First I thank Mandycat and Kittylyda (& JanC in a pm) for their support of my posts. I had been feeling awful that I might have offended so many people in a forum that I deeply respect.
Second: again I'm very sorry if my post
IN ANY WAY contributed to Arlo leaving this group. From what he wrote in this thread, parts of my post was certainly misunderstood. I'm personally relieved to hear that there were other factors involved (but sorry that his leaving caused such sadness).
Justme: Thank you for the invitation to participate in other parts of this forum. That's a lot nicer to hear than the "shove off" comment. I will look at the links and see if I can contribute anything of value.
Kaffe: I took no offense at your comment and actually agree with what you said. However, I didn't make clear that what I wrote was an opinion piece. In the Newsletter, it appears under a banner that says "Opinion". My blog is entitled as the Newsletter's opinion pages. I also termed it a rant, which is sort of an emotive discourse. I'll mention more about the newletter in a moment.
Sandi K: If I had gone through the same experience that you have, I would be hating Nutro too (I'm not at the point of hating yet. Extreme dislike bordering on disgust is more of where I'm at).
But here's what else I'm looking at: Nutro was aquired by Mars after the Menu affair. Soon after, there would be a change in Management or Management style or both. That's just the way I've seen it go when one company buys another. I'v seen exceptions in some cases but most of the time, that's what I've seen since I've been watching (about 25 years now).
The new owners then inherits a company with problems not of their making. The new management and/or new directives cause, at the least; anxiety, apprehension and fear, and at the most; complete chaos with lines of communications disrupted and a problematic staff - sometimes sabatoge). Most take-overs fall somewhere inbetween.
So here's what I'm guessing could be happening: As the new management agenda is getting implemented - suddenly reports of animals getting ill hit them. They have no idea why. Their lines of communications are somewhat disrupted and they're stumbling all over themselves. They try to figure out exactly what's wrong but then can't. But they now know it's coming from a particular plant and shut it down as they try to figure it all out. Their PR/CS departments don't know what the hell is going on and stone-walls. Company lawyers tell them to admit nothing. They're hoping to fix the problem and relauch with a big promotion and - marketwise - overpower their critics.
But - wait - wait -- that's just one scenario of what could be happening. Here's another: The new owners and management immediately start to change the formula and/or suppliers to save money. They skimp on quality products and oversight. Since they also own other PF companies, they are able to share ingredients back and forth between them to make up for market fluctuations. They screw up - know exactly why and what's wrong - shut the plant and stonewall. Their PR/CS departments still don't know what's going on. The rest is the same.
And you know, the truth is probably parts of each of those with something else that we haven't even thought of. Or something else entirely perhaps.
What I want is information. I want to know what they know. If there is a current problem, I want to know what it is, how it happened and what is being done to correct it. Whatever might be the cause, it is something we should then earmark for oversight and regulation to all PF companies.
Without open information, our thoughts turn to scenarios of our own making which may or may not be accurate.
If I keep hearing more & more stories as yours, I'll probably be moved from extreme dislike to hate.But regardless of how I may feel emotionally, I would not change my quest for information and always allow for - and hope for - open dialog between pet owners and the company. If we can change a company for the better - I think that is a superior option than destroying it ----- (I agree that is a debatable point).
I found those same links when I searched the net. If you look at them, three link back to CA and are just calling attention to the CA investigation. I've read all comments. The fourth doesn't appear current (though I didn't search around on it).
On one of the sites (
http://cats.about.com/b/2008/04/25/nutro-pet-food-under-consumer-scrutiny.htm ), the author says exactly what I was alluding to when I said that "there's ALWAYS some folks who have problems - even the best companies are not perfect". Please note that I never said that those folks problems were not valid. Quite the contary - I said that the best companies have problems - and that gives credence to the victims. But the complaints currently are all anecdotal.
Of course that's how everything always starts - with sporatic complaints. From a consumer advocate point of view, we need as much of these stories as possible and determine patterns and then confront the companies armed with that info.
