A very significant statement.  One has to wonder just how many cheap, unhealthy, unsafe substitutes have been used to "mimic" a useful, healthy ingredient. 

It saves the PF companies money, allows for more profit and who knows what it does to our pets. 

Sandi, you're correct.  Unknown toxin test analyzes the sample against a huge library of chemicals/drugs. 

In regard to the chemical agents used in denaturing, you would have to check with the lab to see if they are included in the library.  I'm not certain they would be.  In that case, the lab would have to obtain the standards for that specific compound and set up for testing. 

Acetaminophen is a good example - many labs do not test for this.  They would either have to obtain the standards and set up for the testing - or - send it to another lab who does test for it. 

That's strange, I cannot recall some of the other premium pet food companies handling complaints or test results any better.  They have:
- accused extortion
- claimed they never received samples from the consumer
- stated the consumer would not respond to their calls
- threatened legal action against the consumer
- stated the laboratory was misinterpreting folic acid as cyanuric acid and/or melamine
- disputed the levels of detection tested for and results obtained by the laboratory
- confirmed there were "no other complaints"

And we are to believe the others have high quality standards, honesty and integrity just because they say so? 

YL,

I think you're correct.  I remember reading this some time ago.  This doesn't include the consideration of pharmaceuticals in dead animals. 

Not so in the human food industry - if you make a product change, you make a label/packaging change and you do not release the new product into the market until new, updated packaging is in production facilities ready to use.   I’ve seen the release of new products held up when packaging was not ready. 

Something just doesn’t seem right about this concept.  If a company who produces a food product is handling their business in a responsible, ethical, healthy manner, they would have the updated packaging when they are ready to release the product. To place a product in the market, without correct package and labeling gives the appearance of questionable, unsafe business practices. 

Also, I was told it can take up to 6 months for pet food packaging to be updated for something like formula changes.  The comment was they are allowed to use up existing inventory of packaging. 



So, if a PF Company changes their formula and they are ready to manufacture and distribute in the marketplace for sale to consumers before their new packaging is ready -- then where do the feed trials come in?  That statement would give the appearance the PF companies are changing formulas and distributing for sale prior to sufficient testing in-house to see if there are any problems.  It would also back-up some of the theories discussed here that our pets have been used for feeding trials, and with catastrophic results. 
DonnaC

Sandi, it is important that it was detected in pre-recall food.  I think most of us already believed that, even without the proof.  I certainly did.  My dogs were sickened in January, 2007.  I did not test that brand until after the March recall. 

Offy's question is interesting: "Does the amount of cyanuric acid meet/exceed the allowed amounts?"  A rep from the FDA told me that cyanuric acid (and melamine) was NOT approved for use as an ingredient in pet food.  They also said it would be considered "adulteration" of product if used.  So, if cyanuric acid is detected, I would think the FDA would be interested in this "adulteration" of product.   

This is no different from Natura's response to us of "no other complaints", "no problems" and Midwest Labs' response that it was a "hoax and propaganda". 

"because the cause of them has been found" -- OR -- because the cause of the reports has been acknowledged, reported to the public and corrected.

Interesting article, especially since Nutro is not the only pet food to use this additive.

I've been thinking about this one.  If a toxin in present in the kibble, then wouldn't a toxin still be present in kibble that may have past its expiration date? 

I'd hold on to some of it, even if expired.

I agree, along with many, many others --  we want to know what made them sick and what is causing the continued problems and what does the future hold.  I've heard this from so many people.

Donna C

I would think there is a better chance of FTC involvement than BBB.  There is criteria that has to be met in order for FTC to take action.  However, this provides another avenue for pet owners to pursue.  It also gets the information filed with another Federal agency. The FTC has a secure online database for entry of consumer complaints.  IMO, the truth in advertising aspect is one that deserves consideration.  What claims are made in advertising about a specific product?    Obviously, they will not address individual consumer complaints, but like with Nutro, the more complaints filed, the more likely to catch their attention. 

-----

Also, look at how a PF company advertises their products; what words do they use to describe the product; how do they entice you to purchase?  Recently a member posted how they watched a PF company change their descriptions from “human grade to holistic to high quality” over the last year.  There's a reason for that change.  All one has to do is look at a company's print ads, TV ads, in-store advertising, package labeling, websites, etc.  It's a matter of holding them accountable for what they advertise.

Leslie,

Here’s some thoughts regarding the dog food that Evanger’s continues to send to you. 

You might contact the Better Business Bureau to file a complaint.

I would also consider filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov.  You actually have two areas to base the complaint on. 

1.  The fact the company continues to ship product to you even though you have requested them to stop, you have not ordered/requested the product and you do not want their products.  I would think this has some relevance to interstate commerce. 

2. You can also reference truth in advertising.  Your dog was sickened while eating this product.  You also have private test results.  You obviously would not want to continue feeding the product whether free or not. 

Truth in advertising requires a company be truthful, non-deceptive and have evidence to back up their claims.  If a product makes a claim to health or safety, it has to be supported by “competent and reliable scientific evidence” which means tests or studies evaluated by people qualified to review it. 

Reference the claims made by Evangers – these are a few from their website, you may have others (on product packaging, print ads, etc.) 




The FTC handles most matters regarding food advertising and the FDA handles most matters regarding food labeling. 

The Federal Trade Commission has an on-line form for consumer complaints.


You might also want to contact FedEx.  You have not ordered or requested the product, have asked the company to stop shipping to you and, more importantly, you do not want the product.  Ask FedEx if they have any policies that protect a consumer from receiving unsolicited/unwanted shipments and specifically what you should do the next time a package is left at your door.  I know that UPS has a policy for returning unwanted shipments by simply calling the carrier to "return to sender."  FedEx has not responded to my inquiries. 

I agree with your thoughts on receiving the product.  If you trash it, it still gives the appearance you "received and kept" their complimentary gift to you.  I would return it, but I would also pressure the shipper to return it at Evanger's cost. 
DonnaC

Another article from the same issue is interesting and timely . . .

So are they going to harass you with shipments until you give in and give up?