Gun Dog Forum

But, of course, our wonderful FDA didn't name the brands :roll:

The Result:
•8 formulas tested positive for an animal protein not listed on the ingredient label, with 2 foods containing undeclared beef or sheep, 5 containing pork, and 1 containing deer
•2 foods labeled as containing venison tested negative for deer, but instead contained beef, sheep or pork
•2 foods labeled as containing “meat and bone meal” rather than a specific protein source tested positive instead for pork, but because pork can be considered meat, these formulas were not technically mislabeled
•12 formulas listed no gluten source on the label and 5 were labeled either gluten-free or grain-free, however 5 of the 12 – including 2 labeled gluten- or grain-free – contained gluten at greater than 80 ppm, a level much higher than the FDA’s limit of 20 ppm to qualify for labeling as gluten-free in human foods
The bottom line? Out of 21 dog foods tested, 10 were mislabeled, two of which had more than one labeling inaccuracy.

The link : http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/he ... tsNL_art_1



.

Another article put out by a company trying to sell it's products. I don't have much faith in any of those since you can read them and see the glaring errors in what they post.

In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment. Pet feed manufacturers do not normally do as thorough a job of cleaning that a human food plant would do since it has no effect on the animals it is being fed. When doing this kind of tests I would have expected to find 100% mislabeled and in all honesty they probably are if they look hard enough and check against totally unreasonable standards of purity for an animal feed.

Ezzy

ezzy333 wrote: In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment.

Ezzy

2 foods labeled as containing venison tested negative for deer, but instead contained beef, sheep or pork



.

Venison in dog food is usually farm elk and may be corrupted with bison, the latter of which usually tests as beef.

Doc E, not sure how long you have been around this site, but any attempt to discuss dog food with the dog food prophet, formerly known as ezzy, is an exercise in futility.

Cajun Casey wrote:Venison in dog food is usually farm elk and may be corrupted with bison, the latter of which usually tests as beef.

Can you explain this, please?

You guy's know what? I think much to much is made about dog foods. The premium foods have this and that in them to make them more appealing to dog owner's. So the owner's go on search's to find the best they can regardless of cost. At the end of the day, while the food might have this that and the other in it, your dog still eats as much and really doesn't have any more staying power. Staying power is more a product of conditioning. And then what is needed is a good complete food. I have bought and fed Pedigree from the grocery store for over 20yrs now, it has never let the dog's down. I did try a brand made by American Nutrition in Utah, dogs didn't do well at all, couldn't maintain their condition. I have used Nutro Max, Echnuba, Iiams, Diamond and Biscuit. The only one of them that made a visible difference was Biscuit. That was all the dog's preferred it and even tired out dog's would eat it. I never saw a dog that wouldn't eat it in fact switch them over to it and feed half and half a few days and they pick out the Biscuit and leave the rest. If dog food companies had the dogs picking out their own food, you might be surprised at the results. Dog food is meant to be eaten by dog's but sold to dog owners!

DonF wrote:You guy's know what? I think much to much is made about dog foods. The premium foods have this and that in them to make them more appealing to dog owner's. So the owner's go on search's to find the best they can regardless of cost. At the end of the day, while the food might have this that and the other in it, your dog still eats as much and really doesn't have any more staying power. Staying power is more a product of conditioning. And then what is needed is a good complete food. I have bought and fed Pedigree from the grocery store for over 20yrs now, it has never let the dog's down. I did try a brand made by American Nutrition in Utah, dogs didn't do well at all, couldn't maintain their condition. I have used Nutro Max, Echnuba, Iiams, Diamond and Biscuit. The only one of them that made a visible difference was Biscuit. That was all the dog's preferred it and even tired out dog's would eat it. I never saw a dog that wouldn't eat it in fact switch them over to it and feed half and half a few days and they pick out the Biscuit and leave the rest. If dog food companies had the dogs picking out their own food, you might be surprised at the results. Dog food is meant to be eaten by dog's but sold to dog owners!

:roll: Oh boy... pass the popcorn... :roll:

Doc E wrote:

ezzy333 wrote: In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment.