I think that if Nutro was wise, they should openly talk with us about this situation. It was mentioned that the CEO of Innova came here to engage in open discussion (I've read that thread as it was happening). That is someone who understands the power of the web and our new communication era. And his companies stature goes up.
Nutro's response to the CA questions in their article (mid april) was a PR joke. To stonewall and discredit the complaints in this day and age?? That dude should be fired. He's clueless and should not be talking to the public.
Again, what I want is information.
And I'm discovering that you are so very right when you say where else can consumer complaints go to other than CA. And it also makes sense that with the links to sites such as you supplied, the word would be out to go to that site.
But what bugs me is that CA covers EVERYTHING. Don't get me wrong - That's Great!! We owe a lot to this site for providing this service. No - what bugs me is that this isn't being champioined by pet/animal specific organizations such as the Humane Society, ASPCA, PETA or one of the other big guns. These are the folks with clout. They SHOULD be looking after us too. They should have a department to oversee things like this. Where do they get the bulk of their donations - us -- the pet owners. They have an obligation to oversee things like this.
And if they watch over ME and MY PETS, I would be more inclined to give to THEM. I think CA may be a place to make a donation at this point.
But the CA article was mid april and it's been six weeks. I'm not aware of any follow-up at this point -- did I miss it? I'm thinking of the animals that might be getting poisoned since then.
If we don't have a competent watchdog on the industry, we need to do this ourselves and use the web power to enable us to create change.
Oh and thanks for that heads up on Brandon Farms wet. I missed that they were canned by Evangers. Something else to look into...........
Klondike: No- I had not seen that particular thread. Thank-you very much!
I'll take a moment here to explain what I'm doing with my newsletter and where it fits in the scheme of things:
At the end of 2006 I left my job as manager of a mid-size natural food store (about $5mil, 30 employees - nothing big). I was tired of the endless hours, the political doings and wanted more time with my dogs. I was feeding them Wysong, Newman's Own, and Pet Guard - - what's we carried at the store.
So when I left, I started researching other foods. Then the Menu recall. I started emailing friends reports that I found and my take on the situation. Most of the people fed their dogs whatever they could find the cheapest - I'd talk to them about higher quality foods and send them links. But I heard back from most of them that they didn't have time to read the links and could I give them a nutshell of what's happening and only the most pertinent links.
So thus was born our newsletter -- which we call a Digest (as in Readers Digest - not Animal Digest) because it's me finding stuff around the web and presenting it in a simple package. And there's also my opinion - which is very malable given a good logical rebuttal.
The readership is very different from participants in forums. The mailing list has grown substantially to a couple hundred or so thus I can't say with absolute certainty but my impression is that most don't take part in or follow dog sites on the web. They're just people with dogs. Which is the majority of folks I meet. Every person I meet who has a dog, I ask if they follow any dogs sites on the web, if they don't I'll hand them my card with the newsletter sign-up URL. If they do, I ask a few more questions to see how much they know and I may or may not give a card.
I, by no means pretend to be a dog expert in any way. I'm someone who loves spending time with his animals and am actively seeking and actively learning new things everyday.
And that is exactly the purpose of the Digest: to document our journey of discovery of what is best for our dogs. It is an ongoing conversation with our readers about what is happening in the dog world and it is written in an easy conversational manner and is never offensive -- except to those I see as fools and idiots - such as dog abusers and puppy mill operators (and dog food companies??). If I mean to offend, people know it. I bend over backwards not to offend otherwise.
If I'm over the top with what I say or do, so be it. I see the Digest filling an information niche that is mostly ignored and I've had very positive feedback. Hey - only two people so far unsubscribed. But I am who I am - having a good time - loving my dogs - and trying to up the doggie conscousness in my own way. I suspect that the doggie conscousness of the participants in this thread and forum is a lot higher than mine and I deeply respect that. As always I am open and willing to share.
I hope this helps in understanding what I'm doing
