent? It was a for profit company before, just a smaller one. The fact that it wasn't publicly traded allowed it to keep its profits and size secret, and I don't see how being privately held (which means you don't actually know for sure who owned or co-owned it) means that it is somehow more trustworthy.
> 
> But if it was so small, how did it have six nationally available brands?


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

You are paraphrasing for us. Not a cool thing to do.

It has nothing to do with public companies being evil. It has everything to do with public companies having different priorities than smaller, private companies that are far more vested in the quality and reputation of the products they started.



msdogs1976 said:


> Because P&G is a public company and that = evil to them. Silly, but that's the way many feel.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

NuttinButGoldens said:


> Any questions?


Yes. If the financial bottom line wasn't the most important thing to them already, why did they sell out to P&G?

And, as a point of fact, Google, despite having gone public in 2004, recently refused to censor search result in China, even if it means China will kick them out of the market. Despite being huge and publicly offered, they still appear to be following their "don't be evil" corporate philosophy.


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

That doesn't mean they would sacrifice quality, and there has never been any indication, ever, that Natura has ever done this.

A huge conglomerate like PG would do it like it was flicking a fly off their shoulder. No one there will have any personal pride vested in the product. It's just another soldier on the shelf for them.

And if you think the Google of now is the same as the Google of old, well, all I can say is... Wow 



tippykayak said:


> Yes. If the financial bottom line wasn't the most important thing to them already, why did they sell out to P&G?
> 
> And, as a point of fact, Google, despite having gone public in 2004, recently refused to censor search result in China, even if it means China will kick them out of the market. Despite being huge and publicly offered, they still appear to be following their "don't be evil" corporate philosophy.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

NuttinButGoldens said:


> That doesn't mean they would sacrifice quality, and there has never been any indication, ever, that Natura has ever done this.


Though there is plenty of evidence that they're willing to manipulate unknowledgeable people (with terms like organic, holistic, and ancestral) and throw their whole business to a giant conglomerate, which, according to you, is obviously going to ruin it.



NuttinButGoldens said:


> And if you think the Google of now is the same as the Google of old, well, all I can say is... Wow


I didn't say it was the same. I said that it didn't suddenly turn evil in 2004 when it went public. Who's paraphrasing now?


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

Is Google the same as it was in 2004? No, it is not. That is a fact.



tippykayak said:


> Though there is plenty of evidence that they're willing to manipulate unknowledgeable people (with terms like organic, holistic, and ancestral) and throw their whole business to a giant conglomerate, which, according to you, is obviously going to ruin it.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was the same. I said that it didn't suddenly turn evil in 2004 when it went public. Who's paraphrasing now?


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Though* there is plenty of evidence* that they're willing to manipulate unknowledgeable people (with terms like organic, holistic, and ancestral) and throw their whole business to a giant conglomerate, which, according to you, is obviously going to ruin it...


Please post links of "evidence" you are referring to. 
You mean Naturapet has been advertising/selling non-organic as certified organic ?
Why aren't ALL pet food companies claiming organic, holistic, ancestral ... since, as you seem to be saying, there is no clear defintion & no control ? 
After all ... they ARE making all sorts of other false/misleading claims

.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> Please post links of "evidence" you are referring to.


Just go straight to www.naturapet.com and you can see the words "holistic" and "ancestral" applied to the foods but not defined by Natura nor by the USDA, AAFCO, or any other independent body. I looked for a clear, binding definition of holistic on the Natura site and couldn't find it. Same thing with ancestral.

Organic is also applied to foods that are not 100% organic. Just click "Karma" and read carefully.




T&T said:


> You mean Naturapet has been advertising/selling non-organic as certified organic ?


Not quite. They are claiming that the food is organic when it is not, because _most_ of the ingredients are certified organic. They do not make illegal claims that the food is USDA certified organic, but they do apply the word "organic" to foods that are up to 5% _not_ organic.

The word organic does, in fact, have a clear definition and a clear certification, and Natura applies it to 95% organic food, which the law allows. It's not illegal, but it seems shady to me. They neither hide nor advertise it on the site, but the bag says "ORGANIC" several times in large letters, not "95% ORGANIC." 5% is a lot, particularly when measured by ingredient weight.




T&T said:


> Why aren't ALL pet food companies claiming organic, holistic, ancestral ... since, as you seem to be saying, there is no clear defintion & no control ?


I already addressed the fact that "organic" does have a legal meaning, but are you saying the words ancestral and holistic do have a clear definition and independent control? Then why has nobody defined them in this thread, and what governing bodies exist to certify them? 

Many, many, many dog food companies use the term "holistic," "natural," or some variation on "ancestral" (like "wild"). Beneful puts veggies all over the bag and real cuts of raw chicken breast meat in their commercials. Eukanuba has cheesy "nature" sounds on its "Naturally Wild" site that you linked. Iams has a whole line of "healthy naturals" foods they could easily claim were "holistic" if they were so inclined.

Why doesn't Iams put "holistic" on this food? Because it was easier and more cost-effective to buy Natura than to try to change Iams' branding, and "holistic" makes things sound expensive to some people and like hippy dippy nonsense to others. From a branding and marketing point of view, "holistic" would only really work on a niche product. They went with "Healthy Naturals," and created new packaging to sell food that looks nearly identical to their other foods, if you check the ingredient list.

Holistic simply means that something tries to take into account the whole instead of just focusing on the parts. In medicine, it refers to an attempt to treat the whole patient, physically, emotionally, mentally, socially, etc., instead of just focusing on curing a single symptom or illness. In foods, it's often used to mean that ingredients aren't processed. However, it seems ridiculous to me that somebody can make extruded dog food and call it "holistic" in that sense, and since most dog foods attempt to be full nutrition solutions that address the whole dog, aren't they all holistic?

And don't get me started on "ancestral." The first dogs followed humans around and ate their garbage and probably their feces. They evolved to survive on this diet. If you want to feed a dog like an ancestral dog, well, that's up to you, and if "ancestral" means "like a wolf," then I think it's a silly and misleading word to apply to extruded kibble.


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

Belle's Mom said:


> Beaushel - Thanks for posting that. I was just thinking the same thing but was concerned that I was missing something and would sound silly posting it. I am curious to see the responses. I was not sure if history showed that when dog food companies went from private to purchased by large companies that the quality always went down, etc...


It will surely go down as P&G puts the big-time corporate profit pressure of Natura. The ONLY reason P&G would buy Natura is because they did their due diligence and realized how much cost they could take out of Natura while they milked their brand. That is the way big business works. Remember not too long ago when EaglePack was purchased by Wellness? EP and Wellness repeatedly assured everyone that EP would remain independent and recipes and ingrediants would not change. Yeah, right. That lasted about 6 months.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Lol, if only people took they food THEY eat as seriously as we take the food our dogs eat. :


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

I don't have time right now to read through all the pages, but I just got off the phone with Natura. The lady there assured me that the ONLY thing changing about the company was the ownership. The same people will be formulating the food, the ingredients will not change, and Natura products will continue to be manufactured in the Natura plant in Nebraska, and no other P&G product will be. I hope this is true and remains to be true as I love Natura products, all of them. I have used everything they make and I love it.
And I do equate P&G to evil. They make sub par pet food that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I hope Natura doesn't go down that road.


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

I'm sure the people working at Natura truly believe this, and really want it to be this way.

And I really, really want to believe it too.

But, I can almost guaran-****-tee you there are a bunch of number crunchers sitting around a mahogany table somewhere at headquarters trying to figure out how to slowly, and without anyone noticing until it's too late, reduce costs. It could be by ingredients, it could be by where supplies come from, it could be from 30lb bags becoming 25 pound bags at the same price.

If anything has to happen, I'll take the latter.

If could even by by "Consolidation". Aka lay-off's & manufacturing moved to a dedicated manufacturing company. That would really suck. My thoughts about Diamond are well known (for good reason).

Dammit, I so hate to have to sound so cynical, but heaven help me I've just seen this so many many times before. The only thing I _can _do is expect the worst, and it's up to them to prove otherwise.

I'm going to start clipping the ingredient and guaranteed analysis labels from their CN bags starting with the next one's. If you use Evo, Innova or any of the others it would help if you do the same. Together, we can track this as best we can and catch ingredient changes if they happen. I'm willing to put the work into the California Natural Lamb & Rice Adult Large Bites and the Low Fat of the same if others will take care of the other brands.



Taz Monkey said:


> I don't have time right now to read through all the pages, but I just got off the phone with Natura. The lady there assured me that the ONLY thing changing about the company was the ownership. The same people will be formulating the food, the ingredients will not change, and Natura products will continue to be manufactured in the Natura plant in Nebraska, and no other P&G product will be. I hope this is true and remains to be true as I love Natura products, all of them. I have used everything they make and I love it.
> And I do equate P&G to evil. They make sub par pet food that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I hope Natura doesn't go down that road.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

The down side is you might not know about ingredient changes since changes to the bags do not need to happen right away. Several cos. have made changes and are allowed to "use up" the bags already printed, so what's IN the bag is not necessarily what's ON the bag.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Thanks for that update Taz Monkey. It was great that you took the time to call and talk to someone. For the time being, I'm just going to sit tight. I hope to switch to raw sometime next year anyways.


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

They wouldn't have that excuse for the web site data  Probably be easier to deal with anyway.



Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> The down side is you might not know about ingredient changes since changes to the bags do not need to happen right away. Several cos. have made changes and are allowed to "use up" the bags already printed, so what's IN the bag is not necessarily what's ON the bag.


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

Same here. But I'll be watching....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Taz Monkey said:


> They make sub par pet food that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.


Food many of us happily feed our dogs with great results. Odd then, that if it's so bad for the dogs, that they would be so healthy and full of energy.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Food many of us happily feed our dog with great results. Odd then, that if it's so bad for the dogs, that they would be so *healthy and full of energy*.


Your wasting your time. Some will never believe it.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> The down side is you might not know about ingredient changes since changes to the bags do not need to happen right away. Several cos. have made changes and are allowed to "use up" the bags already printed, so what's IN the bag is not necessarily what's ON the bag.


It also wouldn't tell you where the ingredients are sourced from, right? I mean, couldn't they change suppliers without having to put it in writing anywhere?


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

msdogs1976 said:


> Your wasting your time. Some will never believe it.


Seems that the feeling goes both ways.


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Food many of us happily feed our dog with great results. Odd then, that if it's so bad for the dogs, that they would be so healthy and full of energy.


i am a smoker and I eat fast food all the time, yet to the average person, I look like a totally normal, healthy person. Maybe I am? Maybe I have good genes? Maybe the crap I put in my body just hasn't had a chance to affect me yet. I don't doubt that many people have good results with Eukanuba, Iams, Pro Plan, etc. I just see the ingredients for what they're worth, and that's not much, so I choose to spend my money and food that I feel is better quality.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Taz Monkey said:


> i am a smoker and I eat fast food all the time, yet to the average person, I look like a totally normal, healthy person. Maybe I am? Maybe I have good genes? Maybe the crap I put in my body just hasn't had a chance to affect me yet. I don't doubt that many people have good results with Eukanuba, Iams, Pro Plan, etc. I just see the ingredients for what they're worth, and that's not much, so I choose to spend my money and food that I feel is better quality.


Maybe you should post a picture of yourself. In my experience, people who smoke and eat a lot of fast food look like they do. You can see my dogs. They're athletes in prime condition. They're muscular and lean, and you can't get that way on garbage. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that they'd look this way no matter what they're eating.

And, while we're on the topic, what in Iams' food is even remotely comparable to cigarettes or McDonald's? You feel confident calling the food "sub par," so I'd ask you to back that up with verifiable data. If you're going to launch in on how corn is poison or how "chicken byproduct meal" means chicken beaks and dead cats, you may have another think coming.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

LifeOfRiley said:


> It also wouldn't tell you where the ingredients are sourced from, right? I mean, couldn't they change suppliers without having to put it in writing anywhere?


I would HOPE it would be on their website. No mention of where their ingredients come from would raise a bunch of red flags. You could also be calling them every so often, asking.


