# Question about Science Diet (recall related)



## FaithFurMom09 (Oct 24, 2009)

There is a guy at the dog park (and actually hes about to be my landlord ) and hes super sweet and hes older...anyway he swears up and down Science Diet has never had a recall and they are the best dog food. I tried to tell him that surely they have had 1 recall at least and that its an awfully expensive food and he could find a cheaper one with good ingredients (he has 4 dogs as well). He said hes not switching because of the no recall thing.

So has there been a recall? If there is/has been can you link me to it so i can show him?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

FaithFurMom09 said:


> There is a guy at the dog park (and actually hes about to be my landlord ) and hes super sweet and hes older...anyway he swears up and down Science Diet has never had a recall and they are the best dog food. I tried to tell him that surely they have had 1 recall at least and that its an awfully expensive food and he could find a cheaper one with good ingredients (he has 4 dogs as well). He said hes not switching because of the no recall thing.
> 
> So has there been a recall? If there is/has been can you link me to it so i can show him?


http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scrip...rand_list.cfm?Trade_Name=SCIENCE DIET&pet=Cat
It's cat food, but made by SD


----------



## WestieLove (Jan 29, 2012)

Why do people feel the need to be so pushy when it comes to getting people to feed a "better" food. Honestly SD here is quite affordable compared to other diets which are overpriced IMO. It's not THAT bad of a food, there is honestly a lot worse out there. If the dogs are doing great on it then I see no reason to switch them. They've had very few recalls over the years compared to other food companies. 

I've fed Hills/Science diet for YEARS without a problem to dogs with food allergies and skin conditions. It's improved the situation compared to diets they'd been fed before. So if its working for this guy and the dogs look great (healthy, ideal body condition etc.) then leave it alone!


----------



## Goldens&Labs4Me (Jan 18, 2012)

WestieLove said:


> Why do people feel the need to be so pushy when it comes to getting people to feed a "better" food. Honestly SD here is quite affordable compared to other diets which are overpriced IMO. It's not THAT bad of a food, there is honestly a lot worse out there. If the dogs are doing great on it then I see no reason to switch them. They've had very few recalls over the years compared to other food companies.
> 
> I've fed Hills/Science diet for YEARS without a problem to dogs with food allergies and skin conditions. It's improved the situation compared to diets they'd been fed before. So if its working for this guy and the dogs look great (healthy, ideal body condition etc.) then leave it alone!


I agree. The man is happy with the product & he is feeding his dogs. Good for him. I don't see the problem or the need to pressure him to something else.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

In the U.S., Science Diet is pretty darn expensive. And the ingredients read about the same as Purina Dog Chow (which also apparently has never had a recall, although Purina ONE did). Might as well save the dough and get the Dog Chow, if that's the quality you're looking for.

Compare for yourself:
Science Diet: http://www.hillspet.com/products/ha...ealthy-advantage-dry-dry.html?profile=DEFAULT
Dog Chow (sorry, Purina website wasn't working for me. I don't know if this is the most recent ingredient list or not):
http://www.dogfoodanalysis.com/dog_food_reviews/showproduct.php?product=1843&cat=all

I agree that getting too pushy is obnoxious, but it sounds like he was being pushy, too! Doesn't hurt to mention that you can get a better food for a better price.


----------



## WestieLove (Jan 29, 2012)

Prices vary depending on area and I have seen it cheaper in the U.S 

It may look like exactly the same ingredient list to you but here are the differences I see. The ingredients are based on weight. 
Therefore Purina Dog Chow: 
- contains mostly corn (listed first and again later again) 
- contains meat and bone meal
- animal digest
- atificial colouring 

The website used to evaluate the Purina Dog Chow is not fully accurtate in its information. It talks about corn and soy as main causing ingredients of food allergies. While its true an allergy can be developed to these ingredients the most common food allergies are to the protein source in the food (so chicken, lamb, beef etc.). Other allergies can be wheat, egg, potato etc. less commonly seen is soy and corn. 

