|
|
Joe Canuck wrote in message m...
Okay, this has just come to my attention. Can anyone explain why there is a discrepancy between the ingredient list on the bag and the ingredient list on the website for Science Diet Adult Chicken & Rice Recipe? Joe et al, The website is updated within ~24 hours of any change in the formula. The pre-printed bags can often be printed months in advance. In this case the old bag you have contains the old "artificial antioxidant" labelling. That does not mean the product contains artificial antioxidants, simply old bags being used until they are gone. The product was changed months ago. I'd be curious to know the date on the older bag. Elsewhere on this thread was a comment about BHA BHT causing cancer. That is pure internet fantasy. There has ever been a single animal that has ever been shown to have sufferred any negative consequences as a result of the use of artificial antioxidants. None, zip, zero nada. You have to understand the difference between the testing levels and what is used in pet food. If Vitamin E, Beta Carotene, Sodium, Selenium, and several other ingredients were fed at the same grossly exagerated levels, all of them would be fatal. The majority of studies were done at 1% or 10,000 parts per million, the amounts used in pet food are about 30 parts per million, more than 300 times the levels used in pet foods. Most people can take 2 aspirin without a problem, anyone who ingested 600 aspirin would suffer a fatal result. Lots of companies like Flint River use scare tactics to try to sell the food. One of Flint Rivers favorite scare tactics is to claim that a pet would ingest 26 pounds of preservatives in a year. This is of course completely ludicrous. I've spent some time trying to track this number down. And in every case, every web site that makes the claims refers to another web site, but nobody will take responsibility for the false number or explain how it was derived. It would take about 393,000 pounds of food to provide 26 pounds of artificial antioxidants. Not even a dog the size of Tyranosaurus Rex would consume that much food in a year. |
"ChakaShiva" wrote in message ...
"Phil P." a écrit dans le message de news: ... Then it is permitted to have a description on the bag differing from the true content? Interesting. That is correct for a period of 180 days. Thus a company that claims to have an ingredient list of X ingredients, can conceivably get away with putting anything they want in the bag for 179 days and then actually put what they claim on the ingredient label for one day and revert to anything the next. It's a very weak spot in the law and one I would love to see changed. I would presume more that the bag came from an old batch. I sometimes go to a little local supermarket when I have not time to go to town for my shopping. I've been seeing the very same unique bag of Science Diet kibble lying on the shelf now for certainly over a year :-). There's no mistake, its the same one because it is ripped and taped on one side. The retailer is paid for damaged bags, it comes right off every invoice. Obviously this retailer is trying to make an extra buck or two, despite being paid in advance for any damage products. That's too bad, the objective was to eliminate such bags immediately by paying the retailer in advance, thus eliminating any chance a damaged bag would sit on a shelf anywhere for any length of time. |
"ChakaShiva" wrote in message ...
"Phil P." a écrit dans le message de news: ... Then it is permitted to have a description on the bag differing from the true content? Interesting. That is correct for a period of 180 days. Thus a company that claims to have an ingredient list of X ingredients, can conceivably get away with putting anything they want in the bag for 179 days and then actually put what they claim on the ingredient label for one day and revert to anything the next. It's a very weak spot in the law and one I would love to see changed. I would presume more that the bag came from an old batch. I sometimes go to a little local supermarket when I have not time to go to town for my shopping. I've been seeing the very same unique bag of Science Diet kibble lying on the shelf now for certainly over a year :-). There's no mistake, its the same one because it is ripped and taped on one side. The retailer is paid for damaged bags, it comes right off every invoice. Obviously this retailer is trying to make an extra buck or two, despite being paid in advance for any damage products. That's too bad, the objective was to eliminate such bags immediately by paying the retailer in advance, thus eliminating any chance a damaged bag would sit on a shelf anywhere for any length of time. |
|
|
|
|
"Steve Crane" a écrit dans le message de news: ... "ChakaShiva" wrote in message ... "Phil P." a écrit dans le message de news: ... Then it is permitted to have a description on the bag differing from the true content? Interesting. That is correct for a period of 180 days. Thus a company that claims to have an ingredient list of X ingredients, can conceivably get away with putting anything they want in the bag for 179 days and then actually put what they claim on the ingredient label for one day and revert to anything the next. It's a very weak spot in the law and one I would love to see changed. Thank you for that info. It does give alot of liberty. I wonder if the law applies when the product crosses the line to another country who might have different rules? I would presume more that the bag came from an old batch. I sometimes go to a little local supermarket when I have not time to go to town for my shopping. I've been seeing the very same unique bag of Science Diet kibble lying on the shelf now for certainly over a year :-). There's no mistake, its the same one because it is ripped and taped on one side. The retailer is paid for damaged bags, it comes right off every invoice. Obviously this retailer is trying to make an extra buck or two, despite being paid in advance for any damage products. That's too bad, the objective was to eliminate such bags immediately by paying the retailer in advance, thus eliminating any chance a damaged bag would sit on a shelf anywhere for any length of time. I wonder if this retailer dealt directly with Hill's though, since he doesn't seem to carry much of an inventory of their product. Is there a minimum that they are suppose to carry? I can understand the company for wanting damaged bags off the shelf. It does tarnish the image. In fact, the first time I noticed the bag was within the moments I was hesitant on if I should really go the home-prepared way. The sight of that sorry bag kind of triggered the green light. I thought, yeah, I'll give it a try. Élaine |
From: (GAUBSTER2)
From: afr Interesting shift in ingredients. No, just a change in the preservative system. That should make most of you happy, no? Shortly after that, during an informal chat with a woman who worked for a pet insurance company (who sent me an article in the mail), I heard that there was research indicating a strong link between bha and bht in science diet and kidney cancer in cats. Unfortunately, there is no such "link". Which insurance company was it? I want to know so that I can steer clear of them! BHA and BHT are completely safe preservatives when used at the levels found in pet foods. Period. http://www.takingthelead.co.uk/2/Hea...t_dog_food.htm ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CatBanter.com