Think you're right because as of 2007, Nutro had a very "creative" definition of batches:

Let's refer once again to the advertising challenge Hill's made to Nutro's ads for its Lite products, because it documents many ways in which Nutro was doing things its own way.  Again--"challenger" refers to Hill's; "advertiser" refers to Nutro.

http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/_db/_documents/NAD,_Nurtro_Products.pdf

Case #4714 August 21, 2007

Page 3-

"The testing protocol that Nutro attached (to its submission) indicates, without support, that any product samples created at least twenty minutes apart constitute separate "production batches".  This statement seems to suggest that the average MEC (Metabolizable Energy Content) for the individual samples from a SINGLE production run--such as the 3057 kcal/kg result Nutro obtained on June 21--could, by itself, substantiate Nutro's "Lite" claim, even though Nutro averages the results from THREE separate production runs and cites this as its support in its submission. Nutro's "20 minute" definition finds no support in AAFCO's guidelines, nor is there any authority to support it.  In practice, samples from different production batches--as is required by AAFCO--are most easily identified on the retail shelf by looking for products that bear different date codes, as Hill's did in its testing.  In fact, AAFCO has issued a guidance memorandum, which is available to the public at:

http://www.aafco.org/Portals/0/Public/Guidance%20DocFinal.pdf

describing how animal feed manufacturers should identify different "production batches" (a term the document uses interchangably with "production lots") using such codes on the packaging. According to the guidance memo, "All feed and feed ingredients should contain a code that links the individual production lot to production records so as to provide a history of such product.  The code should be contained either on the product packaging, labeling or other distribution records..."  In any event, Nutro itself cites the average MEC from THREE data points, one for each production run it tested--not the average from the individual samples within any single production run--as the relevant final "number" that it claims relates to AAFCO's "Lite" standard.  Nutro's own method thus recognizes these three results as the relevant data.

Page 4-

"The challenger took issue with the advertiser's explanation that the high MEC values obtained by the challenger's testing might be linked to temporary product irregularities caused by Nutro's switchover from its Wilson Way production facility to new factories.  The challenger argued that it was unlikely that the samples it tested all came from the Victorville, CA plant, as opposed to Nutro's other production facility in Lebanon, TN, which, argued the challenger, the advertiser admitted has produced its "lite" dry products continuously since 1996.  Moreover, argued the challenger, the advertiser had not provided evidence that there were, in fact, such temporary irregularities in its "lite" dry products' MEC levels at the Victorville facility.

Second, argued the challenger, the samples it tested came from products actually available to the public for purchase (which is how it acquired them).  It selected the products to be tested based on the date codes printed on the bags, to ensure a range of unique production lots, argued the challenger, and reported these codes with the test results.  On the other hand, contended the challenger, the advertiser apparently tested samples coming straight off the production line at one of its facilities (without specifying which one).  Additionally, the advertiser did not state whether it tested samples of the same product formula that is now on store shelves and available to

Page 5

"consumers. Based on such information, argued the challenger, it is impossible to know exactly what the advertiser tested, including whether the three production runs tested were of the same formula and, if so, whether this was the reformulation described by the advertiser.

Third, while the challenger submitted samples of the products to an independent laboratory for testing, the advertiser conducted its own in house testing.  The challenger contended that "although in-house testing may be proper in some circumstances and it not per se less reliable, in light of the other deficiencies in Nutro's data and in light of the delays in Nutro's submissions and the shifting statements Nutro has made to NAD, this is an additional reason to credit Hill's results."

Moreover, argued the challenger, of the three production runs tested by the advertiser, the results from two of them (May 17 and June 15) were over AAFCO's maximum allowable MEC of 3100 kcal/kg as was the average of all three (3118 kcal/kg).  The advertiser had admitted, argued the challenger, that it thus did not meet AAFCO's standard, but contended that the 3100 kcal/kg limit was only suggested and not an absolute limit.  The challenger stated that, to the contrary, the plain language of the Regulation indicated the 3100 kcal/kg was "a bright-line threshold".

Page 8

"In addition to its explanation that the challenger's test evidence of caloric values exceeding AAFCO recommendations was a result of product reformulation, the advertiser contended that these high caloric results were partly due to manufacturing anomalies in either or both of Nutro's manufacturing plants.  Specifically, explained the advertiser, certain employees at its production facilities were adding extra fat to the extruder to increase manufacturing through-put, and this practice affected Natural Choice Lite MEC values."