Next, you have Science Diet which contains chicken by-product meal, brewers rice, wheat and corn. 
- No artificial colours
- No unnamed sources of fat or "meat meal" 
- Yes it contains chicken by-product meal which is contributing to the main protein content of the food ... well here is a nice debate I found regarding chicken by-product vs. chicken meal vs. chicken http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/bulletins.read?mnr=221991&pagen=1 

Purina Dog Chow does not come close to comparing to Science Diet in my profesisonal opinion. Those are two very different ingredient lists and two very different quality of sources for ingredients. Just keep in mind your first souce in "high quality" foods listed as "chicken" is 80% water.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Sure, but when you see "chicken, chicken meal" as the first 2 ingredients, you know the food probably has a decent amount of chicken protein. I wouldn't buy a food with just "chicken" (like Purina ONE) in the top 5 ingredients. 

Oddly, I've had 2 dogs who were/are allergic to corn (or at least this seems to be the problem. I never had tests done since it's so easy to avoid) and none who showed allergies to meat protein. Corn has quite a lot of protein, too, and is probably the main protein source in both of those foods.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

WestieLove, you said in your professional opinion; what is your occupation? Also, corn and soy ARE high allergens. With Science Diet, the ingredients are not good. For the money, you can get a much better food. Sure, maybe the dog is doing fine on it but they may do just as well, if not better, on a food with higher quality ingredients. Dogs eat Ol Roy and survive; doesn't mean they should eat it.


----------



## WestieLove (Jan 29, 2012)

InkedMarie said:


> WestieLove, you said in your professional opinion; what is your occupation? Also, corn and soy ARE high allergens. With Science Diet, the ingredients are not good. For the money, you can get a much better food. Sure, maybe the dog is doing fine on it but they may do just as well, if not better, on a food with higher quality ingredients. Dogs eat Ol Roy and survive; doesn't mean they should eat it.


I'm a registered veterinary technologist and I love nutrition and emergency medicine. Dogs can develop an allergy to any protein source. A food allergy is an immune-mediated negative reaction to food. The most common reaction tend to be to chicken, beef, dairy and wheat and these seem to be the most common. Yes, dogs can develop an allergy to corn, soy or even potato but I wouldn't call them the most common. As an owner of a breed that are known for their allergy problems - I have only one dog that I feed a diet to that does not contain chicken, wheat, dairy products because he has an actual veterinary diagnosed food allergy to specific foods so he is fed Purina Veterinary Diet's DRM (dermatological management). 

There is a large difference between the quality of Ol' Roy and Science Diet. Its still two very different ingredients and quality. 

Definitions: 
*Chicken:* Carcass without offal but including bones 
*Deboned:* The flesh resulting from removal of bones by mechanical deboning. Only four bones are removed - bones like neck and ribs are still included. 
*By-product:* Secondary products produced in addition to the principal product. Viscera of mammals and chicken which can include: esophagus, heart, liver, spleen, stomach, crop, gizzards and intestines but not instesintal contents. Does not include beaks, feathers or feet. 
*Meal: *ingredient that has been ground or otherwise reduced in size. Basically a ground and dehydrated ingredient. 
*Holisitic:* No definition. Anyone can use this word to describe anything about their food. 
*Human Grade:* AAFCO declares this term to be false and misleading in March 2004.
*Organic:* the ingredient must quality as organic as regulated by the USDA. An organic pet food must contain over 95% organic ingredients. Companies will often insert "made with" a single organic ingredient to have this word printed on the label. 
*Natural:* A feed or ingredient derived solely from plant, animal or mined sources either in its processed state or having been subjected to physical processing, heat processing, rendering, pruification, extraction, hydrolysis, enzymolysis or fermentation but NOT having been produced by or subject to a chemically synthetic process and not containing any additives or processing aids that are chemically synthetic except in amounts that might occur unavoidably in good manufacturing process. -- according to this chicken by-products are considered natural-- 

Ingredient panels go by weight. Feeding an ingredient that says "chicken" you are getting about 80% water content. Feeding a by-product or a meal the water content is reduced and the protein increased. Just because its listed first does not mean its the main ingredient in the food. Those are the longest list of definitions I have ever had to type out. Therefore comparing Ol' Roy or Purina Dog Chow to Science Diet is like comparing McDonalds to Swiss Chalet. Science diet its a named source of organ meats which has less of a water content than say "chicken" so its providing more of a nutritional source then relying on other ingredients like "corn" or "potato."


