I interpreted above (text changed to red, bold, italics by me, not Mr. Atkins) as meaning the premix was tested and also returned negative for acetaminophen.  Am I reading his post wrong?  Didn't see specific "vitamin mineral premix" listed by the labs, perhaps I'm missing something.  Could be a blond moment or senior moment.  Take your pick.

I know that the people at Naturapet and their competitors/colleagues are reading this so I want to be clear, I'm going to talk to you all like intelligent adults since I understand the stakes.

You are of course very aware of HOW you went about doing this testing. It was not an accident who you choose and what specifically you asked them to look for. That is to be expected. Your goal would be to disprove ExperTox's results. That is your short term communications goal. But I think we all know that you did NOT address the real question which was, "Something made our customer's pets sick, what was it and why did it happen?"

Your food, given to Donna's pets made them sick. What they ate is the variable here. I think we can agree on that (unless you want to go the accusation route which I sincerely hope you do not given all the incredible lengths that Donna went through to deal with you in good faith)

How you responded to Donna and your specific follow up shows clearly the focus was to shut down the criticism rather than address the real question.

I understand that posture. It is what your stockholders would expect you to do. Of course if you want to keep your customers happy you would probably want to find out the answer to that question. Why? So it doesn't happen again. Because making pets sick is not good for business. Maybe you have looked back up the supply chain and found the Chinese vitamin manufacturer that made the mistake. Maybe you found another chemical that you don't want to talk about but you quietly changed suppliers. Your lawyers would probably advise you to keep that quiet because that's what lawyers do. "Don't make any extra information available unless they ask, preferably under a subpoena!"

 And that is shown specifically when you look at what the UC Davis lab was ONLY requested to look for, Acetaminophen. Note: No request to look for cyanuric acid. Which was ALSO found in Donna's food sample.
Other tests might have come back, but you did not post the results. If not, why not? And of course the Midland test (who I believe is your regular lab) wasn't even looking for acetaminophen.

Now I note that ExperTox also tested a sample, clever move on your part.
So what does that mean, was ExperTox wrong on Donna's sample or were they wrong on your sample?  I'll expect you to throw out the "opened bag" gambit, where you make a subtle accusation at the honesty of the person who has shown time and time again that they are not trying to shake you down, yet simply wants the truth. This same gambit was used by P&G and Iams on Ben here at Itchmo. You throw the burden back on the consumer and work to discredit the lab. In my conversations with people in the industry this is considered SOP when dealing with these issues.

I want you all to know something.


You would know if the people who reported problems here on this forum were looking to shake you down if they acted like those people. They. Did. Not.

Yet you have chosen to treat them like false accusers rather than people who simple want to know, "What is it in your food that made my pet sick? Why did this batch make my pets sick when it never made them sick before?" They expected YOU to look out for their pets first because they thought that it would ALSO be good for your business.

So instead of working so hard to only DISPROVE results, you might have worked hard to answer the question, what WAS it that made the pets sick? Isn't THAT something that all the employees at Naturapet would like to know? Maybe it isn't something that has revealed itself yet, remember it took a while to find the cause of the Menu Foods recall one lab's results weren't replicated, yet the bottom line was SOMETHING was making the pets sick and killing them. That should be you goal.

This is an important distinction and one that must be made.  In a world with a working government that is designed to protect the food supply the FDA or USDA should be answering the question as an outside group, but sadly they have proved that only a major disaster gets them to act and then slowly and with the concerns of the business first and customers later.

At some time I'd like get into a discussion about testing methods done by all these labs the LACK of apples to apples sample comparisons and the issue of LG-MS vs GC-MS and methodology. I've had discussions with people in the scientific community about all of these, but first:

The issue of the "retain sample is a composite of the entire production run".

To be clear I'll call this the poison potato vs. the poison soup analogy.

Let's say you have a stew and you have some poison potatoes in it and the person testing the stew only takes a scoop of the stew without potatoes. Tested for poison it will reveal nothing. The potatoes are in discrete lumps and can be missed.

Now if you have a smooth bowl of tomato soup and the person testing the soup takes a scoop out of the soup and tests it for poison it will reveal the poison because the poison is probably evenly mixed throughout the soup.

So is the food more like stew or like soup? Did your test get the "poison potatoes" in the stew? ExperTox says they stand by Donna's results. Why the problem with YOUR sample? Why not do the same test with her samples?

 The sample of the product in question (and I've seen the photos) was more like stew, I've seen the lumps. So unless the "composite of the entire production run" shows the same lumps then you were testing the scoop without the "poison potato".

Everyone here understands the high stakes. We also understand the methods that companies will use to avoid dealing with the real problem.  Many of us live in the real world and can see through techniques designed to calm the consumers and not address the underlying issue.
 
The industry holds up the Johnson and Johnson company as the gold standard for how to deal with a crisis with food and drugs. Ironically it was their branded acetaminophen that had to be recalled. What few people remember is that at the time their actions were considered "over reactions" in the industry and I believe that they were first punished by Wall Street for doing a global recall. Many thought that they would never recover, but people KNEW by their actions that the people doing the recall thought first of the customer and then later about what the Lawyers would say and how the market would react.