So what do we see was happening there at the time?  A non-AAFCO definition of production batches, which, if it's still standard with them, could make trying to pin down possible contamination much more difficult than doing so during the recalls last year.  Everyone else appeared to be using the AAFCO definition of production batches; Nutro was using its own when this challenge was posed.

We see Nutro trying to say that there may have been some temporary irregularities based on the transfer from their old plant to Victorville and ignoring the fact that there is another Nutro plant in Lebanon, TN where some of the tested product may have been made.

We see that Hill's obtained their samples in the same way we do--buying the product from a local store shelf.  But we see Nutro stating that its tested samples were straight from the production line and no answer given about whether "shelf" product was tested or not.  And we see, as Hill's did, that these were invalid answers because of the manner in which all of this was done there.

We see that Hill's did not test the competitor's products in their own, in-house labs, but sent them to an independent laboratory.  But we see that all data from Nutro came from the Nutro in-house lab.

Finally, we see that Nutro makes the admission that the MEC values could be different because some employees were increasing what the extruder could crank out by adding extra fat; and that's an admission that the formula was not being adhered to at the time.

I agree too except for the fact that it seems to be disappearing off the shelves very quickly.  I still think it might be good to try and get a bag as close to the dates in the above post as possible just to have it on hand in case it might be needed at some point down the line.  Its not to say we have to test it, just have it on hand in case it might be determined its needed for later.  I do agree ideally the food that should be tested should come from pet parents that had problems if at all possible.  I myself would try to find a bag just for "safe-keeping" but we dont have that food in our town, we always had to special order it...

I just went to food lion and Wal Mart. they have plenty of this gross food. I think this is a terrible thing.

a couple new complaints showing today and one saying all is good...but i wonder why someone would go to a "complaint" section just to say all is well....hmmm...

http://consumeraffairs.com/pets/nutro.html
Nutro Pet Foods
 
David of Virginia Beach VA (06/23/08)
We have 2 older cats and have been using Nutro cat food for over a year. Just had the older (13 yrs) one in to the vet for a check up and blood work. All tests were excellent for kidney function, etc. This cat has more vigor and increased activity than she has showed in years since we switched her from Science Diet to Nutro. We are very thankful a vet told us about this food.

All positive results from feeding our cats this food. Much more playful, active and engaging.


Treanna of Vancouver Canada (06/22/08)
We have been feeding our dog Nutro Lamb and Rice for the last 2 years. She would vomit about once and month and occasionally have extreme diarrhea. We thought this was just normal for a dog. When we went to get a refill last week we were told it was recalled and advised to try the Chicken Meal instead. Within 10 minutes of feeding our dog she became violently ill! She was dry heaving, whining, and in a lot of distress. She could not even walk she was so sick! We induced vomiting and she started vomiting up white foamy bile. She was extremely ill for 3 hours and is now so exhausted, but seems to be OK.

We thought we would research Nutro and were disgusted to find this site with so many other stories exactly like ours. Our cat died last summer and he was on Nutro as well! He started experiencing shortness of breath and within a day was dead. We will NEVER buy Nutro products again and will also never shop at any pet food store that continues to sell Nutro products.



Cheryl of Ogden UT (06/22/08)
I was a Pet Nutrition Specialist and trainer for Nutro for 4 years. I started hearing rumors about the food in February 2008. A customer in the Layton, UT. PetsMart told me they had found, what looked like to them, metal shavings, in their N/C Large Breed lamb and rice food. I immediately contacted my supervisor who denied anything was wrong with the food.

Once I got home from work, I checked the Consumer Affairs website, and sure enough, there were numerous complaints. I immediately took my 5 dogs to the vet along with my son's dog. The vet told us to change foods that day. 3 of the 5 dogs were diagnosed with congestive heart failure, one of which, was also diagnosed with adrenal insufficiency. One was diagnosed with elevated liver enzymes and bladder crystals. My son's lab was diagnosed with gastritis. (All 6 dogs had normal vet exams the prior year). My 4 small dogs were eating N/C Senior small bites, my lab was on Max large breed adult and my son's lab on Max weight management.

I continued to work for Nutro until April 2008, when the complaints got to be so numerous and so many of my customer's dogs were getting sick, I could no longer live with the fact that I was promoting a food that was making people's dogs and cats sick (or worse, making them die.)

My four small dogs' health continued to decline. I called Nutro several times begging for them to be honest with me so I could advise my vet on how to treat my pets. The only answer I could get was, A rival pet food company is using ConsumerAffairs.com to bad-mouth Nutro and that NO complaints had be filed thru their office.