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I guss I'm not sure how Science Diet's "chicken by-product meal" is better quality than Dog Chow's "chicken by-product meal"? I also don't know of any foods with only a named meat and no meat meal (except Purina ONE). Although I'm sure I could find more if I looked. But I'm not sure what you're trying to to prove by that, because we all agree that the meat with the water weight included really ends up farther down the list once it's actually in the kibble. 

I do agree that "meat and bone meal" and "animal digest" are trash, and artificial colorings are bad news, so on that account Dog Chow is worse. But the combined grain content of SD (what, 6 grains listed after the meat protein?) just doesn't justify the premium price tag. Plus, if we're going by results, a lot of the dogs I know on SD are smelly and have goopy ears (same things happen to my dogs when they're on a lower-quality food). One dog I know was switched from SD to Dog Chow and nothing changed.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

WestieLove, I hate to break it to you but the vast majority of veterinarians and vet techs are very ignorant to the nutritional needs of dogs. I'm taking courses to become a vet tech, the majority of my courses say nothing about nutrition. However, I do know that vets get a lot of kick backs from companies if they sell their food. SD is one of these companies along with Royal Canin (another mediocre, at best, dog food) and many others. 

Your dog does well on it now because all of the fillers allow for firm stool and existence. However, so does McDonalds, but I don't eat there for every meal. SD, Purina, Ol Roy...all of these are like the fast food versions of dog food. 

Now, In my professional opinion, I would much rather feed a 4 - 5 start dog food than a 2 star dog food. BTW, SD is a 2 star food. This is a great website that indicates the quality of kibble http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/dog-food-reviews/dry/

My Siberian Huskies eat Acana - Wild Praire and VERY high quality food that has never been recalled and Grandma Lucy's Pureformance Chicken - A very high quality freeze dried dog food. I have them on food that not only cost THE SAME as SD, but it is so much better for them it's ridiculous. 

In case you want to investigate your food and decide if it's the healthiest choice you can afford here is a link http://members.petfinder.com/~CA469/files/DogFoodRatings.pdf


----------



## WestieLove (Jan 29, 2012)

Mheath0429 said:


> WestieLove, I hate to break it to you but the vast majority of veterinarians and vet techs are very ignorant to the nutritional needs of dogs. I'm taking courses to become a vet tech, the majority of my courses say nothing about nutrition. However, I do know that vets get a lot of kick backs from companies if they sell their food. SD is one of these companies along with Royal Canin (another mediocre, at best, dog food) and many others.
> 
> Your dog does well on it now because all of the fillers allow for firm stool and existence. However, so does McDonalds, but I don't eat there for every meal. SD, Purina, Ol Roy...all of these are like the fast food versions of dog food.
> 
> ...


Prices vary according to region, so your price for SD and the price the person in the original post pay may be two very different prices. 
You will also learn each individual does differently on a food. Some dogs may not do well on SD, others don't do well on BB, others don't do well on Wellness, TOTW, Orijen or Natual Balance etc. You need to find a food that will suit that dogs needs. My westie did not do well on BB, Wellness or Natural Balance. Do I call those bad foods as a result? No. It just simply did not work for him, just as SD did not work for your dogs but does for mine. 

Vet's get no benefit from those companies for selling those foods, you learn that once you start handling the management side of things. I had been teaching myself about nutrition long before I went to school to become a technician. I am hoping it will become one of my specialties. Each technician program is also different, I had dedicated nutrition courses, as well as nutrition touched on in detail in other courses. I also continue to do continuing education in the field of nutrition to keep myself up to date. 