----------



## Doodle (Apr 6, 2009)

kwhit said:


> Now you have me curious...I think I'll call both my Diamond rep. and my WellPet rep. today...
> 
> Which issue of WDJ had this info?


February 2010, page 9. I stand corrected. Wellpet didn't acquire Diamond pet foods, but as others have said, they use Diamond to produce some of their product lines. In this issue they listed that Wellpet's products are made by...and Diamond is one of them. That's what happens when you read things too fast. :doh:


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

fostermom said:


> Seems that the feeling goes both ways.


These food threads are great entertainment.:


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> I would HOPE it would be on their website. No mention of where their ingredients come from would raise a bunch of red flags. You could also be calling them every so often, asking.


Does Natura's website source every ingredient currently? Or any, for that matter?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

fostermom said:


> Seems that the feeling goes both ways.


Well, I don't think anybody called the Natura foods crap. I was the most negative about that company, and the worst thing I said was that it was no better than other companies and uses similarly deceptive marketing practices. I didn't say anybody fed their dogs bad food.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Here's what I found on the Natura site on a quick go through....Shoot... didn't come out right. I'll get the link. http://www.naturapet.com/about-natura/manufacturing.asp Doesn't address sources though.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Does Natura's website source every ingredient currently? Or any, for that matter?


I have no idea why you bother to continue to post to and read this thread. You never intend to feed this food in the first place, yet you pick it apart. ONE person was negative about the food you feed in this thread, yet you take it as if we were all ganging up on you. We like the food we feed, you like the food you feed. Why do you continue to try to pick apart the company we buy from? It's rather insulting.


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Food many of us happily feed our dogs with great results. Odd then, that if it's so bad for the dogs, that they would be so healthy and full of energy.


Ditto.
Great results with Eukanuba here.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

This link states that ingredients are domestically sourced if at all possible and that NO ingredients are sourced from China. http://www.naturapet.com/about-natura/news.asp?id=39


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Okay...it's sentences like this that always bother me. I do feed CN and will probably continue until I have a reason to...but. 

"Natura is dedicated to only using the highest-quality, domestically-produced ingredients *whenever possible*.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

fostermom said:


> I have no idea why you bother to continue to post to and read this thread. You never intend to feed this food in the first place, yet you pick it apart. ONE person was negative about the food you feed in this thread, yet you take it as if we were all ganging up on you. We like the food we feed, you like the food you feed. Why do you continue to try to pick apart the company we buy from? It's rather insulting.


Because the entire premise of this thread is, in fact, a degradation of the food I feed my dogs. Natura is this wonderful, trustworthy company, and now it's been bought by evil P&G who will ruin the food and give our dogs unhealthy things on purpose. P&G has owned Eukanuba for quite some time now.

So yeah, all the comments about P&G are a lot more insulting than anything I said about Natura.

However, I'm not participating in this thread because I feel insulted. I don't. When something is discussed on this forum, I have every right to offer my opinion on it. I have considered Natura foods in the past and have chosen not to go with them for a number of reasons, many of which are relevant to this discussion. I know some people are die hard fans who don't like to hear criticism of the company, but I don't think Natura is some kind of dog food hero, and I have the right to say so.

I've had some negative comments to make about their marketing, but I haven't insulted anybody for choosing the company, and I haven't been nearly as nasty about Natura as a half dozen people have been about P&G. Why not call them out?

I notice the substance of my comments about deceptive marketing practices (use of the terms organic, holistic, and ancestral) have gone totally ignored, and instead people respond that I'm being insulting. Is there no merit to what I said?


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Kimm said:


> Okay...it's sentences like this that always bother me. I do feed CN and will probably continue until I have a reason to...but.
> 
> "Natura is dedicated to only using the highest-quality, domestically-produced ingredients *whenever possible*.


I agree with you Kimm, on both counts.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> ... their Karma food line is marketed as "organic," even though it cannot be USDA labeled as organic food. It uses mostly organic ingredients, so they use that to make you think you're getting USDA approved organic dog food, which you aren't ...


???
http://www.karmaorganic.com/products/default.asp?id=1503

Maybe you should read again & also visit the USDA links on organic designation / certifying bodies




tippykayak said:


> ... Just go straight to www.naturapet.com and you can see the words "holistic" and "ancestral" applied to the foods but not defined by Natura nor by the USDA, AAFCO, or any other independent body. I looked for a clear, binding definition of holistic on the Natura site and couldn't find it. Same thing with ancestral.
> Organic is also applied to foods that are not 100% organic. Just click "Karma" and read carefully.
> 
> Not quite. They are claiming that the food is organic when it is not, because _most_ of the ingredients are certified organic. They do not make illegal claims that the food is USDA certified organic, but they do apply the word "organic" to foods that are up to 5% _not_ organic.
> ...


WOW 
If only you spent the same amount of time & energy raising red flags on the many harmful ingredients found in foods produced by "well established" companies ("with years of research behind them") ... like you do criticizing healthy foods, it may benefit some pets & pet owners ...


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I notice the substance of my comments about deceptive marketing practices (use of the terms organic, holistic, and ancestral) have gone totally ignored, and instead people respond that I'm being insulting. Is there no merit to what I said?


Theyre just upset because you didn't drink the koolAid like they did.


----------



## goldielocks (Nov 15, 2009)

WOW 
If only you spent the same amount of time & energy raising red flags on the many harmful ingredients found in foods produced by "well established" companies ("with years of research behind them") ... like you do criticizing healthy foods, it may benefit some pets & pet owners ...

I was thinking the same thing over the last few days while reading these post.....and wondering why he is spending all his energy on this post when he does not even feed Natura products?....Oh yeah, I forgot we mentioned that P&G is buying Natura and some people are not happy about that.....and because he feeds a P&G product....no one should dare make a negative comment about P&G or else.... Go have a tantrum somewhere else.


----------



## moverking (Feb 26, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> Theyre just upset because you didn't drink the koolAid like they did.


Thanks, SC, just what I wanted, a key board to clean up:

I really try to stay out of the food discussions, really I do....and I truly believe it's our duty as dog owners, to be aware and educated about their nutritional needs and food intake. After all ~95% of what goes in their mouths come from us!

But I've also gone through the craziness of trying to pick a perfect food. I've researched and researched, and embraced and disgraced many brands of dog food. I've shamed folks in the past for their choice of foods (and still do if it's Ol' Roy, lol) and praised others.

I have personal experience with my two that sent me back to a brand after a recall/sell out....they thrive on it currently. 
Might be completely different with my next dogs....

The reality that I've come to is that I think all of us would be bowled over by practices in both the human and pet food industries. (Think of the percent amount of feces and rodent hair allowed by the FDA in human grade grains).

False or nearly false advertising is rampant, and nearly false is like saying 'a little pregnant'. It's market driven advertising for *us*, not the dogs.

So to everyone out there at the point of hair pulling trying to pick a dog food..._breathe_, relax a bit, research canine nutritional needs from a site that doesn't sell food, and doesn't start out by saying you're killing your dog if you don't feed this or that. Know your animal, watch his energy levels, coat condition, poop habits. See changes, if they come.

I'd suggest going with a food whose company continually does research on it's product looking at outcomes. (This most important bit of info came from Swampcollie, thank you:wavey

And I don't bash my friends dogfood choices much anymore, I try to give what knowledge I have and show how it correlates with their issues. I just try to teach them 'how' to choose....within their budget.


----------



## moverking (Feb 26, 2007)

And another thing, lol...
I think Tippy is trying really hard to make the point that all claims made by dog food companies require a hard look by the consumer, past the pretty pics and gourmet atmosphere applied in ads. They say they do research? Look it up, then find an alternate site that disputes their findings, believe me, there's many out there.
Ultimately, you will come away more educated. Some 'truths' will be realized and some will fall away as 'hype', hopefully.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

T&T said:


> ???
> http://www.karmaorganic.com/products/default.asp?id=1503
> 
> Maybe you should read again & also visit the USDA links on organic designation / certifying bodies
> ...


But then we go back to, what you are posting comes from their website and "marketing". And don't you dare reference the Whole Dog Journal, which is an independent source. They don't support what they believe, so the research they do is just plain bunk.

Tippykayak, only ONE person disparaged the food you feed. A LOT of people expressed concerns about a large corporation taking over a much smaller company. A company that has manufactured their own food in their own factory. That isn't insulting you or the food you eat. You just take it that way and get your nose out of joint. 

You can comment on any thread you wish, I personally don't care. I just can't understand why you want to waste your time attacking the company that so many of us like and that we get our food from.

That's like us coming to a thread that you start where you are talking about the food you feed (and like) and going on and on about how horrible it is. This whole thread wasn't a "let's bash Eukanuba or Iams" thread. Matter of fact, I had no clue that P&G manufactured those brands.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> http://www.karmaorganic.com/products/default.asp?id=1503
> 
> Maybe you should read again & also visit the USDA links on organic designation / certifying bodies


Yes, you are correct. I misread the site at first. I clarified in a later post. The USDA allows the "organic" label on foods that are 95% made from organic ingredients. Natura is not doing anything illegal in that regard. I still find it misleading to put giant ORGANIC labels on 40 pound bag that has two pounds of ingredients in it that aren't organic.



T&T said:


> WOW
> If only you spent the same amount of time & energy raising red flags on the many harmful ingredients found in foods produced by "well established" companies ("with years of research behind them") ... like you do criticizing healthy foods, it may benefit some pets & pet owners ...


I spend my time and energy as I see fit. If you click around this forum, you'll see a lot more posts about puppies with diarrhea and pano being fed expensive foods than you will posts about Vitamin K overdose.

Furthermore, I was just as clear about the deceptive marketing of Eukanuba, Iams, and Purina as I was about Natura. All of these companies are large, and all of them use marketing to create positive feelings about their products, positive feelings that are contradicted and betrayed in threads like these, which is one of the things that leads to all the anger.

I disagreed with the fundamental premise of many of the posts in these threads, that Natura was a good company who is being bought by an evil one who will ruin the wonderful foods. Natura is a large, privately held company that is being bought by a giant, publicly held company, the one that makes my dogs' food.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

goldielocks said:


> Go have a tantrum somewhere else.


I hope you realize how personal and unpleasant it is to speak to someone that way. I've been nothing but nice to everyone in this thread, and I even apologized when one of my posts came off the wrong way.

I haven't spent much time and energy on this thread. I type fast. I thought the purpose of a discussion was for dissenting points of view to coexist politely together so we could all learn something.

If you don't like what I'm saying, go ahead and disagree, but don't be mean to me personally, OK?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

moverking said:


> And another thing, lol...
> I think Tippy is trying really hard to make the point that all claims made by dog food companies require a hard look by the consumer, past the pretty pics and gourmet atmosphere applied in ads. They say they do research? Look it up, then find an alternate site that disputes their findings, believe me, there's many out there.
> Ultimately, you will come away more educated. Some 'truths' will be realized and some will fall away as 'hype', hopefully.


Thanks. I think you said it better than I did. By nature of being a large company, a dog food company is almost certainly going to rely on marketing, and I take it personally when a company seems to be intentionally trying to mislead people. I take particular exception to semi-scientific terminology that's designed to create a _feeling_ in the common consumer, but isn't based on a _reality_. If I knew of a company that didn't do that, and that made amazing dog food, I'd be plugging it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

fostermom said:


> But then we go back to, what you are posting comes from their website and "marketing". And don't you dare reference the Whole Dog Journal, which is an independent source. They don't support what they believe, so the research they do is just plain bunk.


I don't think this is at all a fair characterization of what I've ever said, in this thread or any other.



fostermom said:


> Tippykayak, only ONE person disparaged the food you feed. A LOT of people expressed concerns about a large corporation taking over a much smaller company. A company that has manufactured their own food in their own factory. That isn't insulting you or the food you eat. You just take it that way and get your nose out of joint.