Ezzy

2 foods labeled as containing venison tested negative for deer, but instead contained beef, sheep or pork



.

for the most part I would agree with ezzy, but this is just plain wrong - they are duping gullible people into parting with more of their money than they should for a food with "special" ingredients and then they are not even giving them the ingredient they duped them into paying extra money for - a double dupe is "fraud".

slistoe wrote:

Doc E wrote:

ezzy333 wrote: In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment.

Ezzy

2 foods labeled as containing venison tested negative for deer, but instead contained beef, sheep or pork



.

for the most part I would agree with ezzy, but this is just plain wrong - they are duping gullible people into parting with more of their money than they should for a food with "special" ingredients and then they are not even giving them the ingredient they duped them into paying extra money for - a double dupe is "fraud".

Imagine that!

ezzy333 wrote:Another article put out by a company trying to sell it's products. I don't have much faith in any of those since you can read them and see the glaring errors in what they post.

In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment. Pet feed manufacturers do not normally do as thorough a job of cleaning that a human food plant would do since it has no effect on the animals it is being fed. When doing this kind of tests I would have expected to find 100% mislabeled and in all honesty they probably are if they look hard enough and check against totally unreasonable standards of purity for an animal feed.

Ezzy

Actually, this study was also quoted on the Pet Food Industry Website: http://www.petfoodindustry.com/Are_your ... rate_.html, so I don't think that saying that the article was "put out by a company trying to sell it's products" is entirely accurate.

Granted, it would be preferable to see the study itself, but so far I've been unable to find a link to it anywhere. If anyone does discover it, they should post it.

SubMariner wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:Venison in dog food is usually farm elk and may be corrupted with bison, the latter of which usually tests as beef.

Can you explain this, please?

Which part? Only certain processors handle large ungulate carcasses, so the possibility of both elk and bison ending up in "venison meal" is distinct. As far as bison teating as beef, I believe all American bison are believed to have been exposed to beef hybridization. The amount and location of beef DNA is of concern because it changes the grazing pattern of the herd from bison to cow. The Nature Conservancy has an excellent article on the effect and how they control it on the Tallgrass Prairie preserve by hair anaylsis at the annual roundup. Animals with the detrimental DNA/sequence are culled to commercial meat operations. Genetypically, American bison and domestic cattle are reprodutively compatable, hence "beefalo."

SubMariner wrote:

ezzy333 wrote:Another article put out by a company trying to sell it's products. I don't have much faith in any of those since you can read them and see the glaring errors in what they post.

In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment. Pet feed manufacturers do not normally do as thorough a job of cleaning that a human food plant would do since it has no effect on the animals it is being fed. When doing this kind of tests I would have expected to find 100% mislabeled and in all honesty they probably are if they look hard enough and check against totally unreasonable standards of purity for an animal feed.

Ezzy

Actually, this study was also quoted on the Pet Food Industry Website: http://www.petfoodindustry.com/Are_your ... rate_.html, so I don't think that saying that the article was "put out by a company trying to sell it's products" is entirely accurate.

Granted, it would be preferable to see the study itself, but so far I've been unable to find a link to it anywhere. If anyone does discover it, they should post it.

Mercola sells fear. I actually am subscribed to his newsfeed because it is useful, interesting and comical to see what the quacks and whackos are promulgating.

SubMariner wrote:

ezzy333 wrote:Another article put out by a company trying to sell it's products. I don't have much faith in any of those since you can read them and see the glaring errors in what they post.

In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment. Pet feed manufacturers do not normally do as thorough a job of cleaning that a human food plant would do since it has no effect on the animals it is being fed. When doing this kind of tests I would have expected to find 100% mislabeled and in all honesty they probably are if they look hard enough and check against totally unreasonable standards of purity for an animal feed.

Ezzy

Actually, this study was also quoted on the Pet Food Industry Website: http://www.petfoodindustry.com/Are_your ... rate_.html, so I don't think that saying that the article was "put out by a company trying to sell it's products" is entirely accurate.

Granted, it would be preferable to see the study itself, but so far I've been unable to find a link to it anywhere. If anyone does discover it, they should post it.

No guarantees, but this looks like it relates.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 016.x/full

Looks like the information is based on antigen tests performed at ELISA Technologies.

slistoe wrote:

Doc E wrote:

ezzy333 wrote: In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment.