Why quote a website like the Dog Food Advisor who has ZERO background in animal nutrition? The only thing he is going off is the same information available on the internet as everyone else. He is rating dog foods based on its ingredients NOT based on the nutrients those ingredients provide. There is so much he does NOT take into account when evaluating a diet. 
Don't raw feeders feed organ meat? That is exactly what "by product meal" is according to AAFCO ... so raw feeders that feed organ meats in the diet are feeding [insert type of animal] by product. 

To the last link that rates the dog food. A company will put anything they can on a label to sell the food. Even the "high quality" commerical foods. "holistic" means nothing to AAFCO. You are not going to know if your food has been tested for pesticides or if the animal sources are hormone and antibiotic free. You'd really be paying a nice price tag on those foods if they were. You can call a company and ask those questions but getting the truthful answer will be the next thing.


----------



## TTs Towel (May 22, 2012)

.......................


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

TTs Towel said:


> Your first statement seems kinda ignorant to me - how does a person in SCHOOL to become a technician know about the knowledge of the "vast majority of veterinarians"
> 
> I seen this on a lot of forums (bout the kickback). Any proof here or just internet hooey?


If a vet is recommending a food that they sell in their office then yes they are making money off of that food. Major dog food companies like SD also sponsor veterinary nutrition courses so they can promote their brand through vets.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/animallaw/studentresearch
http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/articles/science-diet-responds-to-consumer-blasting.html


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

They don't get "kickbacks", but of course they get the food at wholesale prices and sell it at retail prices so they do make money on it.


----------



## TTs Towel (May 22, 2012)

.......................


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

It's a problem for me when they are not well educated in nutrition yet still recommend and sell low quality foods. Most vets are much more knowledgeable about medication than they are about nutrition. Obviously they don't get "kickbacks" but I wish they didn't have these sale deals with SD and other low quality food compianies. A vet is in a position of trust and power when it comes to the health of our animals, by recommending inferior food they are breaking that trust in my opinion.


----------



## TTs Towel (May 22, 2012)

.......................


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

I don't got to my vet for nutrition and he has never tried to push any food products on me but so many times I have read on here and other forums about people being recommended SD, Purina and other products by their vet as the "best" food for their dog. The average dog owner doesn't always know that vets are not as well educated in dog nutrition as they would like them to be.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

A lot of people trust their vet's advice on anything. A lot of posts on here even. . .someone's vet says they should rub their puppy's nose in his mess, so they do. . .someone's vet says their dog is a certain breed so they believe it (even if the guess is totally random). . .someone's vet says X breed is dangerous. . .someone's vet says their puppy is "dominant" and they need to be harsh. . .and some vets are veryvery pushy about Science Diet!. . .et cetera. So people should be reminded that general practice vets aren't nutritionists, or behaviorists, or breed experts, or trainers.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

> Don't raw feeders feed organ meat? That is exactly what "by product meal" is according to AAFCO ... so raw feeders that feed organ meats in the diet are feeding [insert type of animal] by product.


By-products do make up portions of a raw diet. By-products are not an evil ingredient. What bothers me about by-products in kibble (and other commercial foods) is that I often see them as the SOLE source of animal protein. Not to mention that they're usually paired with dozens of other lower quality ingredients. 

For example, in Hill's Adult "Healthy Mobility":
"Whole Grain Corn, Whole Grain Wheat, *Chicken By-Product Meal*, Soybean Meal, Pork Fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), Chicken Liver Flavor, Corn Gluten Meal, Flaxseed, Fish Oil, Dried Beet Pulp, Lactic Acid, Powdered Cellulose, Soybean Oil"

The only source of meat is solely from by-products. This isn't just this formula either. Most of their foods use chicken by-products as their only meat source. Some have chicken or a named meat meal but it's kind of disturbing the amount that simply only use by-products. Especially their prescription diets.

A raw feeder who does it right only uses human grade (most of the time) by-products (organs, backs, feet, necks, heads) as a part of the diet or as treats (things like feet and heads) and NOT as their only source of meat.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

I do agree that following websites like dogfoodadvisor is not always the greatest either. I respect what it's used for, and I like going to it to view all the foods, reviews and ingredients, etc, but that's about it. The site is written by a human dentist with absolutely no animal or veterinary credentials. So many people say "oh well my food is rated 5 stars so it's good!" without even taking into account WHERE the food is made, how many recalls, etc, etc and just blindly feed based on stars of some internet site. Most of the foods that have been involved in this Diamond recall are all rated top stars.