I never disparaged any food at all myself, so why aren't you jumping all over somebody else? I challenged the idea that we could trust a large company. I personally don't think it's wise.



fostermom said:


> You can comment on any thread you wish, I personally don't care. I just can't understand why you want to waste your time attacking the company that so many of us like and that we get our food from.
> 
> That's like us coming to a thread that you start where you are talking about the food you feed (and like) and going on and on about how horrible it is. This whole thread wasn't a "let's bash Eukanuba or Iams" thread. Matter of fact, I had no clue that P&G manufactured those brands.


Except I never insulted the food. It appears to be, as I've said many times, terrific food. I challenged the idea of trusting a company, and I pointed out several ways in which Natura conducted itself much the same way as any other large dog food corporation. I don't think they're special or different than most dog food companies, and that's one of several reasons I choose not to feed what they sell. 

Why are a few of you making this about me and insults I never made and not addressing the content of the things I pointed out? Is it just because it's easier to attack a person whose tone isn't always perfect than to actually dig into the issues?


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

What's the phrase? "Nothing personal, it's just business."

A privately held dog food company sold to P&G. Does everyone remember Deep 
Throat from Watergate? He told the reporters "Follow the money."

So let me repeat. Follow the money. For those who use this dog food, who are concerned about future formula modifications, you have all mentioned, rightly so, that P&G will be looking at the business aspects of such modifications--nothing personal, it's just business--follow the money--if it means more money, then changes will follow.

And so let me repeat the same thing about Natura. For those who use this dog food, who are concerned about this company, which touted organic formulations, wholesome ingredients, and concern for your dogs' health--nothing personal--this company, in the same way as P&G, was just as business-minded, and just as bottom-line oriented, for selling to a larger, corporate company. Terms of the sale have not yet been mentioned, but I hazard to guess that these rich people are now multi-multi-millionaires. God Bless America and my hat (of which I'm not wearing one, but if I did have one) is off to them!!!

Someone said that they called Natura and was told the owners were getting older and decided to sell-- however, the Fremont Tribune does not report that to be the case. One of the owners says this is a strategic move--that P&G was carefully chosen by them as the company for Natura--I leave you all with the quote from one of the founders of Natura, along with the link, and let the founder speak for the company and it's intentions--as for me, nothing personal, it's just business--and remember, follow the money--if you do, you will seldom be wrong. And don't follow it one way--follow it both ways. Too many are focused on P&G--equal, if not more focus, should be on Natura (IMHO).

_"It's time for the right company to take our brands to the next level of growth. P&G is that company," said John Rademakers, founder and owner of Natura Pet Products. "We know that P&G will honor our history as they capitalize on their strengths to build these brands."_

http://fremonttribune.com/news/local/article_a8183af0-5880-11df-9789-001cc4c002e0.html


----------



## moverking (Feb 26, 2007)

Rappwizard....here's a positive pile on just for you, from me
:appl::appl::appl:


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

moverking said:


> Rappwizard....here's a positive pile on just for you, from me
> :appl::appl::appl:


I second the pile on.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Jumping in here, simply to add that if you are unhappy about the buyout, contact Natura. I read on another list that a member had contacted the company and was told that it wasn't a signed and sealed deal as of just yet, and that consumer calls and emails were being considered.

It's second-hand information, so do feel free to research for yourself. Just passing this along as an FYI.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

If P&G _is_ the new owner and keeps the formula the same, I'm going to stick with it. Not too many manufacturers can, or do, meet Shadow's needs.


----------



## Abbydabbydo (Jan 31, 2007)

*DFA (Dog food anonymous)*

I admit to feeding CN Lamb and Rice and the bumpasses do great on it.

If they stop doing great on it I have no problem looking for another food.

We have a P and G toothpaste plant in Iowa City and I guarantee they are not trying to poison the country. Yes, it can be scary, but have a little faith people (John Hiatt). Perhaps our worries are for naught.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

To Brian...sorry I didn't mentioned any of the "buzz" words put out there to market products. My husband got his BS in Marketing way back when, so I have a tendency to not "trust" or "rely" on anyone out there trying to "sell" me something. People should wear ear plugs when they go shopping to. Even the music is set to make us buy...


----------



## Saint K (May 9, 2010)

I think people need to wait and see what happens. Natura makes great products and with P & G purchasing the company they can take these brands to new market places and reach more animals with great nutrition. The recalls of a few years ago changed the industry and more consumers are paying attention than ever before, it would not be in P&G's best interest to change the formulas. Pet Food companies are just like any other business and must grow to survive this was a natural progression.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Saint K said:


> I think people need to wait and see what happens. Natura makes great products and with P & G purchasing the company they can take these brands to new market places and reach more animals with great nutrition. The recalls of a few years ago changed the industry and more consumers are paying attention than ever before, it would not be in P&G's best interest to change the formulas. Pet Food companies are just like any other business and must grow to survive this was a natural progression.


It will be interesting to see if the the quality and ingredients stay the same and the price goes down...


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> ... Yes, you are correct. I misread the site at first. I clarified in a later post. The USDA allows the "organic" label on foods that are 95% made from organic ingredients. Natura is not doing anything illegal in that regard. I still find it misleading to put giant ORGANIC labels on 40 pound bag that has two pounds of ingredients in it that aren't organic.
> 
> I'll have to find Kraft's email reply to my questioning the ingredients on their so called "organic" Ritz crackers ... Enriched flour (treated with chemicals/processed, depleted of all it's natural vitamins, etc) :doh: and in regards to wether the soyal oil is GM, no clear answer :uhoh:
> Sooo ...Karma's 95-5 ingredient list is quite impressive
> ...


No matter who it is ... the bigger they are ... the bigger the lies


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

You can debate the quality of Natura's ingredients and marketing strategy over P&G's ingredient's and marketing strategy. But you're missing the point (IMHO) is that the bride (Natura) has been basically quoted in the press as saying that this wasn't a shot gun wedding--that the bride willingly went to the altar, and found P&G to be, basically, a suitable husband.

You're like the friend at a wedding of the bride you looks at the husband to be and keeps saying "this wedding shouldn't take place!!! She was so happy single! so what if he has all this money--he's going to ruin her independence and spirit! what does she see in him!"

From what I can see, no one forced Natura to sell. "The bigger they are, the bigger the lies. . ." in terms of what? Dollars? In terms of what dollars? The terms of the Natura deal have not yet been announced. I'll be checking it, that's for sure, because if those owners sold out for $100 million or so each, well, let's see, is that pretty big? Is that a lie to you? To me, that's just good ol' capitalism at work.

We have several on the forum who are self-employed or who run businesses. Who wouldn't want to sell to P&G? If I could bake the best doggie biscuits ever (and trust me, I can't cook at all) and P&G reps came knocking on my door wanting to buy my doggie biscuit company, I would sit down and run some numbers and look at a serious offer. And that is no "big lie."


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Here it is Tippy
Kraft's reply to my email questioning their "organic" Ritz crackers following ingredients 
Enriched organic flour, monocalcium phosphate, bicabornate ammonium, amylase, protease, papain, and wether soya oil is derived from genetically modified soybeans

"Our organic products are certified by a third party Quality Assurance Intl, not Kraft Foods.
See the following information for the requirements for a product to be certified organic.

*Criteria regarding product content*

* Product content must be certified to a full standard by a certifying body such as the QAI
* No hydroponic or aeroponic products allowed
* Ingredient panel only products (less than 70% organic) must be certified

*Labelling General Information*

* No non-GMO statements are permitted
Unless the product or one of its ingredients is currently available in genetically engineered format AND proof of an individual laboratory test confirming this statement is provided
* Additives and processing aids that remain in the final product must be listed on the label"


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> And as I click around this forum ... I also come across countless posts about pups not doing well on Eukanuba ... should I generalize & conclude it's not a healthy food ?


When did I say anything wasn't a healthy food? Honestly, if you're not going to read my posts carefully before you reply, I don't really see the point in a discussion. I have no interest in defending points of view I haven't actually stated.

My point is that I see more harm done by foods that are expensive and too rich than I see harm done by Iams, not that anything that Natura makes isn't "a healthy food."

And you DO generalize about foods like Eukanuba, all the time, even in the rest of the post I quoted from.

Though, I'm curious, would you mind posting a couple of dozen of these "countless" GRF posts about dogs getting sick on Eukanuba?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> Here it is Tippy
> Kraft's reply to my email questioning their "organic" Ritz crackers following ingredients
> Enriched organic flour, monocalcium phosphate, bicabornate ammonium, amylase, protease, papain, and wether soya oil is derived from genetically modified soybeans
> 
> ...


Not sure what your point is here. In order for Ritz crackers to be labeled organic, they'd have to have 95% organic ingredients by weight, which means some of the oils might be GMO, and probably all of the additives aren't, just like in the Karma dog food that's labeled organic.

But why are we talking about Ritz crackers? Is your point that Natura is a little deceptive and Kraft is worse? Ummm...ok?


----------



## Ranger (Nov 11, 2009)

****, I switched Ranger over to Evo a few months ago and he's been doing amazing on it. He doesn't do well on corn or grain in his food as evidenced by gunky ears, itchy, dandruffy coat and no stamina when he was being fed Iams/Eukanuba. 

For those that are switching now instead of waiting to see how things go down, what are you planning on feeding? I'm hesitant to give Ranger GO! or NOW! as he liked to eat the poop of a dog that was eating that food and I don't want him to start eating his own. Orijen fish made him incredibly gassy...I wonder if other kinds of Orijen would, too. 

Too bad - he loves the EVO red meat. Coat is glossy, skin isn't dry and he had enough energy to finish up an 8 hour hike plus swim yesterday and still have enough energy to want to go for a walk later!


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

The more I have thought about this, the more I think I would take a wait and see approach if I were feeding a Natura product to my dogs. 

Ranger, if your dog had allergy type issues with other foods, and is doing so well on EVO, I'd recommend you keep him on EVO until such time as there are any weird food/ingredient changes, then consider switching if you notice he's regressing back to his allergy symptoms. Making food changes with a dog that is sensitive to certain ingredients in food can be such a pain. I think I wouldn't try to fix what isn't broken in your case.

Of course, I'm sure many will switch just because they take issue with some of P&G's business practices and ethics, and that's an understandable reason too.


----------



## turtle66 (Feb 19, 2010)

To Ranger -
Our dog is already on Orijen and she is doing great with both (6fish and regular adult).
I just started our cat on Evo weight management but now, I am going to change again - also to Orijen. Our cat already tried the fish dog kibbles from Orijen and (unfortunately) she loves those...:uhoh:
I do like, that the Orijen company uses LOCAL ingredients which are not shipped around the world (at least that's what they say...). 

Heike


----------



## Ranger (Nov 11, 2009)

turtle66 said:


> To Ranger -
> Our dog is already on Orijen and she is doing great with both (6fish and regular adult).
> I just started our cat on Evo weight management but now, I am going to change again - also to Orijen. Our cat already tried the fish dog kibbles from Orijen and (unfortunately) she loves those...:uhoh:
> I do like, that the Orijen company uses LOCAL ingredients which are not shipped around the world (at least that's what they say...).
> ...


 
Ranger was doing really well on the Orijen for the 8 months I had him but when they made a slight formula change in the fall, he started being incredibly gassy (like clearing the room under 10 seconds 4 times a day) and his coat started getting dry and brittle. That's why I made the switch to EVO and he's been so good since...I'm a little reluctant to switch back. I can't go through the stinkiness again!


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> When did I say anything wasn't a healthy food? Honestly, if you're not going to read my posts carefully before you reply, I don't really see the point in a discussion. I have no interest in defending points of view I haven't actually stated.
> My point is that I see more harm done by foods that are expensive and too rich than I see harm done by Iams, not that anything that Natura makes isn't "a healthy food."
> And you DO generalize about foods like Eukanuba, all the time, even in the rest of the post I quoted from.
> Though, I'm curious, would you mind posting a couple of dozen of these "countless" GRF posts about dogs getting sick on Eukanuba?





tippykayak said:


> Not sure what your point is here. In order for Ritz crackers to be labeled organic, they'd have to have 95% organic ingredients by weight, which means some of the oils might be GMO, and probably all of the additives aren't, just like in the Karma dog food that's labeled organic.
> But why are we talking about Ritz crackers? Is your point that Natura is a little deceptive and Kraft is worse? Ummm...ok?