Ezzy

2 foods labeled as containing venison tested negative for deer, but instead contained beef, sheep or pork



.

for the most part I would agree with ezzy, but this is just plain wrong - they are duping gullible people into parting with more of their money than they should for a food with "special" ingredients and then they are not even giving them the ingredient they duped them into paying extra money for - a double dupe is "fraud".

I agree whole heartedly.

cmc274 wrote:Doc E, not sure how long you have been around this site, but any attempt to discuss dog food with the dog food prophet, formerly known as ezzy, is an exercise in futility.

Sorry that my effort to tell you what actually happens in the formulating, manufacturing, & marketing of a product interferes with most of the old wives tales that are repeated over and over. When I started I actually thought everyone would like to know but we have found out some don't.

Dog food is a subject that many pet owners spend way too much time worrying about while it makes little difference in a dogs health and performance. Maybe trying to help has just made the whole thing worse for some.

Ezzy

cmc274 wrote:Doc E, not sure how long you have been around this site, but any attempt to discuss dog food with the dog food prophet, formerly known as ezzy, is an exercise in futility.

This gave me the lulz.

Cajun Casey wrote:

SubMariner wrote:

ezzy333 wrote:Another article put out by a company trying to sell it's products. I don't have much faith in any of those since you can read them and see the glaring errors in what they post.

In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment. Pet feed manufacturers do not normally do as thorough a job of cleaning that a human food plant would do since it has no effect on the animals it is being fed. When doing this kind of tests I would have expected to find 100% mislabeled and in all honesty they probably are if they look hard enough and check against totally unreasonable standards of purity for an animal feed.

Ezzy

Actually, this study was also quoted on the Pet Food Industry Website: http://www.petfoodindustry.com/Are_your ... rate_.html, so I don't think that saying that the article was "put out by a company trying to sell it's products" is entirely accurate.

Granted, it would be preferable to see the study itself, but so far I've been unable to find a link to it anywhere. If anyone does discover it, they should post it.

No guarantees, but this looks like it relates.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 016.x/full

Looks like the information is based on antigen tests performed at ELISA Technologies.

Thanks. You've also given me a good resource for future online searches.

Cajun Casey wrote:

SubMariner wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:Venison in dog food is usually farm elk and may be corrupted with bison, the latter of which usually tests as beef.

Can you explain this, please?

Which part? Only certain processors handle large ungulate carcasses, so the possibility of both elk and bison ending up in "venison meal" is distinct. As far as bison teating as beef, I believe all American bison are believed to have been exposed to beef hybridization. The amount and location of beef DNA is of concern because it changes the grazing pattern of the herd from bison to cow. The Nature Conservancy has an excellent article on the effect and how they control it on the Tallgrass Prairie preserve by hair anaylsis at the annual roundup. Animals with the detrimental DNA/sequence are culled to commercial meat operations. Genetypically, American bison and domestic cattle are reprodutively compatable, hence "beefalo."

Thanks for the explanation. This is probably news to most consumers, myself included. We wouldn't have a clue about who processes what; all we see are little plastic-wrapped packages in the grocery store that contain various proteins.

However, that being said, what you are putting forth is speculation: "so the possibility of both elk and bison ending up in 'venison meal' is distinct" and "I believe that all American bison are believe to have been exposed to beefy hybridization." It's a POSSIBLE explanation as to why these other proteins are showing up in allegedly single-source protein dog foods.

And, as the study that Ezzy linked me to mentioned, when you are trying to isolate why your dog is having an allergic reaction by putting h/h on food that allegedly has a very short ingredient list, it really complicates matters.


Pax,

ezzy333 wrote:

cmc274 wrote:Doc E, not sure how long you have been around this site, but any attempt to discuss dog food with the dog food prophet, formerly known as ezzy, is an exercise in futility.

Sorry that my effort to tell you what actually happens in the formulating, manufacturing, & marketing of a product interferes with most of the old wives tales that are repeated over and over. When I started I actually thought everyone would like to know but we have found out some don't.

Dog food is a subject that many pet owners spend way too much time worrying about while it makes little difference in a dogs health and performance. Maybe trying to help has just made the whole thing worse for some.

Ezzy

Really? What an organism consumes has NO EFFECT on it's health or energy level?

Surely even you don't believe that, Ezzy.

@ Sub, the management of American bison is quite fascinating if you care to delve into it. Ted Turner has been instrumental in the reintroduction process in many areas, with his extensive string of huge ranch properties, including the Bluestem, adjacent to the Tallgrass Prairie.