I compare that response to how the pet food companies responded. Who does the pet food industry hires to defend them? How do they deal with customers?

I have confidence in Donna's word. I will stand by her and support her goal of protecting the health of her pets.

#2 -- DONNA’S REPSONSE TO ATKINS’ MESSAGE

 “Finally, the test results.”

It is truly unfortunate that Natura Pet could not have contacted us direct regarding the outcome of their analysis as would be the appropriate business protocol, professional courtesy and fulfilling the promise they had committed to us.  The original letter from Vicki stated Natura would contact us with the analysis results in 3-4 weeks of receipt (receipt was May 24, confirmed by UPS).  Mr. Atkins also told us during our two conversations he would contact us with the results.   

During our first conversation with Mr. Atkins, he confirmed that the samples were still on Brian’s desk at the manufacturing plant and had not yet been sent for analysis.  Three weeks had already passed.  Were our samples compromised in any way during the three week period they sat on someone’s desk?  Were our samples even taken seriously?  Obviously not, as it appears they were not even tested.   In our initial conversation with Mr. Atkins after he checked with the manufacturing plant, he told us they were actually already aware of the situation, they had our sample and were in the process of testing for it also.   Yet, here we are on July 24 and we are only now being provided with results. 

“Samples of both the retained samples of the actual production run . . . . . and the premix used in that production were sent to two different laboratories for testing.”

These tests were apparently done on samples from the manufacturing plant commonly referred to as retain samples.  I would like to know what happened to the samples that Natura requested we submit to Brian at their manufacturing plant?  I carefully packaged the samples along with detailed descriptions and photographs, yet my samples sat on someone’s desk for 3 weeks without being submitted for analysis.  Were the embedded black chunks actually tested or was it simply a matter of pulling from the premix retain sample?  This is an interesting point as Mr. Atkins told us they had checked and were not able to see the same effect in the retain samples.  So was this, in fact, a fair comparison? 

Mr. Atkins also details the product stamp on two bags of dog food we purchased and the fact that the retain sample was pulled at a point in between the run of our two bags.  He does not, however, mention when the premix sample was pulled from the production line.  If the premix is added separately, as Mr. Atkins told us it was, then a single sampling of the premix would not be definitive in regard to purity or quality of the mix.  On June 15, Mr. Atkins told us they had identified the embedded chunks as vitamin mineral premix.  He also explained that the mixture goes through a grinder and thus should not have been in chunks.  He further explained that sometimes clumping can occur and can be due to moisture or other causes.  So, if he is dismissing the toxins identified by the private lab in our analysis, he still has not addressed the production quality issue.  Furthermore, why would a vitamin mineral mixture be black in color and extremely hard? 

“As expected, both tests have come back negative for acetaminophen contamination. “

The test results we discussed with Mr. Atkins consisted of the analysis of (1) a general sample from our purchased product and (2) a sampling of the embedded chunks.  As we told him, the lab, Expertox, said the general sample of dry dog food yielded no toxins.  However, the embedded chunks, when removed from the kibble and tested separately, yielded a low level of cyanuric acid and a trace of acetaminophen.  Thus, did Natura actually test the chunks specifically? 

It is very confusing to us that another similar sample with embedded chunks was submitted by another customer.  That person  posted that the laboratory stated the chunks appeared to be of a synthetic material.  We still do not have confidence in what these chunks really are. 

Regarding the test results posted on Natura’s website:

We discussed our concerns regarding levels of detection with Mr. Atkins on June 13.   Expertox told us they test to a level of 0.1 ppm and MidWest Labs, utilized by Natura, stated they tested at 10 ppm. 

On June 15, Mr. Atkins addressed our concerns.  He stated he consulted with a vet nutritionist at UC Davis who told him it was “impossible” to test at levels to 0.1 ppm.  The vet said you would do good to get 10 ppm, but anything less than 10 ppm was impossible and that you would run a greater risk of false readings.  Thus, why does the analysis report from UC Davis state they tested for acetaminophen at a level of 1 ppm?  Which statement from UC Davis should we believe – the one that says it is “impossible” to test below 10 ppm or the analysis that was completed by UC Davis which tested at 1 ppm?    And why did UC Davis only test for acetaminophen?  What about cyanuric acid? 

“After speaking with her (June 13), I directed that the samples that she sent us be tested at another lab”

In reviewing Mr. Atkins’ post on July 3, he made a statement that “We requested she send samples to us so that Midwest Laboratories could test for these contaminates.“  Thus, he suggests he was waiting to receive our sample.   However, in his July 23 post, he states after speaking with me on June 13 he directed the samples I sent to Natura to be tested.  These statements are contradictory.  If he was waiting for the sample on July 3, how could they have submitted it on June 13 (and received a report on June 15)? 

I have received more than a few messages from bloggers asking why I had not submitted samples per Mr. Atkins July 3 message.  I attempted to let people know I had confirmed via UPS the samples had actually been received at the Natura plant on May 24.  However, many people continued doubt me.  Obviously, Natura did not have their facts straight as evidenced by the misrepresentation of the facts as noted above. 