You're right
No point


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Kimm said:


> Okay...it's sentences like this that always bother me. I do feed CN and will probably continue until I have a reason to...but.
> 
> "Natura is dedicated to only using the highest-quality, domestically-produced ingredients *whenever possible*.


Yeah, I'm never wild about statements like that, either. (With anything - not just dog food.) 

I'm not sure exactly which ingredients Natura is referring to there, specifically, but what I've found from talking to a couple other companies is that they run into problems with some of the vitamins and minerals. Apparently, they just can't get some of the supplements from domestic sources and some of the ones they _can_ get domestically are so horribly cost-prohibitive that they can't do it. 
The woman at Wellness told me that they basically have two choices - import some of the supplements or bank on our willingness to pay about a hundred bucks a bag for dog food. And she also told me that ALL dog food companies do this. If they say that not one of their ingredients is sourced from outside the US, they're either lying or they just don't know. Either one is kinda scary.

The same is true for our own vitamin supplements, though. They may be able to get away with stating that they're manufactured in the United States - which is true. But some of the raw ingredients are sourced from China (among other places.) There's just no getting around it.

If my dogs were doing very well on a Natura brand and hadn't done well at all on anything else, I would probably take a wait-and-see approach. I couldn't justify throwing their systems into a tailspin and making them miserable on a "maybe", or even a "likely." I'd probably keep them on their current food until I had a real good, solid reason to switch.
Riley does well enough on his mix that I don't think going to just Fromm will bother him one bit.
And with Gunner - I'm not wild about Wellness anymore, either, but it's the only food he'll eat and the only food he does well on. I tried to switch him because I got a little uncomfortable with the company and it was an absolute disaster. I came to the conclusion that sometimes you have to stick with what works, even if you're not crazy about it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

LifeOfRiley said:


> Yeah, I'm never wild about statements like that, either. (With anything - not just dog food.)
> 
> I'm not sure exactly which ingredients Natura is referring to there, specifically, but what I've found from talking to a couple other companies is that they run into problems with some of the vitamins and minerals. Apparently, they just can't get some of the supplements from domestic sources and some of the ones they _can_ get domestically are so horribly cost-prohibitive that they can't do it.
> The woman at Wellness told me that they basically have two choices - import some of the supplements or bank on our willingness to pay about a hundred bucks a bag for dog food. And she also told me that ALL dog food companies do this. If they say that not one of their ingredients is sourced from outside the US, they're either lying or they just don't know. Either one is kinda scary.
> ...


This is a scary truth right now. Some supplements and industrial food elements are completely controlled by major companies, and there's simply no small, local market for them. Since extruded dog foods are made from a simple set of ingredients, there's a need to supplement them. Those are the ingredients that simply can't be obtained from local or organic sources, and those are the ones whose quality is totally suspect, since the companies have no need to be open or responsible because of the lack of competition.

Wasn't the move _The Informant_ based around the story of a guy who participated in price fixing supplements for mega-companies?

I'm feeling more and more pressure to rely on kibble as a food staple for the dogs but to supplement things with varied local food sources like seasonal veggies and meat from the farmer's market. The food industry has caused enormous problems for responsible consumers and pet owners, and even the best of the big dog food companies have to make huge compromises in order to compete in the system.


----------



## 58loosy (Apr 18, 2010)

After listening to everyone, it sure is confusing will be switching from puppy food and she is on c.n. because of sensitive stomach, was going to switch her to adult soon, what to do. I am also confused about Wellness and the vit. my springer is on that, his seborrhea totally went away when starting on it.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I'm feeling more and more pressure to rely on kibble as a food staple for the dogs but to supplement things with varied local food sources like seasonal veggies and meat from the farmer's market. The food industry has caused enormous problems for responsible consumers and pet owners, and even the best of the big dog food companies have to make huge compromises in order to compete in the system.


There are days when I believe that ignorance truly is bliss. I almost miss the days when I didn't know the first thing about dog food, would open a bag of whatever and that was that. Now I worry more about what my dogs are eating than I do about what _I'm_ eating! 
There really isn't one dog food company out there that I could say I trust. I've trusted some more than others, but it never lasts. Something always happens to make me suspicious of them.

I'd love to put my guys on a home cooked or raw diet (or even start supplementing their commercial diets) but I'm just too afraid to try it. It's sad, but I think I'm better off trusting the food companies than I am trusting myself not to screw it up. I think I'd have to go back to school and get a degree in canine nutrition before I'd even attempt it.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

rappwizard said:


> You can debate the quality of Natura's ingredients and marketing strategy over P&G's ingredient's and marketing strategy. But you're missing the point (IMHO) is that the bride (Natura) has been basically quoted in the press as saying that this wasn't a shot gun wedding--that the bride willingly went to the altar, and found P&G to be, basically, a suitable husband.
> 
> You're like the friend at a wedding of the bride you looks at the husband to be and keeps saying "this wedding shouldn't take place!!! She was so happy single! so what if he has all this money--he's going to ruin her independence and spirit! what does she see in him!"
> 
> ...


 
You're talking $$$ business 
I'm talking quality, ethics, philosophy
I'm talking ...
... Business must be booming over at Nestle Purina's ... 
Good for the economy 
_“In the first three quarters of 2009, close to $29.7 million was spent to advertise *Friskies *in major media.”_
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/business/media/15adnewsletter1.html?
Over $73 million spent on advertising in less than 3 years ... on *Friskies* alone 
But yet ... no $$$ for local / human grade / better quality ingredients, natural preservatives, etc etc etc ???
Not so good for Kitty & Fido 
And THAT is what NaturaPet feeders are worried about


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

I'm amazed at how many people are already considering taking their dog off a food that's WORKING for their dog simply because the company's ownership is changing. If your dog is doing well on it, why mess with it? Seriously. Think about it before y'all jump ship.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

58loosy said:


> After listening to everyone, it sure is confusing will be switching from puppy food and she is on c.n. because of sensitive stomach, was going to switch her to adult soon, what to do. I am also confused about Wellness and the vit. my springer is on that, his seborrhea totally went away when starting on it.


Oh, if there's one thing that can drive you crazy, it's choosing a dog food!

I don't think anyone can (or should) tell you what to feed your dog. There are a couple different foods out there that offer a 'sensitive stomach' formula -- just do your homework and choose what you feel is best for your dog.
One good thing is, this takeover hasn't happened yet, so you have time to make a decision. Whether you decide to switch or stay with CN, at least you don't have to decide today.

As far as Wellness goes, if your Springer is doing so well on it, I'd leave it alone. I'm not recommending that you stay with Wellness, per se. My philosophy is pretty much the same regardless of the brand in question: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Personally, the results I've seen with Wellness are nothing short of incredible. Could I be happier with them as a company? Sure, but I could say that about every commercial dog food company out there. I'm happy enough with the company that I'll look at the results, first. Our Shepherd has been on their Core for about two years now (with the exception of a two week Orijen experiment that was a complete disaster.) He's 7 years old and has EPI... and no one believes it. I've had GSD breeders guess him to be a perfectly healthy 4 year old. So Wellness would have to give me a REAL good reason to switch. But again, that's just my outlook and my own experience with it. You have to make a choice that you feel comfortable with.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

kdmarsh said:


> I'm amazed at how many people are already considering taking their dog off a food that's WORKING for their dog simply because the company's ownership is changing. If your dog is doing well on it, why mess with it? Seriously. Think about it before y'all jump ship.


Apparently a LOT of people are ready to jump ship already. 
When we went to buy food Saturday, the woman was telling us that CN was supposed to be releasing a grain-free formula in the near future. I guess the owner of this store had placed a big order and, because of all the negative feedback and phone calls they've been getting, she already called Natura and cancelled it.
I guess they're taking a wait and see approach as to whether they'll continue to carry Natura foods at all. They'll see what the demand is like, as this goes forward, and go from there.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

LifeOfRiley said:


> There are days when I believe that ignorance truly is bliss. I almost miss the days when I didn't know the first thing about dog food, would open a bag of whatever and that was that. * Now I worry more about what my dogs are eating than I do about what I'm eating! *
> There really isn't one dog food company out there that I could say I trust. I've trusted some more than others, but it never lasts. Something always happens to make me suspicious of them.


Good thing most healthy dog food enthusiasts are this way. They would be in the nut house if they felt the same way about human foods, medications, etc too.:


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

msdogs1976 said:


> Good thing most healthy dog food enthusiasts are this way. They would be in the nut house if they felt the same way about human foods, medications, etc too.:


No kidding! If I analyzed human food labels the way I analyze dog food labels, I'd have driven myself crazy a long time ago.


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

T&T said:


> You're talking $$$ business
> I'm talking quality, ethics, philosophy
> I'm talking ...
> ... Business must be booming over at Nestle Purina's ...
> ...


So if I'm understanding this correctly, if a company has revenue of more than $120 million and makes organic dog food, then it's a company with "ethics," versus a company that spends $29.7 million in advertising and does not manufacture organic food.

As per an article in the San Jose Business Journal, that was the revenue of Natura in 2007-- $120 million buckeroos--reading that article, and looking in-between the lines, you can certainly see hints that the company was looking to expand, and struggling with costs, and trying to provide a good product, but not increase costs to its consumers.

Natura Pet Products Inc.
CEO: John Rademakers
Headquarters: Santa Clara
2007 revenue: More than $120 million

I'm still scratching my head over this. . .this is a nice sized company. You're saying it's ethical--I'm not going to argue ethics--but a lot of people who are in love with this company seem to be angrier at P&G for making the marriage proposal and possibly wanting to do a Mary Kay makeover on the bride rather than being angry at Natura for accepting the proposal--it's as if many of you can't accept that in addition to making an organic food, this company also was, gasp! in the business of making money too. Organic, wholesome, ethical and revenue-oriented--imagine that, saying all these words in the same sentence? 

Business is not only booming at Nestle Purina's. It's booming at Natura too--more than $100 million booming bucks--is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so. But I think it's odd that many seem to have a disconnect--it is as if many have bought into the marketing hype that Natura is concerned about their dogs and what they eat--and other companies aren't as much, or at all. Well, yeah, Natura is concerned--but it also wants to make a buck too--and guess what, it has been making money! And the owners of the company will make more as a result of its sale to P&G! God Bless America! 

Read more: Natura makes health food for Fido, Fluffy - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal: 
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/08/11/smallb4.html


----------



## Ranger (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm not going to switch Ranger over right away, but I'm definitely going to keep my eyes open for "little" changes that may or may not happen. The slight formula change in Orijen made a huge difference in Ranger and I had to stop feeding him the Orijen 6 fish.

I do try to eat as healthy as possible that I can. In season veggies/fruit or frozen ones make up the majority of what I eat plus "organic" meat that comes from a farm where I know the owners and trust them. Everything else I try to make homemade - sauces, dough, breads...if I can't make it at home I don't eat it very often. Why would I be less concerned about my dog's health than I am about my own?

Pretty much the only thing I do that isn't good for me is drink alcohol. Even then, I support the microbreweries around here than the big corporations (more so out of taste than anything else).


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Ranger said:


> I'm not going to switch Ranger over right away, but I'm definitely going to keep my eyes open for "little" changes that may or may not happen. The slight formula change in Orijen made a huge difference in Ranger and I had to stop feeding him the Orijen 6 fish.
> 
> I do try to eat as healthy as possible that I can. In season veggies/fruit or frozen ones make up the majority of what I eat plus "organic" meat that comes from a farm where I know the owners and trust them. Everything else I try to make homemade - sauces, dough, breads...if I can't make it at home I don't eat it very often. Why would I be less concerned about my dog's health than I am about my own?
> 
> Pretty much the only thing I do that isn't good for me is drink alcohol. Even then, I support the microbreweries around here than the big corporations (more so out of taste than anything else).


