Waggin & Geff,

You want to bet on that?

I certainly encourage  you to take the next 4-5 hours and review the 83+ pages on the "problems with Innova" thread if you think I didn't get the same harrassment.   Same questions, same attitudes, same discrediting.  Even a similar response from the PF company that I wouldn't make contact. 

DonnaC

Carolo,

I am totally confused and extremely concerned by your comment (quoted above), especially as it appears immediately after your reference of me and my analysis. 

Are you implying that my report might have been altered?  Or are you implying that others have altered their reports? 

I can assure you and everyone else that my lab analysis is legitimate and unaltered and it appears exactly as it was sent from the laboratory.  Furthermore, I would have no difficulty proving its authenticity. 

I have received a few emails regarding your statement, thus, I felt it necessary to address this matter. 
Donna C


 

I look at the pretty little box that holds Geneva’s remains and realize that those I trusted, for years, not only let me down, but also, more importantly, let my pets down.  They let Geneva and Offy down – and how many countless others.  And yet here we are, over five months later and we still have no answers, no one taking responsibility, and no peace about what to feed our pets.

Even though I encounter people who disagree with my thoughts, I still believe our focus is not where it should be.  We have a choice.  We can choose to unite as one force to hold this industry accountable – or – we can choose to continue to be fussy and picky with each other and become weak and useless and no threat at all. 

My fear is that the pet food companies see the dissention amongst us and realize we are not united and, thus, we are absolutely no threat to them at all. I’m sure that makes them happy.  We give them everything they need for their next marketing campaign.  We say all we want is someone to tell us the food is safe . . . and there it is in glossy color –  print ads, stickers and brand new packaging.   We call these companies and ask if they test for various toxins and they tell us “yes”, but what proof do they offer?  Do you ever question the company to the same depth and extent that you do a fellow blogger? 

I have no issue with people who want to question a test result, but it’s all in how you question.  However, some immediately question the validity of a test or if it even exists, they question the person’s motives, they make harsh accusations and sometimes it’s almost tabloid-like. I’ve experienced it personally.  The responses people receive on the blogs is why others are reluctant to share their results.  I have private messages from people who tell me that.  As I said, I have no problem with responsible questions.

My pets have suffered, though not to the extent of many others. I have stood by them while they frantically ate grass.  I have loved on them when their tummy hurt.  I have tried to comfort and care for them as they puked their guts out.  I bathed them and repeatedly cleaned the linens when they had incontinence.  I suppose I am lucky; at least more lucky than Offy.  But, like others, I wonder what the long-term effects will be on my beloved pets. 

I have spent much time on the phone with a friend I met through this debacle.  I have listened to her cry as she told me about her beloved pet.  I have heard the hundreds of ideas she had to try to help her pet.  I have also heard the failures.  I have cried with her, especially when I received a message that she came home from the vet with her beloved pet "in her heart."  Her pet was another victim of pet food, and yet the FDA stands firm on 16 confirmed deaths? 

I have faced many choices since June 1 when the lab called to tell me the analysis results.  I made a choice for my two dogs.  It was not an easy choice and it came with great hardships.  I would just hope we could see that uniting with a common bond will give us incredible strength to do what we need to do. 

The pet food industry should be regulated.  They should be held accountable for fulfilling their obligation to provide safe, wholesome food for our pets.  They should be transparent with their origin of ingredients, labeling, testing, and manufacture of their products.  They should be truthful and upfront with comments, not misleading or deceitful.  Otherwise, they should not receive one more dollar from any of us. 

As I said in another post, it could have been you who purchased a bag of contaminated food. It could be you posting your test results.  It could be you that looks at a box with the remains of your pet.  It’s your choice.  Obviously, they have some concerns when it comes to their consumers, a fact confirmed in the industry magazine.  We know they're monitoring this blog - do we let them see a united group with a common goal? 

Donna C

Geff,

Excellent points, especially regarding the media.  The media has access to an incredible amount of information and discovery on this website.  Where are they?  Why is this not a story of interest? 

Donna C

Debsy,

I'm glad you found the information helpful.  And I agree, even with home cooking, there are still a lot of important decisions to make. 

I, too, am so thankful to people on this forum and the wealth of information that is shared.  I cannot imagine how desperate and lost all of us would be without a resource like this.  I did not know of this forum or similar ones earlier this year when my dogs first got sick.  It's a terrible feeling trying to get information to help your pets and getting nothing. 

Good luck with home cooking!  I think you'll find your dogs will love it, although I can't speak for the cats.

Donna C

My concern with pet food analyses is that unless you look at the analysis report, in its entirety, no one can really make an accurate assessment as to a detection found or not found.  There are too many variables involved and how do we know all the differences there are between laboratories? 

For the sake of discussion, if the scan were to spike and identify a toxin, but at a trace level that might be identified as unquantifiable per the level of detection, would you want to feed that to your pet?  If a lab can identify a trace amount below 0.1ppm, then a lab testing at 6ppm might detect a trace amount at 5.8ppm, or a lab testing at 10ppm could detect a trace amount at 9.9ppm.  That does not make me feel very safe about the food I am feeding my pet.  Even trace amounts that are considered unquantifiable could potentially cause harm to a pet who consumes the food on a daily basis.  These trace amounts of toxins would probably not produce the acute renal failure seen previously, but could produce symptoms that are considered subclinical and not easily diagnosed through routine lab work.  Also, there is the concern of a trace toxin combining with another compound and transforming into something very dangerous.