You know I wouldn't even mind Science Diet that much if they would take out all the corn, wheat and sawdust... errr, excuse me, powdered cellulose. Sometimes their ingredients just make me ??????? But overall, I like that they have had minimal recalls, are produced in their own plant, and seem to have quality control under control. I don't think I'd ever feed it unless I was desperate. I really wish they would just offer better options (even their grain-free is not very good, IMO). I appreciate how much research has gone into them but I think if a more "holistic" company had the funds to do that kind of research, we could see good results too. 
But I DO think it's kind of scary how many new "holistic" foods are coming on the market with no vet on staff, or any professional formulating the foods. Then again, feeding trials are kind of a joke, IMO, from what I've read.

Honestly, I'd really like to see the studies performed on SD foods. There are a lot of BAD and biased studies out there. I think SD's main marketing tool is that they are the only "clinically proven" food and I think vets want to use what "works". They don't have time to do research on all of these foods and companies, and then they be the ones who suggested feeding your dog a food which in turn gives it the runs, or an illness, or something - they don't want to be responsible for that. Vets are also scientists, essentially, who want to promote a product that is "scientifically proven" and highly researched. They also fund a lot of vet schools. I think when people are in school, they just take what they're being told as fact. I've seen many students in my own classes (not veterinary) who listen to a professor and just blindly think that everything he's saying is the truth.

For what it's worth, most vets hardly make money on food, so I really don't think this is the biggest reason. Vaccines, however, are a whole 'nother issue and I completely believe vets who still give yearly vaccines are simply in it for the money.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

I found a post of mine from another forum so I am just going to paste it so I don't have to re-type it. This basically sums up how I feel.


I've become more about quality control issues, production, companies and their values, how trustworthy they are, if they had recalls and how they handled them, etc. Whereas I used to just see certain ingredients and be like "Oh, I'd NEVER feed that!" but I've learned quality control and company trust is equally, if not more, important than the ingredient list sometimes. Though of course ingredient list is to be paid attention to as well.

Look at Evanger's - they were a trustworthy company, I thought, but they had a HUGE issue with listing the wrong meat ingredients in their food. Tested for chicken (or something) and it was beef, etc. That is not good news for a dog who may react terribly to one meat, but the owner thinks they are feeding another. Not cool at ALL.

Lately, I'm not big on most Diamond-produced foods (either foods made by Diamond, for Diamond, or at Diamond plants). I am not sure why - just rubs me the wrong way after reading some current things as well as past issues of course. I did feed TOTW for a while and did have luck with it so I dunno. _(Edit - this was before all the Diamond recalls, LOL, guess I'm glad I went with my 'feeling')._

Certain foods will look good on paper, or at least decent, but I personally would never feed (e.g. Merrick and Nutro -- WAY too many quality control problems).

I know it gets to a point where you are going to find a problem with EVERY food you read about, whether it be a small problem or a big problem, so of course in the end, it's about finding what works for your dogs. I've probably spent way too much time researching, etc, but I feel confident that I know enough basics to feed my dog what I believe is right and best for him.

But I do believe that a lot, not all, of these holistic higher end companies are probably not all they are cracked up to be.

Let's be realistic... the meat and ingredients going into ANY of these dog foods is not going to be a prime cut steak that we humans may eat. The prices would be astronomical if they did that. In order to make dog food affordable and sell, price is going to have to be not any more insane than it already is. Even Orijen was using that fish-byproduct from a supplier.... but is that really THAT bad? I don't think so. By me feeding Acana, I'm not expecting him to be necessarily eating the freshest of the fresh, but in terms of kibble, I do feel they are pretty trustworthy and some of the top when it comes to dry kibble.