I can understand someone waiting and seeing if ingredients change before switching their dog's food, that's fine. I just think it's silly to be like, "OH NO!!!! Well, I have to change my dog's food now b/c it's owned by big evil P&G." before anything even happens! However, I can completely understand getting upset IF the company changes the ingredients and you are dissatisfied with that change.

In the end... it's dog food, guys. I love my dog as much as the next dog owner, but I highly doubt that feeding Flora Eukanuba or feeding her Evo is going to make a 5 year difference in her life span. If something works for your dog, whether it's Euk or Evo, then I think that's what should be fed to your dog. The argument that, "Well, I eat McDonald's every day and drink a six pack of beer every night and I look healthy and fit, but that doesn't mean it's good for me!" doesn't hold water for me. Either you're blessed with incredibly good genes, or you don't look as good as you think.

I feed Flora Purina Pro Plan, which I know a lot of people wag their fingers at. I tried her on Solid Gold, Blue, and Orijen, and... it was nasty. She does better on Pro Plan, and so that's what she eats.

As Flora's breeder said... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

The problem in my case is that there are not many other foods Shadow CAN eat. I just ordered two bags of CN today from Petfooddirect because they are offering 20.00 off 99.00. I had to get Tucker's food, too. 

I would so love to be able to just PICK a food!


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Kimm said:


> The problem in my case is that there are not many other foods Shadow CAN eat. I just order two bags of CN today from Petfooddirect because they are offering 20.00 off 99.00. I had to get Tucker's food, too.
> 
> I would so love to be able to just PICK a food!


Kimm, this is just my opinion and I should probably keep my mouth shut... but if I were you, and Shadow does that well on this food, I'd take the old wait-and-see approach. I'm not the least bit happy about this buy-out, but if either one of my guys had limited options for a different food, I might just stick it out and see what happens.

I'm in the same boat with Gunner. There's one food that he'll eat and that he does well on. If Wellness had been bought by P&G (or if it ever does happen) I'd have to stick with it and hope there wouldn't be any major formula changes.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Kimm said:


> The problem in my case is that there are not many other foods Shadow CAN eat. I just order two bags of CN today from Petfooddirect because they are offering 20.00 off 99.00. I had to get Tucker's food, too.
> 
> I would so love to be able to just PICK a food!


That's exactly my point. If your dog does well on a food, then why on god's good earth would you consider taking him off of it? Sure, if P&G decide to add like, hemlock to the food that you feed Shadow then I'd wholeheartedly agree that you should take him off of it, but otherwise... why? Why put your dog through the grief of trying new foods that could potentially make him uncomfortable?

And Kimm, I'm totally not directing those question solely at you; they're hypothetical questions for anyone to answer. I'm not attacking anyone! I'm also not attacking the idea of feeding your dog an "upper end" food. We fed Carmella Solid Gold for years; if Flora did well on it, I probably would continue feeding her it, but she didn't, so I don't.


----------



## Doodle (Apr 6, 2009)

Kimm said:


> The problem in my case is that there are not many other foods Shadow CAN eat. I just order two bags of CN today from Petfooddirect because they are offering 20.00 off 99.00. I had to get Tucker's food, too.
> 
> I would so love to be able to just PICK a food!


I'm in the same boat as you Kim. With Brady's multiple allergies, CN is one of the few foods he can have. We spent 16 MONTHS experimenting with different foods, and all were disasters until we tried this one. For me, it's not about how I personally feel about P&G, but how I can keep my dog healthy and happy. I have done some research to see what other limited ingredient foods are out there that could be possible alternatives for him, and I have found 3. Their ingredients are similar, but not the same, so how he would do on them is TBD, and I'd hate to upset his whole system again if it's not absolutely necessary. Given that, I think I'm going to take the "wait and see" approach to see how he (and other dogs I know) do after the buy out has occurred. If there is a problem, I have my back up list of foods at the ready. With all due respect to those who have expressed unfavorable opinions about P&G, I'd like to hope that they're smart enough to realize that limited ingredient foods like CN are few and far between, and many of us who use them do so for health/medical reasons, therefore, they'd be wise not to change anything! Perhaps I'm being naive, but I hope they do the right thing for those of us who rely these foods.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

I think it may have been missed, but I am keeping Shadow on CN until I need to make a switch. See post 133. I think that's the post. I just ordered two more bags. If they keep the ingredients as is, then I hope the price goes down. That would be a bonus. I'm not counting on anything though. It may be upper-end food, but I don't have much of choice.

I just wish I could just PICK any food. I can't imagine having so many options. Even with Tucker I can't buy him anything with too many calories per cup. If I go below 2 cups per day, which I have, he is NOT a happy camper.

Doodle: If you order two bags of CN through Petfooddirect today, you can get 20.00 off. Of course, that's if the order is over 99.00. Mine was because I had to order food for Tucker, too.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Kimm said:


> I think it may have been missed, but I am keeping Shadow on CN until I need to make a switch. See post 133. I think that's the post. I just ordered two more bags. If they keep the ingredients as is, then I hope the price goes down. That would be a bonus. I'm not counting on anything though. It may be upper-end food, but I don't have much of choice.
> 
> I just wish I could just PICK any food. I can't imagine having so many options. Even with Tucker I can't buy him anything with too many calories per cup. If I go below 2 cups per day, which I have, he is NOT a happy camper.
> 
> Doodle: If you order two bags of CN through Petfooddirect today, you can get 20.00 off. Of course, that's if the order is over 99.00. Mine was because I had to order food for Tucker, too.


Went back and read the post, and as I think I said earlier, I agree with that 100%. If p&G changes the formula so you are no longer satisfied with it, then you should definitely change it to something you are more comfortable with. I just don't agree with people changing the food solely based on the fact that P&G is acquiring the company.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

rappwizard said:


> So if I'm understanding this correctly, if a company has revenue of more than $120 million and makes organic dog food, then it's a company with "ethics," versus a company that spends $29.7 million in advertising and does not manufacture organic food.
> As per an article in the San Jose Business Journal, that was the revenue of Natura in 2007-- $120 million buckeroos--reading that article, and looking in-between the lines, you can certainly see hints that the company was looking to expand, and struggling with costs, and trying to provide a good product, but not increase costs to its consumers.
> Natura Pet Products Inc.
> CEO: John Rademakers
> ...


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

A benefit for Natura brand might be that P&G has so much access to nutritional research. 

Iams...because of the profits banked by P&G can spend a vast amount of funds on scientific research. Its a commercial brand of course, and is formulated that way....but what is learned can benefit a holistic brand as well. It will be interesting to see what changes are made if any.


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

T&T said:


> rappwizard said:
> 
> 
> > So if I'm understanding this correctly, if a company has revenue of more than $120 million and makes organic dog food, then it's a company with "ethics," versus a company that spends $29.7 million in advertising and does not manufacture organic food.
> ...


----------



## Toffifay (Dec 29, 2009)

Rappwizard, Thank you for that useful post!


----------



## alijeanrn (May 7, 2010)

turtle66 said:


> To Ranger -
> Our dog is already on Orijen and she is doing great with both (6fish and regular adult).
> I just started our cat on Evo weight management but now, I am going to change again - also to Orijen. Our cat already tried the fish dog kibbles from Orijen and (unfortunately) she loves those...:uhoh:
> I do like, that the Orijen company uses LOCAL ingredients which are not shipped around the world (at least that's what they say...).
> ...


This has nothing to do with the P&G topic, but just want to give you a heads up about the Orijen cat. I had our cat on that for a couple of months and she gained a lot of weight very fast. I was even feeding 1/2 the amount suggested for her weight catagory. However, her coat was gorgeous. Best she ever looked (if she didn't get so heavy).


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Well, this was an interesting read!
I feed Evo and will continue to feed Evo until there is a change in the formula.
I love how healthy all my animals are on Natura products, which is all they have ever been feed, starting from the time it was initially available for each new dog/cat/ferret in turn.
There are some strong opinions on the subject - I keep to one thing...if it works for my dogs, is recommended by vets, and used by handlers around me, I use it. My dogs are healthy, have soft glossy coats, shining eyes, and my 11 year old can run circles (literally!) around younger dogs. I see no reason to change until there is a reason to change.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

T&T;1131816
[FONT=Comic Sans MS said:


> Here are the top 4 Petfood Giants[/FONT]
> 
> 1. Mars Inc.
> *Approximate 2008 global retail sales:* US$13.6 billion
> ...





T&T said:


> This is from the Mars web site. . .
> A global company with family values
> From its humble beginnings in the Tacoma, Washington kitchen of Frank Mars, Mars, Incorporated has grown into a company of global scope with six business segments including Chocolate, Petcare, Wrigley Gum and Confections, Food, Drinks and Symbioscience, generating annual revenues of more than $28 billion. As a *family-owned* company for nearly a century, we are guided by our Five Principles: Quality, Responsibility, Mutuality, Efficiency and Freedom. We continually strive to put our Principles in Action in everything we do: making a difference to people and the planet through performance.
> 
> ...


Good info. I would have thought Nestle was #1. Amazing Mars is not a public company, considering the size.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

kdmarsh said:


> That's exactly my point. If your dog does well on a food, then why on god's good earth would you consider taking him off of it? Sure, if P&G decide to add like, hemlock to the food that you feed Shadow then I'd wholeheartedly agree that you should take him off of it, but otherwise... why? Why put your dog through the grief of trying new foods that could potentially make him uncomfortable?


I think some people might be looking at it the same way I am. They might fully expect a formula change, or the quality of ingredients to go down, so they want to get ahead of it and switch foods before their dog has a problem?? 

I'm lucky with Riley. He does every bit as well on Fromm, so I can gradually cut out the CN now, without causing him any problems, rather than waiting for a possible formula change that _would_ cause him a problem.
But if CN were the only food he did well on, I'd leave it alone for now.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Rappwizard,

*Company A *
Produces a wide variety of different quality pet foods
Among which, many grain based formulas (cheaper $), unnamed meats/fats (cheaper $), foods containing artificial preservatives (cheaper $), unnecessary artificial colors (appealing to human eye), sugars (yuck but Fido yumyum), etc 
Retail sales in the billions
Media advertising $ in the millions
No budget for better quality ingredients ?
Priorities ?

*Company B*
Produces smaller variety of good quality pet foods
All named meat based formulas & named fats (cost - more $)
Whole grains, whole vegetables (cost - more $)
No artificial preservatives (cost - more $)
Retail sales in the millions
No media advertising ?
Priorities ?

English being my 3rd language, maybe I'm not using the proper terms. 
Philosophy, ethics, or ... ??? 
Whatever you wanna call the difference between the two
I opt for company B for my pet


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

T&T said:


> Rappwizard,
> 
> *Company A *
> Produces a wide variety of different quality pet foods
> ...


I think a company like [email protected] will market to different segements. Focusing on the needs of the customer they are trying to reach and keep is successful in the business world. That goes over and beyond "cost-cutting" in making a business successful.

In otherwords...they didn't buy this brand and its customer-base to make Innova like Iams or Eukanuba or Beneful. That would be stupid. I think its ridiculous to name a company evil because it does a good job marketing and formulating different products to people with different opinions and needs.

It seems to me that the companies that change their formulas, causing sick dogs...and even being sneaky about the change has been the "holistic" good companies.


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

Lucky's Mom--Bingo! If I didn't know better, I would have thought you had helped write the letter for Natura that is on its website. I know that T&T didn't--this person is still having a difficult time grasping what has transpired (IMHO). 

_Natura Announces Change In Ownership, But Not Philosophy or Commitment to Quality

You may have heard Natura expects to be acquired by The Procter and Gamble Company sometime in June 2010. By joining the P&G family of brands, our intent is that we will have more resources to raise awareness for the benefits of natural and holistic pet foods. Our hope is even more pets will then experience the benefits of Natura’s high-quality, super-premium brands.

P&G has assured us of their commitment to this business and to the people who have been our partners and our advocates over the years. We will continue to deliver the high quality products that have earned consumers’ trust. 