Anyway, glad the link worked to ELISA.

SubMariner wrote:

ezzy333 wrote:

cmc274 wrote:Doc E, not sure how long you have been around this site, but any attempt to discuss dog food with the dog food prophet, formerly known as ezzy, is an exercise in futility.

Sorry that my effort to tell you what actually happens in the formulating, manufacturing, & marketing of a product interferes with most of the old wives tales that are repeated over and over. When I started I actually thought everyone would like to know but we have found out some don't.

Dog food is a subject that many pet owners spend way too much time worrying about while it makes little difference in a dogs health and performance. Maybe trying to help has just made the whole thing worse for some.

Ezzy

Really? What an organism consumes has NO EFFECT on it's health or energy level?

Surely even you don't believe that, Ezzy.

You are exactly right. But come on now. A dog food company that put's out an inferior product isn't gonna last long. This post make's me think some of them are going around making bad stuff on purpose! Even the one's that got something wrong and had to recall stuff are not trying to make an inferior product that will hurt your dog. Think about dog's in the wild. They eat all sort's of trash and most of them are in better shape than anyone's bird dog! I agree with Ezzy!

SubMariner wrote:

ezzy333 wrote: Dog food is a subject that many pet owners spend way too much time worrying about while it makes little difference in a dogs health and performance. Maybe trying to help has just made the whole thing worse for some.

Ezzy

Really? What an organism consumes has NO EFFECT on it's health or energy level?

Surely even you don't believe that, Ezzy.

Of course you are right in a broad sense but I was refering more to one brand of food compared to another. Just not enough difference that you could tell with the naked eye. Dog in the show ring are fed a thousand different feeds just as dogs in a trial or in a sled dog race and they all perform plus each owner will swear they are feeding the one and only best feed on the market.

Ezzy

Don't be surprised if a regulation is passed to control pet food closer the price doesn't increase double digits.

DonF wrote: At the end of the day, while the food might have this that and the other in it, your dog still eats as much and really doesn't have any more staying power.

I did try a brand made by American Nutrition in Utah, dogs didn't do well at all, couldn't maintain their condition. I have used Nutro Max, Echnuba, Iiams, Diamond and Biscuit.

The only one of them that made a visible difference was Biscuit.

Nice mix of an answer.
First you say food doesn't make any difference ----- then you say it does :roll:



.

ezzy333 wrote:Another article put out by a company trying to sell it's products. I don't have much faith in any of those since you can read them and see the glaring errors in what they post.

Ezzy

You are 100% INCORRECT
Do you even have a clue as to anything that you post ?
.

Cajun Casey wrote:Venison in dog food is usually farm elk and may be corrupted with bison, the latter of which usually tests as beef.

Venison in dog food is from Farm Raised Deer (not elk).


.

ezzy333 wrote: Dog food is a subject that many pet owners spend way too much time worrying about while it makes little difference in a dogs health and performance. Ezzy

Best joke of the day


.

Doc E wrote:

ezzy333 wrote: Dog food is a subject that many pet owners spend way too much time worrying about while it makes little difference in a dogs health and performance. Ezzy

Best joke of the day


.

I have no idea what your problem is with eezy, but it's kind of obvious you have one. His thought's are just a valid as your's and are close to my own. You need to realize that this forum is not just for people that agree with you! Now you may continue to snivel away!

DonF wrote: I have no idea what your problem is with eezy, but it's kind of obvious you have one.

I have no problem with him -- I have a problem with ignorance.....
However, ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever.



.

If you kids don't play nice, I'm turning this thread around!!!!

I certainly wouldn't label Ezzy as ignorant, altough I don't know him personally. I do believe he has an inside knowledge of the dog food industry, so he can speak from experience. Personally, I don't give a hoot what is in the stuff as long as my dog is doing well on it. When my vet tells me my dog's weight is perfect and she is in fantastic shape, and I like how she looks and acts in the field... Her turds are nice and she ain't complaining... I couldn't care less what some study says about the label... just sayin... if it ain't broke...