But I also don't think a simple ingredient list is always a seller for a food; sometimes an ingredient list can look decent, or great, but really the product you are getting is probably not. I'd feed Royal Canin before I fed Nutro. Nutro ingredient list may be superior, but I do not feel their quality or control is.

Basically, there is very few kibbles I feel comfortable feeding nowadays. I've narrowed down a very small list at the moment. There's a few others I may consider but those are what I feel most comfortable with at the moment.

I guess I just am not sure feeding Merrick, for example, is any better than feeding Science Diet.

It's not even necessarily just about recalls, I look at how it was handled, if dogs died, how they treated their customers, etc.

I think I've just changed my mindset a little bit. I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable feeding Science Diet, nor want to. But I am also not sure they are the evil-company that everyone makes them out to be, and no longer do I feel Champion is like the superior all mighty kibble either. So I dunno, gotta just do what you are comfortable with, and what you feel is right by your dog and what they do best on.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

That's the issue i have with it, down here it's very expensive for what it is, a so-so "eh" food. 

It's not that it's a horrible food, it's for the price I can get somehing better, plus my dogs won't eat it anyway lol. No, but all I can say about that other guy is "rude much?"


----------



## GrinningDog (Mar 26, 2010)

I do not feed Science Diet, and I do not recommend Science Diet.

Science Diet is marginally better than foods like Beneful, Pedigree, and Dog Chow, but it's vastly overpriced for the quality. Around here, there are numerous far better options in terms of ingredients for the price tag. If you're concerned about recalls, there are _still _options - brands like Earthborn or Fromm Gold - that have had no recalls and are priced similarly but with healthier ingredients. 

Maybe it's because I work at a pet store. I see which foods sell and hear numerous stories of people's pets responses to various foods. You know which formulas of SD we sell the most of BY FAR? Sensitive Skin and Sensitive Stomach. That says something about the food quality to me. I have switched many of these people from Science Diet to low-grain, grain-frees or limited ingredient diets, depending on their situation, to phenomenal success. I have people coming back weeks, months later telling me that the issues they have battled with their dog's poop or skin or coat or appetite for years are much improved or completely gone.

I don't have a beef with the food itself. Moderate quality, high price tag. If your dog does well on it and you don't mind the price, that's cool. (Though I would still personally be working to switch my dog to something with better ingredients.) There are many foods like that. What I do have a problem with is the air of superiority that Science Diet flaunts and people, unwittingly, lap up. It's vet-recommended, so it must be the best option. Unfortunately, people do not realize what that means: almost nothing. If it were nutritionist-recommended, that might mean something. Not to diss on all vets. My local vet has a number of additional certifications, including one in nutrition. She does not sell or push Science Diet, but she sure sends a bunch of people to my pet store, asking for Origen and Acana.

I won't get too deep into feline nutrition, but the fact that SD "vets recommend" feeding your cat a grain-based kibble diet, is ASTOUNDING to me. Just another reason why the SD gimmick is just that. Cats are obligate carnivores with a low thirst drive, thus they benefit from a meaty, moist diet.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

Kirsten&Gypsy said:


> I won't get too deep into feline nutrition, but the fact that SD "vets recommend" feeding your cat a grain-based kibble diet, is ASTOUNDING to me. Just another reason why the SD gimmick is just that. Cats are obligate carnivores with a low thirst drive, thus they benefit from a meaty, moist diet.


I know this isn't a cat forum but I must agree with this. No vet will ever argue that a cat is anything but a carnivore. Even pet food companies know this and state it... Yet cats are fed like omnivores. The majority (even high quality) cat foods contain ridiculous amounts of grain, fruits and vegetables...


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Kirsten&Gypsy said:


> I won't get too deep into feline nutrition, but the fact that SD "vets recommend" feeding your cat a grain-based kibble diet, is ASTOUNDING to me. Just another reason why the SD gimmick is just that. Cats are obligate carnivores with a low thirst drive, thus they benefit from a meaty, moist diet.





Little Wise Owl said:


> I know this isn't a cat forum but I must agree with this. No vet will ever argue that a cat is anything but a carnivore. Even pet food companies know this and state it... Yet cats are fed like omnivores. The majority (even high quality) cat foods contain ridiculous amounts of grain, fruits and vegetables...