On Memorial Day, my 10 yo chihuahua coughed so hard from the congestive heart failure, her eye came out. We had to rush her to the ER Vet. Then the pancreatitis worsened and my Cubbie-girl passed away on 6/20. Boy, my 8 yo male pom, also passed away from the congestive heart failure. Five of the vets we've seen, blame it on the food. I've been told they are seeing a huge increase in Nutro-food related illnesses.

I've also been told, It is absolutely suspicious and highly unlikely for 3 out 5 dogs, of different breeds and ages, living in the same home, to have the exact same diagnosis and symptoms without outside influence. My other two dogs, a pom and chihuahua are not likely to survive either. I was also told the average life span of chihuahuas and poms are 13-16 years. My two dogs died long before their time.

The two labs who were exposed haven't been affected as much as the 4 smaller dogs, but did have gastroenteritis and had to be treated and will continue to need lab work to monitor their heart, liver and pancreas functions.

Nutro needs to be honest and come forward with the origin of the contamination so we know how to treat out pets.

FYI: Nutro is not being honest with PetsMart/Petco either. Those stores are getting their information from these types of websites. (see May 16th Consumer Affairs entry concerning CDC and Salmonella contamination).
 

Clicked the link for the newest Nutro complaints--see what Nutro's done with Google ads:

http://consumeraffairs.com/pets/nutro.html

CA Nutro page

"Get the Facts about NUTRO
Safety & quality are top priorities The truth about NUTRO pet foods
www.nutroproducts.com/"

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=BbAPdkwphSNbzHobiyQWu3pXCC6qPmnXypZKGBsCNtwGQsV0QARgBIOKc9AE4AFC5nbnyBmDJ5omI8KPsErIBE2NvbnN1bWVyYWZmYWlycy5jb226AQk3Mjh4OTBfYXPIAQHaASpodHRwOi8vY29uc3VtZXJhZmZhaXJzLmNvbS9wZXRzL251dHJvLmh0bWyAAgHIApiD7gaoAwHIAwfoA_sC6AOzBOgDowOIBAGQBAGYBAA&num=1&adurl=http://www.nutroproducts.com/quality_facts.html&client=ca-pub-0200629403145096

From link above:

"Q:  Why is the quality and safety of NUTRO™ products being addressed? 
"A:  We have received recent isolated reports of inaccurate information posted online regarding the quality and safety of NUTRO™ pet foods products. Many blogs and internet sites can be a repository for misinformation and hearsay regarding many topics.  We are working to clarify the issue."

http://itchmoforums.com/your-problems-with-pet-food/do-any-forum-readers-personally-have-problems-with-nutro-food-t5071.0.html

http://www.itchmo.com/nutro-denies-claim-for-pet-owners-dead-dog-1584

These two links are only representative of the many complants, some of which are not at all recent; many of the links in threads here link to other message boards, websites and blogs with similar complaints posted on them.


"Q What measures does NUTRO™ undertake to ensure the safety of its products? 
"A:  NUTRO™ pet foods undergo rigorous quality assurance testing, beginning with raw ingredients and ending with testing all finished products. This includes testing to confirm that no melamine, mold toxins, or pathogenic bacteria are detected in any NUTRO™ pet foods.
 
"We take any concern regarding NUTRO™ products very seriously. In the rare instance when a consumer does have a concern with any of our products, an in-depth review of the consumer-provided samples is performed to determine if an issue does exist. "
 
When ConsumerAffairs was granted an interview about the reports, Nutro refused to answer many of the questions CA posted to its representative, this VERY important one among them:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/06/pet_food_recalls98.html

"We asked Nutro if it had recently tested its foods for possible toxins. The company did not respond to that question."

There are also many reports from consumers that nothing was done about samples; some weren't asked to provide them and others who did have heard nothing with regard to their issues with Nutro products. Some people have reported difficulty with getting responses at the company's toll-free number for Consumer Services.

If the link above is the "truth" about Nutro, the quality and safety standards quoted should mean that the products are virtually free from problems, but they are far from it, when you read the multitudes of complaints on various internet sites.  If one totally ignored 50% of all the complaints posted about Nutro foods on the internet, there would still be plenty of them left.

When directly question with regard to what testing has been done recently for possible toxins, the company declined to comment.  Truth would mean that this information was given during the interview or to be found at this "Truth About Nutro" link--there's no information which answers that question on the company's website. 

