# Stop Nestle Purina From Killing More Dogs



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I think it's more important to spread the word that consumers simply must stop buying anything edible that's made in China. If people refuse to buy stuff from China, all of the manufacturers will stop selling it.


----------



## Kelly_NC (Apr 13, 2012)

I SO agree! 
I have stopped buying toys and treats from China. It is hard as it seems EVERYTHING for our pets is made there. I bought a dehydrator and am making most of Banx's treats now. We have to take care of our pups and be their voice. They give us so much unconditional love, the least we can do is read a label-


----------



## MikaTallulah (Jul 19, 2006)

I agree. Don't buy from China :yuck:


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

Thanks for posting this. I agree that we have to look very carefully at the labels on all pet treats. If it doesn't say specifically where it is made, definitely don't buy it.


----------



## Luccagr (Feb 25, 2011)

The problem is even if dog foods state that they're made in USA, some portions of the food could be sourced from China and we wouldn't know since the food is technically manufactured in US. I'm very wary of food and toys made in China too. Never know what goes inside the food. But it's hard to avoid that for toys.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

Luccagr said:


> The problem is even if dog foods state that they're made in USA, *some portions of the food could be sourced from China and we wouldn't know since the food is technically manufactured in US*. I'm very wary of food and toys made in China too. Never know what goes inside the food. But it's hard to avoid that for toys.


An important point. I have not heard or read anything that says Purina does not get any of their food ingredients from China. Has anybody spoken or e-mailed with customer service at Purina for an official answer?


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

All good points.

Another thing to watch out for is a "Distributed by..." or "Manufactured for..." on the label. You'll often see that followed by a company name and a U.S. address. Don't let them slip that past you. "Distributed by" and "manufactured for" doesn't tell you anything about where the product was made, or by whom.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

MyBentley said:


> An important point. I have not heard or read anything that says Purina does not get any of their food ingredients from China. Has anybody spoken or e-mailed with customer service at Purina for an official answer?


Another client of our vet did that a few years ago and Purina would not confirm their ingredients are all from the US. When I spoke with a Wellness CSR I was informed that Vitamin C and Taurine are uniformly from China, not the US; however, many pet food companies purchase them from USA middle men so they can claim they are all sourced from the US....


----------



## MikaTallulah (Jul 19, 2006)

MyBentley said:


> An important point. I have not heard or read anything that says Purina does not get any of their food ingredients from China. Has anybody spoken or e-mailed with customer service at Purina for an official answer?


They make the jerky treats in China so it stands to reason they probably get other things from there too.


----------



## Soontobedad (Nov 6, 2011)

says something about the quality of the company

they should've done a voluntarily recall by now.


----------



## MikaTallulah (Jul 19, 2006)

Got to love how they will recall a Cat food after 1 complaint to the FDA but they have hundreds of sick dogs and they don't care.

http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/ar...ingle-lot-of-therapeutic-canned-cat-food.html


----------



## 3 goldens (Sep 30, 2005)

Those said about food (and items of all kinds) being made here, but getting some ingredients or parts from China is right. Anotherr thing, when a food is made, the company has to list every ingredient TRHEY put in there. But there is a little catch here. An ingredeint mayve have been treated with a cehmaical, or grown susing undesirable chemicals, but they do not have to list that becaue they didn't use that chemical themselves.

I have yet to see on packs of Tyson or Pilgrims Pride chicken that theyos birds were fed feed lacd with "quick growth" stuff (or "miracle growth as hubby calls it. And he knows for fact they use it---he ha hauled to much of it to the palces where it is mixed in with the feed. It makes baby chicks grow much faster.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

New article on MSN.com regarding Jerky treats-


Vitals - Nearly 1,000 dogs now sick from jerky treats, FDA reports say


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

I'm perplexed. From what I've read, FDA has thoroughly tested these treats and found nothing in them that points to them being toxic. So are we to think that perhaps it was a bad batch of treats that caused all of these problems? 

I'll admit I actually fed Flora a whole bag of Canyon Creek treats, which I believe are being blamed for illnesses, but she never had a problem with them. Maybe we just got a normal batch of treats? This was about a year ago.

I hope the FDA can get to the bottom of this and find out what's in the treats that's causing these poor dogs to suffer, because honestly, I don't think the company who manufactures these treats is going to recall them until there is definitive evidence that the treats are poisoning dogs.


----------



## 3 goldens (Sep 30, 2005)

What a bunch of marlarky! The companies talk about the release form and say it has nothing to do with final judgmentts. I beg to differe, I still have the one I got from Fort Dodge when they wanted me to sign after they killed my Hunter. It says that I will never reveal any information, talk about the settlemtn, and that will be the end of the matter. 

There were lots who did sign it to get money to help with vet bills and they had to shut up as tight as a hatch on a submarine. I refused to sign it becaue i was not going to shut up, I was going to tell Hunter's story in hopes of saving other dogs. So that is an untruth on the part of the company.You sign it and you are stuck in a closet unable to talk about what happened to your dog, about your settlement, or try to get more money later on.

Also, we learned from the FDA that only about 10% of all cases of adverse reactions/deaths are reported to theFDA. So there are probably several thousand more dogs dead or sick from eating that tainted jerky than have been reported.

THANK GOD for the net where we can learn about dangerous products, or potentially dangerous products. Not somany years ago this would have not come out. But thankfully people are wising up.


----------



## 3 goldens (Sep 30, 2005)

I think most companies will not recall until they are totally boxed in and no way out---expecially when it comes to animals. Some do the right thing, but so many want to get every penny they can in the grubby hands before being forced to pull their product.

