Itchmo Forums for Cats & Dogs Brought to you by Itchmo: Essential news, humor and info for cats, dogs and pet owners.
July 20, 2017, 06:32:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Go To Itchmo.com: Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.


Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 85
  Print  
Author Topic: Problems w/ Innova and test results-  (Read 333741 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PFR07PS
Full Member
***
Posts: 187


« Reply #735 on: July 24, 2007, 12:15:06 AM »

#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


Logged
carolo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Jake-the-pup


WWW
« Reply #736 on: July 24, 2007, 12:49:16 AM »

Finally, the test results.  Samples of both the retained samples of the actual production run for Donna’s food (the retain sample is a composite of the entire production run and does include a representative sample of Donna’s food, including a sample taken directly in the middle of the two samples that she sent us - i.e. Donna’s samples were stamped 2019 and 2022; our retain is time stamped 2021) and the premix used in that production was sent to two different laboratories for testing.


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.

Reading Mr. Atkins post for third time and going over the scanned lab reports for a third time
1.  Midwest lab report shows analysis on "Premium Dog Vitamin: for cyanuric acid and melamine finding levels     N.D. (not detected)  No mention of acetaminophen.  Sample 03/28/07, page dated 7/02/2007
2. Both U C Davis and ExperTox report no acetaminophen in the feed samples.  We don't have a report from these two labs for acetapinophen testing or any other testing on the "Premium Dog Vitamin."

Are we still expecting more reports to come out of UC Davis and ExperTox?  The reports bring up as many questions as the answers.

Beginning with some date will analysis be done on at least some of the ingredients for each run of food, especially on vitamin premix or anything that has any chance of some component having origin in China or outside N. America before being mixed into the final pet food product?  Realizing you can not test for everything, at least the "usual suspects" could be included in the analysis, couldn't they? 

Logged

KimS
Long-Standing Member
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322

Cake, Yum!


« Reply #737 on: July 24, 2007, 01:05:22 AM »

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.
Logged
Offy
Guest
« Reply #738 on: July 24, 2007, 04:20:43 AM »

Finally, the test results.  Samples of both the retained samples of the actual production run for Donna?s food (the retain sample is a composite of the entire production run and does include a representative sample of Donna?s food, including a sample taken directly in the middle of the two samples that she sent us - i.e. Donna?s samples were stamped 2019 and 2022; our retain is time stamped 2021) and the premix used in that production was sent to two different laboratories for testing.


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.

Reading Mr. Atkins post for third time and going over the scanned lab reports for a third time
1.  Midwest lab report shows analysis on "Premium Dog Vitamin: for cyanuric acid and melamine finding levels     N.D. (not detected)  No mention of acetaminophen.  Sample 03/28/07, page dated 7/02/2007
2. Both U C Davis and ExperTox report no acetaminophen in the feed samples.  We don't have a report from these two labs for acetapinophen testing or any other testing on the "Premium Dog Vitamin."

Are we still expecting more reports to come out of UC Davis and ExperTox?  The reports bring up as many questions as the answers.

Beginning with some date will analysis be done on at least some of the ingredients for each run of food, especially on vitamin premix or anything that has any chance of some component having origin in China or outside N. America before being mixed into the final pet food product?  Realizing you can not test for everything, at least the "usual suspects" could be included in the analysis, couldn't they? 


I got up this morning with one simple question exploding in my head:

Why didn't they simply send both of Donna's samples to ExperTox and have them do the same screens as done on the previous samples?


That would have disputed/confirmed without question the results of the original tests. They didn't. WHY?

That would have addressed the questions posed about ExperTox. They didn't. WHY?

Why did Natura go through all this seemingly convoluted shell game (my opinion of these posts and posted test results in comparision to the options they had - like being straight forward)?

Same samples, same lab, same results? Confirmed or Negated.

Is this too simple?

Yeah, that's more than one question, but it was only one question that was exploding.


Why didn't they simply send both of Donna's samples to ExperTox and have them do the same screens as done on the previous samples?


amended: Why didn't they send both samples to ExperTox and another Lab and have them both do the same screens for toxins as was done on the samples in the beginning? Same testing levels, same toxin scans, same samples at two different labs? Those results might have meaning. IMO, this just doesn't solve it. Checking retained samples is great, but what about the original topic?  PAtkins? Then, it would seem logical that the next step would be checking their retained.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 05:25:56 AM by Offy » Logged
5CatMom
Guest
« Reply #739 on: July 24, 2007, 05:57:00 AM »

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!
 
Logged
shibadiva
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1412


WWW
« Reply #740 on: July 24, 2007, 07:11:55 AM »

Reading all this makes me wonder if they lost Donna's sample?
Logged

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~~ Gandhi
PFR07PS
Full Member
***
Posts: 187


« Reply #741 on: July 24, 2007, 07:39:07 AM »


Reading all this makes me wonder if they lost Donna's sample?