Totally completely utterly agree!


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

^^ with the cat thing, I recall getting a good laugh from a bag of purina cat chow that said "full of grains that your cat craves", talk about slick marketing! 

I work in a kennel so I see the results of various foods all the time. of all the "vet" type foods that I have seen the results of, the ONLY one I would ever reccomend is Medi-cal/Royal Canin..I HAVE seen great results from it and the ingredients are not the worst I have seen. I have yet to see a dog in great shape that eats science diet, I have seen better results from kibble and bits lol, and man the dogs that eat SD, eat a LOT of it, dogs smaller then mine that need 5-6 cups a day of science diet, where as mine eat 1 1/2 to 2 cups a day of pretty much anything else. and goven that, the price is out of this world, I saw someone come into a vet clinic to buy a bag of SD puppy food while I was there with my rabbit, the guy was going on about how he just wants to give his dog the best..and happily paid $97 for a 15lbs bag, I was floored!


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Jacksons Mom said:


> I found a post of mine from another forum so I am just going to paste it so I don't have to re-type it. This basically sums up how I feel.
> 
> 
> I've become more about quality control issues, production, companies and their values, how trustworthy they are, if they had recalls and how they handled them, etc. Whereas I used to just see certain ingredients and be like "Oh, I'd NEVER feed that!" but I've learned quality control and company trust is equally, if not more, important than the ingredient list sometimes. Though of course ingredient list is to be paid attention to as well.
> ...


Hey! I fed Merrick for a long time (both their BG line & their five star line) & had great results , even with my finicky eager at the time, Izze. Believe me if there was something wrong with the food she wouldn't eat it.... Like she started not to with TOTW) plus they are a local, TX based company. Besides how can one call it 'quality control' if a food, like RC's ingredient list is inferior. Is t that in itself a quality control issue? 



> I know it gets to a point where you are going to find a problem with EVERY food you read about, whether it be a small problem or a big problem, so of course in the end, it's about finding what works for your dogs. I've probably spent way too much time researching, etc, but I feel confident that I know enough basics to feed my dog what I believe is right and best for him.
> 
> But I do believe that a lot, not all, of these holistic higher end companies are probably not all they are cracked up to be.
> 
> ...


How can you say that?! Hills is like this huge corporation whereist Merrick is a small locally (for me) owned business? Just saying I think it would be more realistic to compare Hills to let's say BB (which is owned by Mars INC) or Innova, Evo, California natural, (which are all owned by P&G).



> It's not even necessarily just about recalls, I look at how it was handled, if dogs died, how they treated their customers, etc.
> 
> I think I've just changed my mindset a little bit. I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable feeding Science Diet, nor want to. But I am also not sure they are the evil-company that everyone makes them out to be, and no longer do I feel Champion is like the superior all mighty kibble either. So I dunno, gotta just do what you are comfortable with, and what you feel is right by your dog and what they do best on.


*sigh* yep, I wish hey would make it where try couldn't use certain ingredients at all!!! But I guess they don't think let's are important  just google 'euthanized pets & pet food' ..... Yikes .

Edit: here is thr link to a disturbing article about rendered pets in pet food: http://www.naturalnews.com/012647.html


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

In regards to Merrick:

http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm267247.htm

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm221198.htm

http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm218039.htm

http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm241476.htm

It was also Go! food made at their plant that killed quite a few dogs.
http://www.itchmoforums.com/news-re...t-2003-petcurean-pet-food-recall-t6037.0.html

And I'm pretty sure there's a few other warnings, if you search.

To me, that's just kind of a lot for a smaller company.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I knew about the treat recall after my dogs had been esting it for a while (i did switch) but like I said I fed it for a while with no probs & good results in my dogs. Thr reason I stopped feeding TOTW was befor the recall stuff went down, my dogs stopped wanting to eat it (I supposed it was cuz it was getting too 'fishy' something my two didn't care for) even their 'red meat' formulas were getting more fishy in their ingredients.


----------