For more than 20 years, Natura has dedicated itself to producing healthy, high-quality pet foods, and we will remain true to that philosophy. As we move forward with this change in ownership you can continue to find Natura pet foods at your local independent pet specialty retailers. 

Thank you for your dedicated support and advocacy for Natura Pet foods. We have genuinely appreciated your support in the past and we hope we can count you among our valued customers in the future.

Sincerely,
Don Scott 
President_

http://www.naturapet.com/


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

rappwizard said:


> Lucky's Mom--Bingo! If I didn't know better, I would have thought you had helped write the letter for Natura that is on its website. I know that T&T didn't--this person is still having a difficult time grasping what has transpired (IMHO).
> 
> Oh I'm "grasping" all right ...
> Not trusting large corporations does not make one ignorant
> ...


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

rappwizard said:


> Lucky's Mom--Bingo! If I didn't know better, I would have thought you had helped write the letter for Natura that is on its website. I know that T&T didn't--this person is still having a difficult time grasping what has transpired (IMHO).
> 
> _Natura Announces Change In Ownership, But Not Philosophy or Commitment to Quality_
> 
> ...


Really, what do you expect them to say?


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

T&T said:


> rappwizard said:
> 
> 
> > Lucky's Mom--Bingo! If I didn't know better, I would have thought you had helped write the letter for Natura that is on its website. I know that T&T didn't--this person is still having a difficult time grasping what has transpired (IMHO).
> ...


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I have very mixed feelings, like many people, about dog foods. I am just the person who is a sucker for marketing, and I am swayed by the idea of a holisitic better food that might stave off cancer in my goldens. However, the CBCs and longevity of my own dogs just have not born out that Innova is somehow better than Eukanuba Premium Performance. I am mainly perplexed by the question of what is the very best thing to feed each of my goldens: Honest Kitchen, Fromm, Eiukanuba Premium Performance( best coats, best CBC's), Innova? Eagle Pack and Canidae were both foods I trusted, but in each case the forumula suddenly changed. My main dilema is this: Eukanuba has decades of objective research behind it, and we have gotten our goldens into their mid teens eating it: 15 1/2, 13, 1/2; However, I dont like the idea of by products and fillers, and worry so much about cancer that feeding Innova and Fromm just feels more responsible.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> However, I dont like the idea of by products and fillers, and worry so much about cancer.


I really do think that "chicken byproduct meal" is a great ingredient. It doesn't sound sexy, but it has a clear definition: ground chicken carcass including organs, but no feathers. Grinding bone and organ into the mix provides a wider range of nutrients than you'd find in just chicken meal (which is also a great ingredient). Chicken meat, which is also a great ingredient, is mostly water (unlike meal, which is dry), so a relatively small amount can be put high in an ingredient list.

I don't believe the grains used in good dog foods are "fillers." They have high nutritive content, and in proper proportion, they provide energy, calories, and nutrients not found in chicken meat. They are also highly digestible when ground up (as they are in kibble). Corn and wheat, despite their reputations on the internet, are less likely to be allergens than beef, chicken, eggs, dairy products, and fish. "Fillers" are really what you see in cheap dog food or weight loss blends: non-digestible or barely digestible ingredients meant to provide bulk. "Filler" is what people on this forum are advising when they say to put unsalted canned green beans in the food of a dog who's trying to lose weight.

I worry about cancer too, having lost two young (6 and 7) dogs to it. Still, I have yet to see any research connecting carbs to cancer ("the cancer starving diet" is not scientifically backed up at this point). I also don't see how chicken byproduct vs. chicken meat has any bearing on cancer. Ethoxyquin makes me nervous about fish-based foods a little, but beyond that, carcinogenic substances are typically illegal in dog food.

Eukanuba PP is a great food. The results prove it: most dogs fed it are shiny, full of energy, and thriving. There may be dogs who are sensitive, intolerant, or allergic to one or more ingredients and who are better off on another food, and there may be dogs who are not active enough for a 30/20 dog food. Beyond that, though, I truly don't believe you could do better, or I'd buy whatever I thought was better.

It sounds to me like people are getting similar results from EVO and other Natura brands. That's awesome too. I think LJilly's experience with an anemic dog doing best on Eukanuba is an interesting one. It shows us that for him, the Eukanuba PP had the most accessible protein and best blend of vitamins. It doesn't show us that the Eukanuba food is empirically the best for _all_ dogs, but it does demonstrate that it is a great food.

P&G acquired Iams/Eukanuba in 1999, I think. Eleven years later, Eukanuba still makes great dog food. If a dog is thriving on a Natura blend, I think it would be strange to take him off it based on company politics. You can do a lot more damage to a dog by formula shopping or by pursuing dog food philosophies than you will by letting him eat food produced by a large company.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> My main dilema is this: Eukanuba has decades of objective research behind it, and *we have gotten our goldens into their mid teens eating it: 15 1/2, 13, 1/2*; However, I dont like the idea of by products and fillers, and worry so much about cancer that feeding Innova and Fromm just feels more responsible.


With those results, I see no reason to be concerned.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> I have very mixed feelings, like many people, about dog foods. I am just the person who is a sucker for marketing, and I am swayed by the idea of a holisitic better food that might stave off cancer in my goldens. However, the CBCs and longevity of my own dogs just have not born out that Innova is somehow better than Eukanuba Premium Performance. I am mainly perplexed by the question of what is the very best thing to feed each of my goldens: Honest Kitchen, Fromm, Eiukanuba Premium Performance( best coats, best CBC's), Innova? Eagle Pack and Canidae were both foods I trusted, but in each case the forumula suddenly changed. My main dilema is this: Eukanuba has decades of objective research behind it, and we have gotten our goldens into their mid teens eating it: 15 1/2, 13, 1/2; However, I dont like the idea of by products and fillers, and worry so much about cancer that feeding Innova and Fromm just feels more responsible.


Just came across this link you may find of interest
http://www.goldeneaglepetfoods.com/Links to further reading.html

From Golden Eagle website
http://www.goldeneaglepetfoods.com/


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Can somebody PLEASE tell me what "holistic" really means when it's applied to dog food?


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I really do think that "chicken byproduct meal" is a great ingredient. It doesn't sound sexy, but it has a clear definition: ground chicken carcass including organs, but no feathers.


Okay, so unless I'm being really stupid about this... isn't that basically what raw feeders give their dogs? They include bones and organs too, the only difference is that it's uncooked, right? I know that can make a big difference in maintaining nutrients that are lost in cooking and processing, but I don't see where chicken byproduct meal, as an ingredient, would be a bad thing.




Ljilly28 said:


> I have very mixed feelings, like many people, about dog foods. I am just the person who is a sucker for marketing, and I am swayed by the idea of a holisitic better food that might stave off cancer in my goldens. However, the CBCs and longevity of my own dogs just have not born out that Innova is somehow better than Eukanuba Premium Performance. I am mainly perplexed by the question of what is the very best thing to feed each of my goldens: Honest Kitchen, Fromm, Eiukanuba Premium Performance( best coats, best CBC's), Innova? Eagle Pack and Canidae were both foods I trusted, but in each case the forumula suddenly changed. My main dilema is this: Eukanuba has decades of objective research behind it, and we have gotten our goldens into their mid teens eating it: 15 1/2, 13, 1/2; However, I dont like the idea of by products and fillers, and worry so much about cancer that feeding Innova and Fromm just feels more responsible.


I'm so glad I'm not the only one. I've said all along that I feed the "premium" foods because I feel better about doing it. The ingredient list looks better to me. Is it, in reality? I have no idea. I do like that they stay away from artificial preservatives, synthetic Vitamin K, etc. But beyond that, it's really just a feeling.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Can somebody PLEASE tell me what "holistic" really means when it's applied to dog food?


You should ask Dan Rajczak over at P&G
_"These outstanding brands and the great employees of Natura Pet Products will complement our Eukanuba and Iams brands very well," said Dan Rajczak, senior vice president of P&G's global pet care and snacks businesses. "This acquisition gives us a strong position in the holistic and natural pet food segment. It will enable us to enhance the health and well-being of even more dogs and cats and represents an exciting new source of growth for our business." _


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

LifeOfRiley said:


> Okay, so unless I'm being really stupid about this... isn't that basically what raw feeders give their dogs? They include bones and organs too, the only difference is that it's uncooked, right? I know that can make a big difference in maintaining nutrients that are lost in cooking and processing, but I don't see where chicken byproduct meal, as an ingredient, would be a bad thing.


Well, yeah. Some raw diets call for ground chicken frames, which don't have organ meat, and some call for organ meat. The cooking process is a big difference, though, since meal is a very processed ingredient.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> You should ask Dan Rajczak over at P&G
> _"These outstanding brands and the great employees of Natura Pet Products will complement our Eukanuba and Iams brands very well," said Dan Rajczak, senior vice president of P&G's global pet care and snacks businesses. "This acquisition gives us a strong position in the holistic and natural pet food segment. It will enable us to enhance the health and well-being of even more dogs and cats and represents an exciting new source of growth for our business." _


Well, I think Mr. Rajczak's comment makes it very, very clear that "holistic" and "natural" are marketing terms with no basis in reality. But when a "good" company uses them, what do they mean?


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

LifeOfRiley said:


> I'm so glad I'm not the only one. I've said all along that I feed the "premium" foods because I feel better about doing it. The ingredient list looks better to me. Is it, in reality? I have no idea. I do like that they stay away from artificial preservatives, synthetic Vitamin K, etc. But beyond that, it's really just a feeling.


And I agree with you there. The very reason I tried switching Flora over the "premium" kibble was because I felt better about feeding her stuff that contained dried blueberries, buffalo meat, probiotics, etc., things that sounded good and healthy to me! It just... didn't work for her. Otherwise, I would for sure be feeding her Orijen or Solid Gold or something along those lines.


----------



## ButtersPeople (May 11, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> Well, I think Mr. Rajczak's comment makes it very, very clear that "holistic" and "natural" are marketing terms with no basis in reality. But when a "good" company uses them, what do they mean?



Same thing. By definition a food in itself cannot be holistic. How we feed can be _part_of a holistic approach to caring for an animal. So, imo, this is a marketing technique directed at those who take a holistic approach to animal care and pet owners for whom the fat price tag is a status symbol as evidenced by the rush to market with those terms by larger companies no matter what is actually in the food.


There is nothing natural about kibble either, no matter how natural the ingredient list. The entire point of kibble is consistency via a standardized product only achievable with a high degree of processing.

I still prefer a primarily whole foods ingredient list simply because in my experience the end product is more digestible/"bioavailable." I saw a difference in coat quality, energy, stools, and ease of keeping condition with my shelties when they were on Canidae. 

But for the most part, and excluding obvious crap foods, it is all really about end results subjectively determined by the owner of the end user, isn't it? My mother grew up with a sheltie that lived to age 21 fed nothing but table scraps and "butchers mix." I don't know many people who would recommend that anymore, but it is anecdotal evidence for my mother that the "old ways" are better 

I've been reading here for a while and following links and what I have seen is a lot of instances of the boutique brands changing formulas or using questionable suppliers because of market conditions. That makes me more nervous than P&G buying Natura Pet if they have no intention of changing the product. It may end up being the most consistent boutique brand.

YMMV of course


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

kdmarsh said:


> And I agree with you there. The very reason I tried switching Flora over the "premium" kibble was because I felt better about feeding her stuff that contained dried blueberries, buffalo meat, probiotics, etc., things that sounded good and healthy to me! It just... didn't work for her. Otherwise, I would for sure be feeding her Orijen or Solid Gold or something along those lines.


Most of the 'super premium' foods didn't work for my guys, either. I was determined to put them on the best kibble money can buy, so I could feel good about what I was feeding them. Each one we tried was a bigger disaster than the previous one. We finally put Gunner back on Core (which is still a pretty good food, IMO) and luckily we found that Riley does very well on CN and Fromm. 
I am going to take the CN out of the equation for now, but beyond that... I'm done putting my boys through hell in an attempt to do better. :doh:


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Well, I think Mr. Rajczak's comment makes it very, very clear that "holistic" and "natural" are marketing terms with no basis in reality. But when a "good" company uses them, what do they mean?