I truly believe there are a lot more people out there who have had pet foods tested, but they are reluctant to post.  It's unfortunate as pets will continue to suffer as a result. 

Donna C

CarolPW,

I'm confused - if a lab can get to 1 ppt, then how can you so quickly dismiss <6 ppm as no detection?

Donna

I will make no excuse for previously thinking that government and federal agencies were actually there to fulfill their mission of protecting the interests of the American public, and relative to this forum specifically with the food supply. 

Personally, I would hope our common goal would be to work in collaboration to find definitive answers in regard to the pet food crisis.  This is not an easy task as many of us do not have the background to carry out research of this magnitude, but look at what we have accomplished thus far.  We are asking questions, identifying issues and working to hold people/companies/agencies accountable. 

I believe there is much work ahead of us.  The success of our efforts is dependent on us working together. 
DonnaC

Posting testing results by any company has no real value to me as there are so many variables that are unknown. What specifically are they testing for, at what level of detection, using what method, etc.   Just look at the side-by-side comparison of the various analyses done regarding my sample -- did they actually test my sample or retain samples and was the retain from the production run or was it a premix sample.   It's confusing and not really compelling evidence for me.   Also look at the FDA's testing for acetaminophen, it was not done on the same samples as the lab tested. 

I hope the companies who are presenting their guarantees for safety and confidence in purchasing claims can back it up.  I hope these claims are solid and not just glossy advertising, as there are too many pets who are still getting sick and there are too many pets lying in a grave that cannot romp through those sunny fields any longer. 

Donna

Hey Klondike,

Would you explain what "innovative rendering" is???

Donna

A little off topic - our friend "Offy" who posts such informative messages on this and other topics had to help her sweet kitty, Geneva, cross the bridge this morning.  Offy has done so much in regard to researching and going the extra mile to care for Geneva.  Please remember her in your thoughts today. 

Donna

Great info, Offy.

Also, if you document the information as noted, I would recommend sending it certified mail with return receipt.  That way you have absolute verification that the information was, in fact, received by the company. 

Donna

The President of Natura, Peter Atkins, stated in two posted messages that production samples were submitted to UC Davis and ExperTox.  I’m not certain why his assistant, Vicki, would have different information regarding if my sample was sent to ExperTox. 

http://www.itchmoforums.com/news-recall-related/problems-w-innova-and-test-results-t1028.0.html;msg16994#msg16994
“Samples of both the retained samples of the actual production run for Donna’s food …. and the premix used in that production was sent to two different laboratories for testing.”

http://www.ourdogsonline.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/125393#Post125393
“We also sent representative samples of the production run of Donna’s food for additional testing at UC Davis and Expertox.”


Regarding the UC Davis report “clearly” stating that feed and premix was tested – I do not see that information.


Regarding Vicki’s statement that the “chunks” were tested –  Look at Natura’s analysis at ExperTox, it states “pet food” was tested.  My analysis from ExperTox states “specks” (or chunks) were tested.  (I referred to the black chunks then as specks.)
Donna

Ann,
thanks for your input.  If you have any other insights to share, please, please do so.  Your expertise is greatly needed and desired on this topic.

Donna C.

I've got some thoughts on this:

1.  I think there are a lot of pet owners who truly are concerned and actively researching.  An informed consumer is the best one!  Knowledge is power.

2.  By educating ourselves, we are better able to talk to everyone involved with this industry - PF companies, suppliers, legislators, federal agencies, veterinarians, etc.

3.  By educating ourselves, we are better able to hold the industry accountable. 

4.  Don't accept some piece of information just because it came from a PF company or a federal agency.  Analyze what you are told, research if you need to and then question if you have to. 

5.  Be more involved with legislators to have an impact on laws and regulations that affect food safety for both humans and animals.

6.  Unite as concerned, responsible pet owners and demand that this industry become regulated and not simply a dumping ground for agriculture waste, rendered products, and a long list of unknown ingredients/toxins.   

7.  Most of all, remember that you are a pet owner and a CONSUMER.  These companies exist because of us and our spending dollars.  Ultimately, we hold the power to spend our hard-earned money where we see fit.  Thus, we can and should expect pet food companies to meet our expectations without deception.  We have the power to choose where and when to spend our money.  This is about companies meeting our demands for safe, wholesome products for our pets, not simply making grand revenues from recycling garbage.  If they cannot do so, goodbye, I'll take my spending money elsewhere.  It's really very simple.  This is about standing up for our rights as consumers.  It's all about getting involved, getting educated, holding companies accountable, pushing for reform and regulation in an industry and not accepting any ol' piece of BS that someone wants to tell us. 

So, it really comes down to choice - do you choose to accept without question or do you choose to make a difference for those who cannot speak for themselves -- our beloved pets! 

One night I sat at the computer, reviewing posts and wondering why I put myself through this.  I looked at the sofa beside my desk and my two dogs were there, sleeping soundly and oblivious to all the worries of pet food and contamination.  At that moment I had all the confirmation I needed that what I was doing was for them.  I am their voice.  You are a voice, too.   And together, we can make a difference for our pets.

Donna