Like 3cat, I too had to compromise vitamin/mineral supplements for my homecooking down to the best human grade I could find. So I would be interested in whether Evangers is using human grade premix suppliers and would suggest that they test their premixes in house prior to their use. I would also be interested in how they determine what % of each vitamin and mineral they add to their formula. Is it based upon veterinary nutritionist studies.

I would feel more comfortable with Evangers if there were a written apology posted here for what was intimated about Lesliek.

I'm glad that Evangers is asking questions and posting information but after last March it will take a lot more honesty to gain my trust as a consumer.

5catmom; your IMHO is also IMHO.

Katie

Maybe dumb question,,,,,, but why doesn't the CDC have to release the name of the plant or the name of the dog food products?  They have tested, found problems, but all they say is a plant in Penn? and that is all?  Anyone else find this odd,,,,,,or is it just me?

Thanks, as always, menusux, for the tracing back to Mars.

This is exactly how most people bought their pet foods.  We trusted.

Look where it got us and what it did to our animals. We lost them, and we're caring for the damaged ones - struggling to get answers so that we don't feel the guilt from feeding them another pet food that will end their lives.  We've been there, done that.
 
That is precisely why it is extremely upsetting that Evanger's hasn't answered what test & safety protocols they do have in place and what your GMPs are or when you act like you're insulted because we ask and question such things.

If what you said above is why I've had no answers to my questions about your safety testing & due diligence, then what else can you expect reactions are to your not responding and what appears to be cherry-picking questions?

In May 2007, the CVM issued a letter (and if memory serves me correctly, there's one somewhere they did with Pet Food more prominent):

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/Feedmanufacturers.htm

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking this opportunity to remind feed and feed ingredient manufacturers of their legal responsibility to ensure that every ingredient used in their products is safe for its intended use, whether the product is meant to be used to feed animals intended for human consumption or non-food animals such as pets. "

While I agree it is nice you want to know what we'd like to see tested, I want to see what you already test for and what you rely on as a business entity manufacturing pet foods that you are ensuring that "every ingredient used in their (your )products is (are ) safe for its intended use.."  

I seriously doubt that I am the only one interested in that.

In April 2007, Stephen Sundlof said in the Senate hearing:

http://www.fda.gov/ola/2007/petfood041207.html

"Background on FDA Regulation of Pet Food
The pet food industry is responsible for adherence to good manufacturing practices. FDA conducts risk-based inspections targeted toward products that pose the greatest risks to public health. However, inspections cannot identify every potential contaminant and are only one aspect of our work to detect and contain problem such as this. In addition, it is important for all participants in the production and distribution process to maintain the highest standards for safety to protect the American consumer, whether that consumer is human or animal. As with human food safety, FDA recognizes that we need to use strong science capable of identifying both the sources of risk and effective control measure. To that end, FDA is working to develop a risk-based Animal Feed Safety System that describes how animal feed should made, distributed, and used. The Animal Feed Safety System is designed to minimize risks to humans and animals from unsafe animal feed.

And this is an article that mentions the Castleberry & Natural Balance issues with LACF:

http://www.best-dog-food-guide.com/cvm.html

"For canned dog food the same rules apply as for canned foods for human use and these are strict! Since 1973 specific rules for low acid canned foods exist to ensure safety from harmful bacteria and their toxins. Specifically Clostridium botulinum is the reason for this rule and defined GMP’s (Good Manufacturing Processes). Rules apply to equipment designs and processing as well as trained supervisory personnel.

In July of 2007, the US faced a recall of ‘Natural Balance’ canned dog food because of botulism fear. Four people had been taken to hospital because of botulism poisoning after eating Castleberry’s Hot Dog Chili Sauce. For over three decades the US has not experienced an outbreak of botulism due to commercially canned foods; this is extremely rare."

And then, lets look at the FDA notice in April for Evanger's , and the Evanger responses - posting discounting, saying only paperwork.. and then approach where we are again in this thread, which I hope you have a better understanding of it all... it's not "off the chart" pet owners asking for something because of the notice, it's more than a years worth of learning and questioning.. and worry that the pet food industry has taken very little time to address as adults that are responsible for the products, their target markets, and their end users, the consumer who pays for it... and folks like here and the questions asked.. and the reason unanswered questions and "trust" will not resolve any of this.

We've had other companies in here, and for me personally, there is one company, whose products I only used a couple of, whose executive, Mr. Goldman,  came here and I think by far more than any others, he has shown respect and earned respect from many of us... and I've tried more of his products because of that. They're struggling like all the other pfcs.. as they have to come up in the market and provide something besides an advertisement, super premium and "trust" me statements.

Very rarely do I wholly agree with Kaffe ... but Yes many on here are Even running tests on foods that are NOT required by any regulatory agency... Right now TOO many agencies are in charge and it seems many dont know what the other is doing or not doing

So are we all.  You joined April 25, making 3 posts that day:




No explanation as to what company you were talking about, you went on:


All of these posts deal with only the Evanger's issue.  There's a lot more here to read and post about, unless one's like Sandy Goodman of Nature's Variety/MI or Mr. Weaver of Evanger's.

Menusux said "There's a lot more here to read and post about, unless one's like Sandy Goodman of Nature's Variety/MI or Mr. Weaver of Evanger's."

Or, Peter Atkins of Natura  

I know that I said I would return the refund of $54.10 to Evangers, but on further thinking about it I have changed my mind. IMHO they sold me a defective product and I should not be out the money for it. However I do not wish to keep anything from them which could encourage extortion or blackmail allegations. I have decided to do something positive with it & will donate it to pfpsa.org for testing costs on pet food.I will post a copy of the donation receipt.