“(note the date on the Midwest Laboratories test result link and you can see that immediate action was taken).”

I beg to differ with the statement that “immediate action was taken” regarding our sample.  UPS tracking records confirmed the sample was received at Natura’s manufacturing plant, and signed for, on May 24.  Natura submitting my sample on June 14, as noted on the MidWest analysis, is not, in my opinion, “immediate action”.   

Also, why would Mr. Atkins attempt to discredit me in his July 3 post when he stated they had “requested” samples from me.  He had already confirmed to us in conversations on June 13 and 15 that Brian did, in fact, have our sample in his possession.  And as noted above Mr. Atkins stated in the July 23 post that after he spoke to me on June 13 he directed that my samples be submitted to another lab for testing.  So, why was I accused of not submitting a sample in the July 3 post, if, in fact, Mr. Atkins already had received the results of the Midwest analysis of my sample dated June 15? 

“During that time I was traveling on business and neglected to make the effort needed to make sure that Donna was kept in the loop and informed of these testing delays.”

From the point Natura received our sample on May 24 until today there have been 60 days pass by.  We find it extremely interesting that when an analysis of this nature is shared with a company for the purpose of discovery and resolution, that it would be neglected in this manner.   Was there no one else in the entire corporation or in their law firm who could have passed this crucial information along to us?  Natura did have complete contact information for us.  Obviously, Mr. Atkins had ample time to direct his attorney to place a call to us, so I would think she could have alerted us to any available information on July 5 at 9pm when she called. 

“It is important that I apologize to ……. and, yes, even Donna for not handling this situation better.”  

You know, on May 3 we went to our favorite pet store to purchase some dog food.  Never, in my wildest imagination would I believe it would have taken us on the path we have journeyed for the past few months.  This is a situation I would never wish on any person.  While the effort is appreciated, this simplistic apology falls somewhat short. 

There are still many issues that have not been addressed and they are crucial to the health and well-being of our pets. Natura claims to be the “healthiest pet food in the world”; however, we are still awaiting answers. 

1.  Why are there so many production issues mentioned on various pet related blogs that have not been addressed?  What about the embedded blue rubber, chunks, hair and nylon line substances?  What about the loose grit that covers the kibble in some bagged product?  Aside from the issue of toxins, there are serious production issues that need to be explained and corrected. 

2.  Why were the chunks described to me as clumping of the premix due to moisture or whatever and yet to someone else it is described as an issue where they have reduced the specification for particle size?   This seems contradictory. 

3.  What about the issues with subclinical symptoms and illness with pets that mysteriously disappear when the food is changed?  This is not a single complaint as Mr. Atkins has previously stated.  One glance at the pet blogs will dispute that claim.   The disturbing thought is how many pet owners have changed the food they feed their pet because they discovered it was making the pet sick.  It does not take a scientist or a veterinarian to discern that when you are feeding something and your pet is sick, and you stop feeding the food and the symptoms disappear there has to be some connection.  Sadly, many people will change their selection of food based on these results and pet food companies may never know, primarily because they do not take these issues seriously.  I have spoken to far too many people who have shared their stories confirming this very fact. 

4.  When a sample is submitted by a customer is that sample actually tested or do they simply pass along the analysis from the production retain samples? 

5.  Why did UC Davis only test for acetaminophen?  Why not cyanuric acid?  Why did MidWest Labs not test for acetaminophen?  It was posted on this topic that a Natura customer service rep said MidWest now tests for acetaminophen. 

For some of you the Natura comments will provide all the answers you have been waiting for, that the food is safe and there are no problems.  For us, we still have unanswered questions and we will continue to research and talk to specialists and experts in order to find answers. 

Donna

Who would you believe, a profit grubbing corporation, or a concerned private pet owner?

The pet owner has gone to great expense to figure this out out of concern for their beloved companion.
The corporation is doing everything it can to stall and try to make this pet owner look silly and paranoid.

Shame on Natura for not doing everything in their power to get to the bottom of this.
Good luck with this, Donna. The consumers are the reason why these jerks are in business in the first place and we deserve accountability.

I don't usually do forums, but have been closely following Donna's experience with Natura. 

The pet groups I work with have thousands of members, many of whom switched to Natura products during the March recalls.  From the emails I receive (hundreds each day) it appears that many folks are starting to research new food choices.  The level of disappointment with Natura's information is high. 

We need some logical and honest answers from Natura, FAST!
 

Shibadiva,

Funny thing about that, I always get teased because I am so meticulous.  I had four samples, two from each bag of dog food.  Each of the four samples were in a sealed baggies with labels detailing my name, the case number, general sampling or best chunks, brand, and package coding.  The four smaller baggies were then placed in a gallon size sealed baggie along with the completed submission form and 8x10 photos of some of the sample chunks.  The large baggie also had an identification label stuck on it.  I prepared one for Natura and one for Expertox and kept one for myself.

Donna

What I want to know is who makes the vitamin premix, and where do all the ingredients from the vitamin premix come from?  I can then go from there.

yl--could you give links to those sites?  That sounds important.  Thanks!