Printable View
I was feeding my dog this exact food and she was having some problems. She was getting very itchy eyes and ears and was constantly scratching. I figured it was an allergy to the corn filler that they used so I switched to a food with none. That was last week, now this lawsuit comes out and it makes me wonder if there was something else going on. The dog seems to be improving but I am reminded of a sign that I saw at a restaurant once;
"Good food isn't cheap, and cheap food isn't good"
Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
I saw that, but I can't find the test results.procedures themselves, where is the scientific report ?
All I can find are those PowerPoint charts which really have no meaning. They have risk equivalent charts on a scale of 5-10-20..but they don't say what that means. They say 'serious'...how high is 'serious ?
Why would they hold back the actual study ?
For example....this is a 'proper' study done on the "Jerky Treats" conducted by the CVM...last year...
Basically the CVM testing results found no adverse findings.....as was submitted back to the FDA..
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalV.../UCM371485.pdf
As you can see, far more credible results and I would think that unless the ATFP publishes a peir review of the CMA's investigation, there really is no point in believing that they have found results that counter what the FDA/CDC and CVM have published to date.
To be honest, I didn't go that far into it (scanned over it quickly), but I did read that if you want to contact the association that did the study they will give you a breakdown. They set up the graphs the way they did to make it easier to understand, supposedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
As you said, if the data isn't there then it won't likely get to court.
Well that makes sense...like people, some dogs respond to some ingredients differently...think of Gluten... so you need to find a food that doesn't bother that 'allergy'.....it doesn't mean that the Dog Food that he is allergic to, should be labelled as 'bad' to the hundreds of thousands of other dogs that eat it and don't have issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmcguire259
Can you imagine going to court against Nestle (Purina), with the 'negative' results/finding they have from the CDC/FDA and CVM with a handful of vague ATFP power point charts put together by a group of volunteer scientist working on their behalf.....Nah !!Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
No I can't, and if so what a waste of money and time. I'm assuming they have SOMETHING.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/0.../#.VO-COZT3i70Quote:
Dr. Cathy Alinovi, a veterinarian in Indiana, reviewed the group’s report prior to release and said the procedures adhered to good scientific standards.
Did you read the last para...that is what I was referring to, without a review of the testing, it's meaningless....
Quote:
Update (Jan. 8): Microbiologist and food safety blogger Phyllis Entis has published a critique of the testing project, questioning why the testing focused on bacteria of lesser concern and only tested to the genus level, which she says makes the results essentially useless from a food safety perspective. The ATPF has responded to the critique, including saying that they tested for more high-profile pathogens, but none were found.
Yes, I read her entire article earlier, but I can't find the actual article I was reading that had the comments. Oh well, this is the same one anyway without the comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
https://efoodalert.wordpress.com/201...-and-saddened/
Here's the response :
http://truthaboutpetfood.com/it-is-not-junk-science/
If you read both articles (the one I first read by Phyllis) there are some interesting comments at the bottom of both as well.
My favorite line so far..
Reminds me of a quote from a great movie..." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....Quote:
Until then – to consumers – don’t pay any attention to attacks on us from anyone. Our science will hold up against any foe. We did it right. We did good.
Sorry, but Susan Thixton lost me (at least her credibility/professionalism) with that and when she started her rebuttal by trash talking.
I don't see this going very far....I think you are right..probably a big waste of money, in a least in bringing Purina to court...BUT ...if it makes people more aware of what they are feeding their dogs...then it was worth every penny !!Quote:
Phyllis Entis is probably known to many readers here – she was known as ‘The Food Bug Lady’ when she had a blog about food safety. Today – she came out of her retirement from blogging to call our pet food test results “junk science”.
wow. I started writing something in the morning, had no time to finish it and when I come back the debate rages on...
I am with Mike - this is not science.
Bottom line - most foods are fine, feed whatever works for your dog, grain free is a fad (but there are dogs out there no doubt that would do better on it).
Grab red highlighter and check human food ingredients on boxes and cans in your kitchen.