There was a time I believed in companies that had big well known name,s--Purina, Nestle, Del Monte, etc and take Johnsons and Johnson--I thought they were "it_ until I found out they were selling faulty insulin pumps that they KNEW were faulty, but kept right on selling them....til the governement stepped in. We have a couple of memebers on here who use insulin pumps (i just take meds, no insulin) and it is shocking to think a compnay would pull this kind of stunt.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

I have this "_thing"_ for lack of a better word, about Ethics in Business and doing what is morally right.

Since there have been so many illnesses and problems reported from these products, I feel the company should be doing a voluntary recall and doing further investigations before any more dogs get sick or die from these products. Actually I think it should have been done a long time ago and I don't think they should wait for the FDA to issue a formal recall. 

They have a moral obligation to consumers to do the right thing now.


----------



## 3 goldens (Sep 30, 2005)

Yes they do have an obligation ...to the people and their animals (in caaes like this) but it seems they think their only obligation is to their stock holders---putting $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$in their pockets.

As soneone pointed out, our much loved dogs are considered "property" and I think the companies push it to the limits to get what they can. They know there will be no million dollar lawsuits against them for loss or severe illness Maybe a slight slap on the wrist and that is it. Heck, they even hold out as long as possible with human meds, products, etc, but not as much as with animal stuff.

It is my understanding ProHeart6 was the FIRST animal med ever pulled from the market. So manyof us sent our dogs complete medical history to Dr. Hampshire at the animal part of the FDA. Dogs who had never been sick a day in their lives like my 4 year old Hunter. Many of us had direct contact with her. She decided that far to many dogs were having severe reactions and dying.

It was pulled the first part of Sept. 2004 (My hunter died Oct. 16, 2003) They tried to get it back and there was a big "hearing" (not sure what you would call it) on Dec. 31, 2005. Was a 15 member panel listned to the all the 'pro" talk buy lawyers, vets, etc from Fort Dodge and Banfield Clinic (they swore not a dog had had a reaction at any of their clinics, but I had been in contact with some whoses dogs had been very sick or died after getting PH6 at Banfield).

Several that I knew went--one who had all 3 of her dogs injected the same day and in 2 months two were dead of reactions (including AIHA) and the other is on meds to this day, 10 years later) one who lost her pom and almost lost her sheltie, one from Houston who lost her hound, one from dallas who lost his snauzzie, etv, etv. Many many, many of us who could not attened sent in our stories. Each of the panel got copies before hand.

The panel voted that it could not be returned until a lot more studies had been done. I suspect that having Banfield saying there had never been a dog have a reaction who had gotten it at anyof their clincis, then the panel had papers from some who did--that didn't help Fort Dodge's case.

Also, they had always said that they had had 281 field trial dogs and only 3 had died and they had been "sickly or underweight.) But at the hearing it came out that not all the dogs finished. I have read th e tentire 300 page transcript, but can't remember the exactly numbe. Wa something 8 others didn't finish. When asked why, the guy said "Oh, some were killed in hunting accidents, some "ate" antifreeze, some were hit by cars."

I don't think that was a good enoughexplination either as to why so many didn't finish. I mean, I grew up in an area where EVERYONE including myself hunted and I do not recall a single time any dogs was "accidently killed" in a hunting accidnet, tho I know it can an d does happen, but not to that extent. Same with antifreze. I know that is deadly and dogs and cats do get hold of it, but this seemed a little to much as well.

I waged war against Fort Dodge for months, and in a round about way have never stopped--even tho they are not sold to Bayer I think it is. I refused to sign that "keep your trap shut, never mention our product and your dogs' death again" paper becaue as with Mika, I could not keep quiet if I could save one dog. And even tho I didn't sign, I was a lucky one. Fort Dodge did pay me me just about half of Hunter's $2300 vet bill even tho I had never threatened them or tired to sue them. I just sent them letters every few days with the stories of other dogs I found who had died or almost died. I think they thought I would go away. WRONG. To many people love their dog as much as I love Hunter and I never wanted anyone else to los their dog becaue a drug compnay "bought me off."
Sorry for the rant. I just get so wound up when I think about how they can get by with pushing bad stuff off on her beloved dogs.


----------



## MikaTallulah (Jul 19, 2006)

They will keep making these treats as long as they keep making money from them.

IMO and through my research as well as vets'- A normally healthy 4 year old yorkie should not suddenly go it into renal failure unless poisoned. I did feed these treats for a few years before having a problem. My other Yorkies rarely got these treats due to cost $15 for like 15 pieces. I never gave Zoey more than the "recommended" serving amount and most day she did not even get a full 1 treat.

My theory is if all these dogs are getting sick and the only thing they have in common is the treats it is the treats causing it.


----------



## MikaTallulah (Jul 19, 2006)

If is chose to settle it will be my dad (lawyer) signing the paperwork not me. "The we paid you now keep your mouth shut" would not apply to me since I would not be signing the settlement paperwork. 

Even of the FDA finds something, which they won't, they can only recommend a recall. They can't force a company to do it- Law enforcement would have to. The FDA is continuing to do batch tested provided to them by the company- As of the company would give them tainted treats. IMO- They should be testing the treats from the homes of dogs affected and go to the actual stores to get the treats for testing.


----------



## 3 goldens (Sep 30, 2005)

Oh, Yeah, All of us that lost or almost lost dogs to ProHeart6 went thru this same thing. A few had gotten vax at the same time they got PH^, but by far, mot had only gotten the PH6. With Hunter, there had been no other changes, nothing different in his life. What put me onto the PH6 was after diagnosis my vet said "When it comes time for his next ProHeart injection we are going back to the monthly pills.

That is when I went to library, learned to use a computer and started researching. When something is bad, we HAVE to tell the story. And you are so right--when so many dogs have illnesses, deaths following the use of the jerky treats, or any other product, that should raise a red flag for sure.


----------