Shortfat you hit the nail on the head!! No matter what you feed the dogs conditon & health are the only reason we feed them to start with & if that is taken care of what difference does it make what we
feed them.I have owned & fed dogs since the late 60's fed alot of different foods & brands there was only a few that my dogs didn't do well on & one of those was one of the most expensive foods
on the market at the time.Science Diet & it came in like a five gallon paint can with fold over ears,simply put you had to force feed it because the dogs just would not eat it on their own & when your showing
dogs as I was at the time they can't miss many meals.I only used one can.If feeding the most expensive you can feed & it makes you feel better GO FOR IT but it's simply not neccessary!!

Doc E wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:Venison in dog food is usually farm elk and may be corrupted with bison, the latter of which usually tests as beef.

Venison in dog food is from Farm Raised Deer (not elk).


.

Not according to Royal Canin in the past.

Cajun Casey wrote:

Doc E wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:Venison in dog food is usually farm elk and may be corrupted with bison, the latter of which usually tests as beef.

Venison in dog food is from Farm Raised Deer (not elk).


.

Not according to Royal Canin in the past.

Deer and elk meat is all sold as venison or at least always has been unless it has been changed recently. I do question if bison meat got into it but the DNA could show it if the equipment wasn't steam cleaned before the manufacturing, and I'm sure it isn't for animal feed.

Ezzy

ezzy333 wrote: Deer and elk meat is all sold as venison or at least always has been unless it has been changed recently. I do question if bison meat got into it but the DNA could show it if the equipment wasn't steam cleaned before the manufacturing, and I'm sure it isn't for animal feed.

Ezzy

During the Diamond South Carolina plant salmonella recall earlier this year, several Natural Balance formulas were pulled. They included Limited Ingredient Diet formlas with venison, bison and lamb. I don't understand your comment about "it not being for animal feed," because several companies offer venison formulas and several offer bison. Run crossover could cause residue from any of those meats to show up in other formulas since we know there was a sanitation issue.

Cajun Casey wrote:

ezzy333 wrote: I do question if bison meat got into it but the DNA could show it if the equipment wasn't steam cleaned before the manufacturing, and I'm sure it isn't for animal feed.

Ezzy

During the Diamond South Carolina plant salmonella recall earlier this year, several Natural Balance formulas were pulled. They included Limited Ingredient Diet formlas with venison, bison and lamb. I don't understand your comment about "it not being for animal feed," because several companies offer venison formulas and several offer bison. Run crossover could cause residue from any of those meats to show up in other formulas since we know there was a sanitation issue.

Lets see if I can make it clearer. The cross contamination that was discovered could have been from DNA testing which could show up in the feed unless they steam clean the equipment between runs and I doubt if they do since they are manufacturing animal feed instead of human food. Normally they just flush the equipment due to the exceedingly high cost that hand cleaning and sterlization would do to the price of the feed being produced.

Ezzy

ezzy333 wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:

ezzy333 wrote: I do question if bison meat got into it but the DNA could show it if the equipment wasn't steam cleaned before the manufacturing, and I'm sure it isn't for animal feed.

Ezzy

During the Diamond South Carolina plant salmonella recall earlier this year, several Natural Balance formulas were pulled. They included Limited Ingredient Diet formlas with venison, bison and lamb. I don't understand your comment about "it not being for animal feed," because several companies offer venison formulas and several offer bison. Run crossover could cause residue from any of those meats to show up in other formulas since we know there was a sanitation issue.

Lets see if I can make it clearer. The cross contamination that was discovered could have been from DNA testing which could show up in the feed unless they steam clean the equipment between runs and I doubt if they do since they are manufacturing animal feed instead of human food. Normally they just flush the equipment due to the exceedingly high cost that hand cleaning and sterlization would do to the price of the feed being produced.

Ezzy

Equipment is supposed to be either dedicated or steam cleaned. That's part of the requirements when you put that "limited ingredient" badge on a bag. That's supposed to guarantee there is no cross contamination. We are talking about dog food that retails at $3.00 - $4.00 a pound here, not the 50# for twenty bucks stuff.

I can't believe they didn't mention which dog food brands they were. Why even give out this info if you cant learn from it... Whatever ezzy says about dog food is just blah blah blah to my ears. Diamond is probably one of the brands which is why ezzy is defending it so much.

trigger1989 wrote:I can't believe they didn't mention which dog food brands they were. Why even give out this info if you cant learn from it... Whatever ezzy says about dog food is just blah blah blah to my ears. Diamond is probably one of the brands which is why ezzy is defending it so much.