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
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 05:04:24 PM by PFR07PS » Logged
yl
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 252


« Reply #742 on: July 24, 2007, 08:31:48 AM »

Just for me personnaly . I would not leave my pets on any food I felt was making them ill!!!

My pets were ill on Natura products, the blood levels were off. I have to wonder how many companys are using the vitamin premix and how are they applying them to the food? Are they applied after the food is baked? Are they mixed in with it?

How and why would a pet food company have its corporate offices in one state and factory in another state? It seems several pet food companys have this.
Logged
petslave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5177


« Reply #743 on: July 24, 2007, 08:36:15 AM »

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.
Logged
yl
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 252


« Reply #744 on: July 24, 2007, 08:42:41 AM »

Good point Petslave . Maybe Mr. A. will come back and tell us. I have been looking up pre mix on FDA web site and it certainly looks like some ways of applying them could add even more hazards to our pets. I am still looking for where I saw the info maybe another placeand not FDA. I have been upset over having sick pets.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 12:32:57 PM by yl » Logged
petslave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5177


« Reply #745 on: July 24, 2007, 08:45:24 AM »

yl--could you give links to those sites?  That sounds important.  Thanks!
Logged
Nabiya
Guest
« Reply #746 on: July 24, 2007, 10:11:37 AM »


Reading all this makes me wonder if they lost Donna's sample?


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 prepred one for Natura and one for Expertox and kept one for myself.

Donna

Hi Donna, I work less than 10 minutes away from Natura's offices in San Jose, CA.  If you ever want me to go there and "view" your sample, retrieve it, pass on a personal message to PAtkins, see how busy he really is, take him to lunch, etc etc, just let me know and I would be happy to.
Nabiya
Logged
Offy
Guest
« Reply #747 on: July 24, 2007, 10:16:36 AM »

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.

Petslave, I took to heart the "grinding" of the premix and the relationship to hardness and size of particles as being important and think that perhaps looking for hardened liquid premix would make sense too.

I've got kitty issues this week, it's her crash week, so I'm not having much time to look..
Logged
Carol
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3200


« Reply #748 on: July 24, 2007, 10:29:21 AM »

All my life I have heard and said myself, "compare apples to apples, not oranges".  I can not for the life of me understand why the pet food companies and the FDA will not retest at the facilities that came up positive for comtaminants.  I had a friend who had breast cancer and always needed a blood test called LFT and usually had it at the facility where we worked and the results were steady.  One time she went to another lab as she was having some difficulty and wasn't working and the results came back with very different numbers.  They told her it was due to variation in lab techniques.  IMO the lab that tested positive should be retested as that would sort of be like the "tie-breaker".  Unless of course there is some other reason why they won't return to the positive findings lab!!
Logged

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead

United we stand     Divided we fall....
BW
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2775



« Reply #749 on: July 24, 2007, 11:25:28 AM »

I just had a long conversation with Veronica of Natura Pet food.

I told her I was on their main webpage and could not find any results of their tests, and asked her if she could  direct me to that page.

She said that the test results could not be reached from their main page, and that the only way to reach the results was from a link provided on the Itchmo forums site.

I must say, I was dumbfounded by this!  In other words, the great mass of their consumers have NO access to these results or to the fact that these tests were even made!   This seems highly devious to me, and I think I will close up that bag of EVO again.

I asked how someone who was not a visitor to Itchmo would be able to access the results and she said that wouldn't be necessary because the results were negative.

I told her that is seemed to me as if they were "hiding" the results and the fact that some consumers had had problems and that any testing had been done.

She said they were not hiding it, there was no need to because the results had been negative.
She said it had not been her decision to have the test results placed where it could only be accessed from Itchmo.
I repeatedly pressed my point that it seemed as if they were trying to conceal from the general public that there had been complaints made, and tests had been done, and I felt that was upsetting.  I said there were many pet owners on other pet blog sites who would not be able to access the results from their sites, and if the results were not evident  and easily accessible from the Natura main page, it was in effect "hiding them".

I told her that negative test results on their main page should be a good selling point, and I wondered why they hadn't considered that, unless they were trying to conceal the fact that there had been comlaints.

I asked if they had tested Donna's sample and she said yes, they had and the results were available from the Itchmo site.
I did not discuss anything else with her, and said I would go look at the test results.

I also asked if their vitamin premix came from China, and she said NO, it was domestic.
I asked if any of the ingredients in the premix came from China, and she said no it was ALL domestic.

I must say that despite what Veronica claims, I think it is extremely suspicious, for them to make these results ONLY AVAILABLE from the ITCHMO FORUMS link!!
Actually, I have never heard of such a thing!!  I think it is preposterous!
There goes my confidence down the tubes again.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 85
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Copyright 2007 Itchmo.com: Read the latest cat, dog and pet news, pet food recall info, product reviews and more — updated daily.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines | Sitemap