Let's try a little more truth with regard to Nutro's use of non-EU-approved GE grains:

http://itchmoforums.com/news-recall-related/nutro-and-gm-grains-t2238.0.html

http://www.evira.fi/portal/en/plant_production_and_feeds/current_issues/archive/?id=520

"Genetically modified maize not approved by the EU found in cat food

22.05.2007 (May 22, 2007) - 17:27

"Evira’s Feed Control found, on 2.5.2007(May 2, 2007), unapproved genetically modified maize DAS-59122-7 (Herculex®) in two marketing control samples taken as spot checks. The examined cat foods are Nutro Choice Adult Chicken (batch identifier: 00:42 03 E 06, CAPFD0024; best before date: 27.5.08)(May 27, 2008) and Nutro Choice Adult Indoor (batch identifier: 02:21 03 A 07 CAR, DAPFD0024; best before date 24.5.08)(May 24, 2008). The cat foods are manufactured in the US and the importer is Akvaario Piekkala Oy. In addition to the maize in question five genetically modified maize events approved by the EU were found, and one genetically modified soy variety. A marketing ban has been placed on the cat foods and Evira requires that they be withdrawn without delay."

Not the first time, either-

http://www.evira.fi/portal/en/food/current_issues/?id=277

"Evira investigated presence of genetically modified rice in foods and feeds marketed in Finland

09.10.2006 - 13:14 (October 8, 2006)

"The studies that were conducted as random tests revealed six batches of rice designed for food production and one cat feed product that contained the unauthorised LL RICE 601 rice. The products had been imported from USA. The samples were analysed in the Customs Laboratory.

Feeds

"Feed Control took nine random samples of feeds that contain rice, and one of the samples tested positive for genetically modified rice. The positive sample was Nutro Choice Adult Chicken cat feed imported by Akvaario Piekkala Oy. A sales and marketing ban has been imposed on the imported batch and the importer has been ordered to withdraw the feed from the market."

The truth is that being an exporter to the EU, their standards were far from strangers to the company--the truth here was discovered by Evira, Finland's version of FDA.

Let's look for truth in the information obtained by challenger Hill's about advertiser Nutro when Hill's filed a complaint last year:


You might ask how this "truth" ad came to be on Consumer Affairs:

http://consumeraffairs.com/consumerism/faq.html#who

"I see ads for companies that are criticized on your site. What's that all about?
 
We don't control which ads appear on our site. They are placed by outside agencies. The fact that an ad appears on our site by no means indicates we approve of the product. Same thing's true for an ad in the newspaper, or on television or radio.

"This seems wrong. How can you take money to advertise products you don't approve of?

"It's a free country. Companies, even the ones we don't much like, have as much right to advertise as we do to publish our site, just as we have the right to publish critical comments about them."

So Nutro has placed ads at Consumer Affairs to tell everyone the "truth" about the issue; they had an opportunity to do that without cost when they granted CA the interview, but declined to answer many of CA's questions.

You can take the biggest lies in the world and label them as "the truth"; looking back just in 20th Century history alone will turn up plenty of them.  But calling something the truth and actually having it be the truth are two distinct and separate things.  Just because something is called "the truth" does not make it so.

Can we take a shot at it with this?

http://www.petfoodindustry.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=20330

Pet Food Industry January 2, 2008
Top 10 global petfood leaders

1. Mars Petcare

WITHOUT considering Nutro.

2. Nestlé Purina PetCare

"With 24% of the total market share in 2006"

3. P&G Pet Care

4. Hill's Pet Nutrition

5. Del Monte Pet Products

6. Affinity Petcare SA (Spain)

7. Nutro Products Inc.

"Nutro Products Inc. was purchased in May 2007 by Mars Inc., but for the sales reporting period used in this article, Nutro was still a separate company."

8. Unicharm PetCare Corp. (Japan)

9. Total Alimentos SA (Brazil)

10. Nutriara Alimentos Ltda. (Brazil)

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/pets/hills.html

ConsumerAffairs Hill's complaints

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/pets/ralston.html

ConsumerAffairs Purina complaints.

The rankings in the Pet Food Industry article are based on reported sales, as you see from the explanation re: Nutro being listed separate from Mars.

Cats are affected too - this person swoons over switching from Science Diet to Nutro? Dry Food?  Come on - no way, no how.  (Most of us know better than that).  I just had to see my sis's reaction with her dogs when she bought the Nutro brand with Coupons as what she thought was Premium food.  Iams healthy naturals was better for my cats (sis's idea - short term - a little vomiting and Siberia's skin problems reemerged).  Wouldn't trust Nutro with 10 foot pole.  Took me many moons to get sis back on track.