Really? You seriously got that from the quote provided?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

fostermom said:


> Really? You seriously got that from the quote provided?


Yes. From the quote, it seems fairly clear to me that he views "holistic and natural" as a market segment that P&G is breaking into with this acquisition. I don't think he views "holistic" as a scientific term for some aspect of the food itself.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I still want to know what holistic actually means in this context. In absence of a real definition, how can we assume that it's anything but marketing?


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I still want to know what holistic actually means in this context. In absence of a real definition, how can we assume that it's anything but marketing?


You are speaking like a scientist...<big grin>


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

artbuc said:


> Really, what do you expect them to say?


Gauging from what some of the posts were around here, more like

"We're being gobbled up by the evil P&G!!! God help us and your dogs! Our entire holistic approach is at risk! Pray for one and all!"

As Tippykayak asked, what is "holistic" about dog food?

P&G uses the term and it takes on a false connotation to many.

Nautura uses the term "holistic," and because they are a small(er) family operated business (well, as of June, they won't be) it's not a false statement. Mars corporation, a family operated business, but the largest manufacturer of dog food, well, if they were to use the term, that's considered blasphemy. Because even though they are a family operated business, they are large.

Who's making these rules about who is "evil" and who is not? My GPS thinks that many have fallen prey to excellent marketing techniques, no matter which company. As it's been said, your dog does great on a certain food, wonderful--some of us can't eat nuts, or shellfish, or if we indulge in sweets, we get headaches. Our dogs are all different too.

But I'm not about to go around touting one company as so great and holy and wonderful because of it's "holistic" approach to dog food. And I wouldn't use that as a basis for purchasing food--whatever works for your dog--and don't break your bank either. (JMHO)


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

Nobody should get caught up in the words or pictures used on the front of dog food bags - regardless of the company. The front of the bag is the quickest "in your face" marketing method of drawing a desired response from a consumer. Just like people shouldn't put much stock in any political commercials. You need to dig deeper.

People who really want to know specifics will start comparing by careful label reading on the back of the bags; follow up on the companies' websites; maybe some independent reading of dog nutrition books and magazines, research the company, etc. Then make a choice of which food to try and see how your dog does after a few months. That's if you're really into analyzing your dog food choices. Or some people just find it easier to take someone else's recommendation and call it a day.

I think we have to remember that as consumers we don't all make our buying decisions based on the same values.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

> _It will enable us to enhance the health and well-being of even more dogs and cats and represents an exciting new source of growth for our business." _


How exactly does that make it sound like he thinks of it as a marketing terms with no basis in reality? And really, if you think that's how he is thinking, would you consider feeding one of Natura foods after P&G acquires them?


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

MyBentley said:


> Nobody should get caught up in the words or pictures used on the front of dog food bags - regardless of the company. The front of the bag is the quickest "in your face" marketing method of drawing a desired response from a consumer. Just like people shouldn't put much stock in any political commercials. You need to dig deeper.
> 
> People who really want to know specifics will start comparing by careful label reading on the back of the bags; follow up on the companies' websites; maybe some independent reading of dog nutrition books and magazines, research the company, etc. Then make a choice of which food to try and see how your dog does after a few months. That's if you're really into analyzing your dog food choices. Or some people just find it easier to take someone else's recommendation and call it a day.
> 
> I think we have to remember that as consumers we don't all make our buying decisions based on the same values.


This is OT, but I just found out yesterday while looking for Fromm coupons online that I should check the bag. I had no clue they sometimes put coupons on the bag! Who looks at the bag...:doh: I really need to pay more attention! Tucker eats Fromm...Shadow eats CN. I just look at the calories and the ingredients, the guaranteed analysis, too, which I find online. Now I have to look at the bag!


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

MyBentley said:


> Nobody should get caught up in the words or pictures used on the front of dog food bags - regardless of the company. The front of the bag is the quickest "in your face" marketing method of drawing a desired response from a consumer. Just like people shouldn't put much stock in any political commercials. You need to dig deeper.
> 
> People who really want to know specifics will start comparing by careful label reading on the back of the bags; follow up on the companies' websites; maybe some independent reading of dog nutrition books and magazines, research the company, etc. Then make a choice of which food to try and see how your dog does after a few months. That's if you're really into analyzing your dog food choices. Or some people just find it easier to take someone else's recommendation and call it a day.
> 
> I think we have to remember that as consumers we don't all make our buying decisions based on the same values.


Actually I think for some people its the front of the bag that markets to them. And for the holistic crowd its the ingredients. I really think the ingredients are meant for the people and not for the dogs.

When I read the ingredient list of Innova...my mouth waters...it sounds so good. Does a dab of cottage cheese (way down, down, down on the list---measuring less then the salt and potassium chloride) mean anything but marketing??

All companies market...they do it differently. And we all have to look past ALL the tricks in the trade.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

fostermom said:


> How exactly does that make it sound like he thinks of it as a marketing terms with no basis in reality? And really, if you think that's how he is thinking, would you consider feeding one of Natura foods after P&G acquires them?


I'd still consider feeding the foods. It seemed like a good company to me, and I doubt there will be huge changes with the foods in the near future, unless they sold because their production model was unsustainable.

I think he probably thinks the Natura foods are good and is glad to have them on board. I also don't think the word "holistic" means anything when he uses it.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

Lucky's mom said:


> Actually I think for some people its the front of the bag that markets to them. And *for the holistic crowd its the ingredients.* I really think the ingredients are meant for the people and not for the dogs.
> 
> When I read the ingredient list of Innova...my mouth waters...it sounds so good. Does a dab of cottage cheese (way down, down, down on the list---measuring less then the salt and potassium chloride) mean anything but marketing??
> 
> All companies market...they do it differently. And we all have to look past ALL the tricks in the trade.


Oh I definitely agree a person has to be savvy in reading ingredient lists also. That comes from education even before you look at the back of the bag. Having cranberries or blueberries as the 18th and 19th ingredient means absolutely nothing nutritionally. I've read that the ingredients to focus on most (and that make up the biggest value) are those ingredients listed before the fat ingredient; or the first five ingredients. The general concept makes sense to me.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Kimm said:


> It was mentioned recently (not by you Brian) that those of us who do not feed raw may not care about our dogs as much as those who do. I think that is hogwash. No pun intended. I no longer eat meat, but I care enough about my dogs to make sure they get what they need. I also cared enough to spend 6k on one of them before he was a year old. I know I love them...


All of our vets- primary, oncology, and orthopedic- are adamantly against feeding raw, and they have a laundry list of medical reasons. I just wouldnt dare.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> All of our vets- primary, oncology, and orthopedic- are adamantly against feeding raw, and they have a laundry list of medical reasons. I just wouldnt dare.


I just spent $500 with Jax at the emergency vet on Monday night. I won't go into the gory details, and he's totally fine now, but it was probably salmonella poisoning he got from the raw eggs we've been adding to their food every couple of days.

Our regular vet is also an emergency vet and surgeon, and she is 100% against feeding raw. I figured some really fresh organic eggs would be harmless, but nope!


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I just spent $500 with Jax at the emergency vet on Monday night. I won't go into the gory details, and he's totally fine now, but it was probably salmonella poisoning he got from the raw eggs we've been adding to their food every couple of days.
> 
> Our regular vet is also an emergency vet and surgeon, and she is 100% against feeding raw. I figured some really fresh organic eggs would be harmless, but nope!


How about sardines? I do that occasionally for extra protein and omega oils.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

msdogs1976 said:


> How about sardines? I do that occasionally for extra protein and omega oils.


Well, I'm not a fan of sardines personally, but aren't they steamed or smoked or something before they go in the can? I can't imagine there's any real risk of salmonella there.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I just spent $500 with Jax at the emergency vet on Monday night. I won't go into the gory details, and he's totally fine now, but it was probably salmonella poisoning he got from the raw eggs we've been adding to their food every couple of days.
> 
> Our regular vet is also an emergency vet and surgeon, and she is 100% against feeding raw. I figured some really fresh organic eggs would be harmless, but nope!


I'm glad Jax is okay now! Do you use NHC?


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I just spent $500 with Jax at the emergency vet on Monday night. I won't go into the gory details, and he's totally fine now, but it was probably salmonella poisoning he got from the raw eggs we've been adding to their food every couple of days.
> 
> Our regular vet is also an emergency vet and surgeon, and she is 100% against feeding raw. I figured some really fresh organic eggs would be harmless, but nope!


Glad to hear that he's okay! That had to be more than a little nerve racking.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Kimm said:


> I'm glad Jax is okay now! Do you use NHC?


Yup. It was a horribly busy night, and fortunately, Jax ended up being the least serious case. The doc had a couple of dogs in the ICU who needed a lot of attention. The techs there are really, really nice. They had him away from us in a triage/observation area for a long time, and one of the techs kept bringing us updates. She even tried to take a picture on her phone to bring up to us, but it didn't work.

Eventually, when it was clear he wasn't going downhill, she brought him back up to us so he could wait with us. Good folks.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Lucky's mom said:


> T&T said:
> 
> 
> > You do need to feel comfortable with the company you choose. I was giving my take on it. I don't distrust a company if its big. I tend to distrust the smaller, less endowed companies.....especially in this economy where cost-cutting can make a difference not only in profits...but in viability.
> ...


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

T&T said:


> Lucky's mom said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/articles/big-industry-too-big-to-stop.html
> ...


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

_"Pet food consisting of material from diseased animals or animals which have died otherwise than by slaughter, which is in violation of 402(a)(5) will not ordinarily be actionable, if it is not otherwise in violation of the law. It will be considered fit for animal consumption."_

I would say the issue is addressed.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Yup. It was a horribly busy night, and fortunately, Jax ended up being the least serious case. The doc had a couple of dogs in the ICU who needed a lot of attention. The techs there are really, really nice. They had him away from us in a triage/observation area for a long time, and one of the techs kept bringing us updates. She even tried to take a picture on her phone to bring up to us, but it didn't work.
> 
> Eventually, when it was clear he wasn't going downhill, she brought him back up to us so he could wait with us. Good folks.


Yes they are. We have seen two of the female Vets in that office and one of the male Vets. His wife works there. I'm very comfortable bringing my two there if need be. My son used to volunteer there.


----------



## Abbydabbydo (Jan 31, 2007)

You know, I always strayed from the raw egg thing for that reason. And mine like them scrambled with cheese anyway. I am glad Jax is OK.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

In all these years I've NEVER had a dog get sick from anything raw. Perhaps it's because my dogs have normal, functioning immune systems as do I and my son (who has yet to ever get any type of illness at all) and husband?


----------



## Hershey (Oct 31, 2009)

very disappointed by this. I feed EVO and Hershey has bee doing very well on it. I truly hope they dont touch the formula like they did to Iams and Eukanuba


----------



## turtle66 (Feb 19, 2010)

Well, I do have to admit that I have a very low opinion about the company proctor and gamble. Even if they do not change the ingredient list you cannot be sure if they might change the suppliers to the cheapest one. They are into profit! Yes all companies are and have to be into profit, but proctor and gamble set a bad example as a company of being most into profit when my husband worked as a pharmacist in Germany: They had the harshest techniques of all pharmacy companies and didn't for example simply allow to buy "Wick products" alone but only with other products from their company. 
I personally believe that they are not into making a good product but rather into making a good profit...


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

As a rule...a company isn't going to make a good product unless they make a good profit. The exception to that rule is...is if they have alot of "padding", which an older more invested corporation does. This is why a corporation like proctor and gamble invests in research and can take risks. They have the means to veer away from profit for a particular brand and look at investing for the future.

I'm just amazed at how little people know about business...thinking the only good business is the one that doesn't have profit as a top priority. That's a dead business....not a good one.