Because it wasn't a witch hunt to "get" particular brands, but rather a quick study to see if a problem existed if so, to what extent. The information will likely be used to draft further rules and regulations governing the industry if it is deemed to be necessary. However some folks saw an opportunity to get some mileage from it to further their marketing of fear.

trigger1989 wrote:I can't believe they didn't mention which dog food brands they were. Why even give out this info if you cant learn from it... Whatever ezzy says about dog food is just blah blah blah to my ears. Diamond is probably one of the brands which is why ezzy is defending it so much.

Have I ever recommended you or anyone else feed Diamond? I feed it as you probably have heard. But I have fed a lot of other feeds, have been involved in researching, formulating, manufacturing, and marketing dog food for a lot of years and also the quality control of the products through out the mid-west and parts of Canada. Diamond was not connected to anything I was. What you have heard me say is that in my opinion you get more for your buck from Diamond than anything else I am familiar with but never have I said it is the best food on the market.

If you are trying to discredit the industry so you can sell your products you never list which feeds were involved. That cuts down the people who need your supplement by 90% or so.

Sorry you have trouble with your ears. That really handicaps someone from learning.

Ezzy

My ears and eyes are just fine. When I see the mislabeling with the dog foods I'm not blaming it on dirt in the machines. To think dirt causes testing to mistaken one meat for another that's pretty impractical. Sorry you have a brain problem that can really handicap someone from from trying to defend false advertising which is really what this post should be labeled.

trigger1989 wrote:My ears and eyes are just fine. When I see the mislabeling with the dog foods I'm not blaming it on dirt in the machines. To think dirt causes testing to mistaken one meat for another that's pretty impractical. Sorry you have a brain problem that can really handicap someone from from trying to prove defend false advertising which is really what this post should be labeled.

We are not talking about dirt. We are talking about the remnants of previous product corrupting a subsequent run of a different product. Also, ELISA may not have known the brands, likely didn't, and the publisher who solicited the study is not under any obligation to provide them. Furthermore, the DNA contamination source point could be prior to the meat product entering the dog food manufacturers' facilities, possibly occuring at the slaughter facility.

There is no fraud intended, but it is yet another glaring case of how sloppy the handling of our food supply has become.

ezzy333 wrote: In this case you forgot to mention that mot of these errors were not intentional mislabeling but were the result of a lab testing for parts per million which under normal circumstance is nothing more than some dust in the equipment.
Ezzy

im sorry "dust" not dirt, my fault.

Cajun Casey wrote: We are not talking about dirt. We are talking about the remnants of previous product corrupting a subsequent run of a different product. Also, ELISA may not have known the brands, likely didn't, and the publisher who solicited the study is not under any obligation to provide them. Furthermore, the DNA contamination source point could be prior to the meat product entering the dog food manufacturers' facilities, possibly occuring at the slaughter facility.

There is no fraud intended, but it is yet another glaring case of how sloppy the handling of our food supply has become.

Our handling and purity is better than it has ever been by far. Back when you thought it was good, we didn't test parts per million or in some cases parts per billion. For a matter of fact many things were never tested because there wasn't a problem with the product so there was no need to test. That whole concept has changed over the years to the advantages of somethings but just something that makes no difference in other areas.

Ezzy

And every one of those critters is probably eating Monsanto corn, so why worry?

Cajun Casey wrote:And every one of those critters is probably eating Monsanto corn, so why worry?

Because the amino acids in Monsanto corn are different?

Amazing this discussion is considering the crap our dog's eat that they find laying around! I just about gag every time! I caught my old pointer Rex, eating a decaying porcupine one time. He loved it but I don';t think getting the quill's out was much fun for him. I picked out a bunch of old quail egg's laying around the pen today. Broke them in the driveway, gravel, and the dogs came over and ate them all, shell and all! People buy special water for it's purity for their dogs that when they are out running drink water they find anywhere they can find it, including cow pies. So, just how bad can factory food be?

I have yet to meet a dog that didn't/wouldn't eat horse poo... most of them love it, but I would certainly never intentionally feed it to a dog.

SHORTFAT wrote: Personally, I don't give a hoot what is in the stuff as long as my dog is doing well on it.

Just because a dog is doing well, doesn't always mean they couldn't be doing better.



.