I think some of these holistic companies....as a part of their marketing strategy must mislead consumers into thinking a profit isn't important to them.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

Hershey said:


> I truly hope they dont touch the formula like they did to Iams and Eukanuba


I've seen this comment a few times. Can anyone tell me what changed when P&G took over? I've looked for a pre-1999(buyout) ingredient list but have not found one. Not saying some ingredients didn't change, I'm just curious exactly what did change. 



Lucky's mom said:


> I'm just amazed at how little people know about business...thinking the only good business is the one that doesn't have profit as a top priority. That's a dead business....not a good one.


Agree.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Hershey said:


> very disappointed by this. I feed EVO and Hershey has bee doing very well on it. I truly hope they dont touch the formula like they did to Iams and Eukanuba


What exactly were the changes?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> In all these years I've NEVER had a dog get sick from anything raw. Perhaps it's because my dogs have normal, functioning immune systems as do I and my son (who has yet to ever get any type of illness at all) and husband?


By any indication, Jax has a normal, functioning immune system. He is not used to raw foods, but aside from that, there's no reason to think he's anything but 100% normal and healthy.

By the same token, the pathogen involved may not have come from the eggs. It may not be related to food at all. He's out and about and exposed to all kinds of things all the time, including other dogs. There was never any kind of positive test for salmonella; it was simply our best guess.

However, my vet would say that you have never had a dog get sick from raw food because you have been careful and lucky. She has shared horror stories with me a number of times about puppies with E. coli and salmonella, and she has told me more than once that the most common problem she's seen with raw feeding is obstructions from RMBs.

I did not mean to make any indictment of raw feeding in my post. It had just happened, so I felt like talking about it, and salmonella is the best guess. Jax's experience doesn't prove anything one way or the other about feeding raw.


----------



## julinem (Sep 4, 2009)

Thank you all for your comments on this thread. I have been troubled by the fact that P&G purchased Innova too. I have heard nothing good about P&G over the years and am very worried about the recent takeover. I even purchased a bag of Orijen Large Breed Puppy formula. I have not actually started the processing of changing foods yet and now I am not sure if I want to change to Orijen. I would love to hear more comments (good and bad) regarding Orijen. I will be changing...I just do not have the confidence in P&G to believe they won't modify the formula.


----------



## Retrievers Rock (Apr 4, 2010)

I've noticed this thread off and on over the past weeks, but never bothered to open it up, because I didn't associate Innova with Natura. 

I _just_ transitioned Piper to Innova LB, because I have Molly on Innova LBP. I had Piper on Wellness, but wanted to get her on something that I felt was a little better.

Well, imagine my surprise when I went in to pick up Molly's food today, only to be told that P&G has purchased it (light bulb then finally went off) and that they feel that its quality will possibly change, so they're not going to carry it anymore. She said they've been researching a replacement food to take its place, and Fromm will be it.

I know nothing about it, but she seemed pretty impressed by it, and I know it's spoken of highly on this forum. Looks like I have some research to do...


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't care so much what company owns a product, just what goes _into _that product. When it comes to dogs with allergies, just a slight formula change can make a big difference. Experience has shown that when a new company takes over a food, changes often follow. Look what happened to Canidae.

Over the course of the last 2 years, I have found exactly 5 formula of foods that do not contain ingredients Conner is allergic to. Acana had a formula change so that knocks it down to 4. They are Instinct (Chicken), Horizon (forgot what formula, haven't tried it yet), the new Evo Herring and Salmon, and the even newer CN grain free chicken.

So 2 out of the 4 foods my dog is not allergic to have just been taken over by a new company and I am keeping my fingers crossed that no changes are made. Fortunately I do feed raw so I just like to keep kibble on hand for supplemental and emergency purposes.

Here is a list of foods Conner is allergic to. If anyone knows of another food that doesn't contain any of these (especially a less expensive one!) I would love to know it!

pork, duck, rabbit, rice, potatoes, barley, oats, yeast (I think I got them all)


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

hmmm.....not to take this thread off topic, but after another hour of looking at ingredient lists (out of many many hours of looking) I did just find a food that meets the requirements I listed above: no ingredients I saw that Conner's allergic to, and much (MUCH) cheaper

GRAVY TRAIN

not quite what I had in mind :no:

Maybe I need to go check out the kibble n bits and ol' roy now! :uhoh:


----------



## turtle66 (Feb 19, 2010)

> Thank you all for your comments on this thread. I have been troubled by the fact that P&G purchased Innova too. I have heard nothing good about P&G over the years and am very worried about the recent takeover. I even purchased a bag of Orijen Large Breed Puppy formula. I have not actually started the processing of changing foods yet and now I am not sure if I want to change to Orijen. I would love to hear more comments (good and bad) regarding Orijen. I will be changing...I just do not have the confidence in P&G to believe they won't modify the formula.


Oh - I am so with you! I will change my cat's food from Evo to Orijen (if she likes it...), because I haven't heard anything good about Procter and Gamble as well. But I do like Orijen. Lilly (our one year old Golden) is on it since 8 months and she loves it. No problems with gases, her fur is very soft, her bowel movements regular, she is healthy and we had so far no problems at all! I love their philosophy - "all ingredients are coming from their area" - they just use local (canadian) suppliers...do we have a guarantee about the quality? - No! Does Orijen want to make profit? Yes! But I still feel this company (in comparison to procter and gamble) has a passion about their food - they WANT to sell an EXCELLENT product !
So if you ask me - go for Orijen....


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

NOW and GO (both made by petcurian) also have some good varieties... both with and without grain.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Now & go????


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Kimm said:


> Now & go????


 
http://www.petcurean.com/


----------



## caddis (Dec 1, 2008)

I work in a small chemical plant that does a ton of business with P&G, and happen to use Nutura dog food. I will not scare you too much, but if you only knew what you were wiping you back side with, you might rethink things. I will be finding a new food. Any suggestions?


----------



## Retrievers Rock (Apr 4, 2010)

caddis said:


> I work in a small chemical plant that does a ton of business with P&G, and happen to use Nutura dog food. *I will not scare you too much, but if you only knew what you were wiping you back side with, you might rethink things.* I will be finding a new food. Any suggestions?


I had to read this about three times, and I'm still not sure what this part means... do they put toilet paper in their food? :uhoh:


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Without Googling, guess which of these two ingredient lists is a mass market pet food from a brand owned by P&G, and which is a "holistic" dog food mentioned in this thread. There are a couple of key ingredients that might clue you in, but honestly, do they really look all that different?

Food #1
Lamb Meal, Brewers Rice, Corn Meal, Ground Whole Grain Sorghum, Chicken By-Product Meal, Corn Grits, Ground Whole Grain Barley, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Dried Beet Pulp, Dried Egg Product, Chicken Flavor, Potassium Chloride, Brewers Dried Yeast, Monosodium Phosphate, Salt, Flax Meal, Fish Oil (preserved with mixed Tocopherols, a source of Vitamin E), Dried Apple Pomace, Dried Carrots, Choline Chloride, Dried Peas, Fructooligosaccharides, Minerals (Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Manganese Sulfate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Potassium Iodide, Cobalt Carbonate), DL-Methionine, Dried Spinach, Dried Tomatoes, Calcium Carbonate, Vitamins (Ascorbic Acid, Vitamin A Acetate, Calcium Pantothenate, Biotin, Thiamine Mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), Vitamin B12 Supplement, Niacin, Riboflavin Supplement (source of vitamin B2), Inositol, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), Vitamin D3 Supplement, Folic Acid), Vitamin E Supplement, Beta-Carotene, Citric Acid, Rosemary Extract.

Food #2
Chicken Meal, Oatmeal, Oat Flour, Corn, Rice Bran, Chicken Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols (Vit. E)), Salmon Meal, Lamb Meal, Flax, Natural Flavor, Kelp Meal, Dicalcium Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Potassium Chloride, Choline Chloride, Lysine, Dried Whole Egg, Ascorbic Acid (vit. C), Vitamin A Acetate, Cholecalciferol (vit. D), DL Alpha-Tocopherol Acetate (vit. E), Ferrous Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Niacin, Calcium Pantothenate, Copper Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Riboflavin, Calcium Iodate, Thiamine Mononitrate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (vit. B6), Folic Acid, Biotin, Sodium Selenite, Cobalt Carbonate, Vitamin B12.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Also, Petcurean had a recall in 2003 because "Go" foods were associated with liver failure.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

The first one looks like Nutrish by Rachel Ray. I don't know about the second one, Iams?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I would say #1 P&G


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

fostermom said:


> The first one looks like Nutrish by Rachel Ray. I don't know about the second one, Iams?


The first one is the Lamb Iams Healthy Naturals Lamb Meal and Rice, and the second is Petcurean's Summit Premium Holistic.

I think the big giveaway is that the first includes a byproduct meal, which is usually the first thing to go if a food wants to label itself "holistic." There's a lot of railing against byproducts on dog food websites. I think that's because it sounds like "not food," when in fact it means "includes organ meat."

My point, though, is that there's little substantive difference between the Iams line and a food that labels itself "Premium Holistic."


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I cannot for the life of me figure out what Cobalt Carbonate is doing in that food.


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

There's been a few people who have stated that there has been nothing good to say about P&G.

Can I again, go on the record and state something good?

My golden has a beautiful coat; no hot spots--knock on wood, she has never had one. No excessive shedding. Firm stools. She goes once in the morning, once in the evening. So not a lot of stools.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let me state she is on Eukanuba Large Breed Natural Lamb and Rice, manufactured by P&G.

The next person who posts that there's nothing good about P&G needs to reread this post--and several others.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I cannot for the life of me figure out what Cobalt Carbonate is doing in that food.


 
From the Eukanuba site, it is used as a source of calcium. http://www.iams.com/eukanuba/en_AU/jsp/Euk_Page.jsp?pageID=ID&paramValue=ABCDE&alphaChr=C

And, in fact, is found at least in their adult maintenance dog food: Scroll down and access ingredients.
http://www.eukanuba.com/en-US/product/adult-maintenance-small-bite.jspx


----------



## GoldenDreams (Dec 17, 2009)

I just learned of this. My friend works at a "natural" dog store and she said that by law pet food companies have up to 6 months to change their packaging even if they change the ingredients!!!! SCARY THOUGHT especially for the dogs with food allergies. Also, she informed me that PETCO bought WELLNESS.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

GoldenDreams said:


> I just learned of this. My friend works at a "natural" dog store and she said that by law pet food companies have up to 6 months to change their packaging even if they change the ingredients!!!! SCARY THOUGHT especially for the dogs with food allergies. Also, she informed me that PETCO bought WELLNESS.


 
Wellness and Eagle Pack were bought by Berwin Industries which put them under the Wellpet umbrella...... NOT Petco.http://www.petproductnews.com/natural-pet-product-merchandiser/an-interview-with-tim-callahan.aspx


----------



## GoldenDreams (Dec 17, 2009)

I don't know anything about Wellpet? Is this a bad move like the Natura/Proctor Gamble?


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

GoldenDreams said:


> I don't know anything about Wellpet? Is this a bad move like the Natura/Proctor Gamble?


I know when they purchased Eagle Pack, Cody all of a sudden starting having real issues on the food he had been on for several years ( Eagle Pack Holistic Duck). EP kept saying there were no formula changes, but something definitely was different. It was at that point that we found Fromm. I think there are several others here who had similar experiences.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Retrievers Rock said:


> I had to read this about three times, and I'm still not sure what this part means... do they put toilet paper in their food? :uhoh:


No, the poster was implying that whatever is put into the paper that's used to make toilet paper isn't so great and would make you think twice about using it.

But... toilet paper is toilet paper. What else can we use? Banana leaves? :uhoh:


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

kdmarsh said:


> No, the poster was implying that whatever is put into the paper that's used to make toilet paper isn't so great and would make you think twice about using it.
> 
> But... toilet paper is toilet paper. What else can we use? Banana leaves? :uhoh:


They used to use the pages of the old Sears and Roebuck's (sp) catalogue. That is when they had outhouses. I never used this, but my Mom and sisters told me all about it. LOL


----------

