A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Science Diet question...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 2nd 03, 01:49 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

afr wrote in message . org...

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. My previous cat had eaten that her
whole life. I had heard that Flynt River Ranch was good for cats with
urinary problems, so up until his recent blockage, my present companion
had been on that his whole life.


There is no such research period. Like always it takes a few under
educated people to jump on a band wagon they do not understand. The
vast majority of such studies are done at 1% or 10,000 parts per
million. Most pet foods use about 30 parts per million. Over 300 times
as much as is commonly used in pets foods. Vitamin E, D, A, beta
carotene, selenium and sodium would all be fatal if they were
increased in doseage to the same level as was done in the majority of
studies. In fact if I increased sodium levels in pet foods by one
third as much, the food would be fatal. Not over the long term, but
very quickly.

Another way to look at this issue. Most people can take 2 aspirin
without difficulty. Nobody would be stupid enough to take 600 aspirin
in a single dose. Unless of course suicide was the desired result.
  #52  
Old December 2nd 03, 01:51 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't know now, its been long since I've been there. I do like to go in
town most of the time where I can get all my organic stuff.
Its an exceptionnal case. Its a supermarket in a very small town that is
close to their people and I suppose someone asked for a bag, they ordered
two and never sold the other. But even so, in remote areas such as mine,
rotation of these products is likely to be very slow, even when sold at the
vet. I remember last year going to the vet to ask for samples of SD and
they only had one flavor of canned to offer.

Elaine


Elaine can you give us the name of the town and the retailers name?
  #53  
Old December 2nd 03, 01:51 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't know now, its been long since I've been there. I do like to go in
town most of the time where I can get all my organic stuff.
Its an exceptionnal case. Its a supermarket in a very small town that is
close to their people and I suppose someone asked for a bag, they ordered
two and never sold the other. But even so, in remote areas such as mine,
rotation of these products is likely to be very slow, even when sold at the
vet. I remember last year going to the vet to ask for samples of SD and
they only had one flavor of canned to offer.

Elaine


Elaine can you give us the name of the town and the retailers name?
  #54  
Old December 2nd 03, 06:16 AM
GAUBSTER2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: "Jeremy Lowe"


Since the FDA asked pet food manufacturers to lower the PPM concentration of
ethoxyquin http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/dogethox.html
there must be some concern.


You're focusing on something that is about 7+ years old? Why are you looking
at the glass as being 1/2 empty? There's nothing nefarious in setting
standards. If it was so bad (as you suggest) why was it not banned altogether?
Using your logic, perhaps it's because there wasn't enought concern for a ban?

As to it's antioxidant properties there are
natural sources of antioxidants that are much better sources of these
desired properties.


Such as....?

Since food that is bought by a pet food manufacturer as
prepared food does not fall under the guidelines of ingredient listing, only
what the manufacturer has added how do we know that the levels of ethoxyquin
are within the range listed by the FDA as acceptable.


Because there is no PROOF (empirical evidence) suggesting that eq is bad for
animals at levels found in pet foods.

We can't, thus the
best advice is simply avoid the product.


You still have never addressed my argument AGAINST excess nutrients. You'd
rather focus on ingredients and not focus on a REAL problem--exces nutrients in
pet foods.

Get a grip.... my comments simply implied I think it is better to feed as
natural a food product as possible an avoid man made preservatives.


And I'm saying that there is nothing wrong w/ synthetic antioxidants. Prove me
wrong. Don't use scare tactics, use facts. Don't go on about Teflon, or
tobacco companies, or formaldehyde, or the US Government, or anything else.
Deal with facts, please.
  #55  
Old December 2nd 03, 06:16 AM
GAUBSTER2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: "Jeremy Lowe"


Since the FDA asked pet food manufacturers to lower the PPM concentration of
ethoxyquin http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/dogethox.html
there must be some concern.


You're focusing on something that is about 7+ years old? Why are you looking
at the glass as being 1/2 empty? There's nothing nefarious in setting
standards. If it was so bad (as you suggest) why was it not banned altogether?
Using your logic, perhaps it's because there wasn't enought concern for a ban?

As to it's antioxidant properties there are
natural sources of antioxidants that are much better sources of these
desired properties.


Such as....?

Since food that is bought by a pet food manufacturer as
prepared food does not fall under the guidelines of ingredient listing, only
what the manufacturer has added how do we know that the levels of ethoxyquin
are within the range listed by the FDA as acceptable.


Because there is no PROOF (empirical evidence) suggesting that eq is bad for
animals at levels found in pet foods.

We can't, thus the
best advice is simply avoid the product.


You still have never addressed my argument AGAINST excess nutrients. You'd
rather focus on ingredients and not focus on a REAL problem--exces nutrients in
pet foods.

Get a grip.... my comments simply implied I think it is better to feed as
natural a food product as possible an avoid man made preservatives.


And I'm saying that there is nothing wrong w/ synthetic antioxidants. Prove me
wrong. Don't use scare tactics, use facts. Don't go on about Teflon, or
tobacco companies, or formaldehyde, or the US Government, or anything else.
Deal with facts, please.
  #56  
Old December 2nd 03, 06:19 AM
GAUBSTER2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ralston Purina owned interest and still has connected interest in Ralcorp
which produces the Beech Nut food line, a large consumer of grain products.
http://www.purina.com/company/profile/timeline.asp
Since its merger with Nestle' the giant Swiss owned food company it now has
more ties than ever to the human food industry.


How could I forget about Nestle merging w/ Purina?

As for Colgate Palmolive I did not state that all major pet food
manufacturers produce human food just MOST of them. This company is

probably
one of the few that does not hold major interest in food production, but
then again I don't know that I would trust my pets health to accompany
that's major product is toothpaste!


Colgate owns Hill's Pet Nutrition, but Hill's Pet is it's own company. Don't
you think there is some synergy between clinically proven dental diets and the
expertise of Colgate in the dental category? Or is that a bad thing?
  #57  
Old December 2nd 03, 06:19 AM
GAUBSTER2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ralston Purina owned interest and still has connected interest in Ralcorp
which produces the Beech Nut food line, a large consumer of grain products.
http://www.purina.com/company/profile/timeline.asp
Since its merger with Nestle' the giant Swiss owned food company it now has
more ties than ever to the human food industry.


How could I forget about Nestle merging w/ Purina?

As for Colgate Palmolive I did not state that all major pet food
manufacturers produce human food just MOST of them. This company is

probably
one of the few that does not hold major interest in food production, but
then again I don't know that I would trust my pets health to accompany
that's major product is toothpaste!


Colgate owns Hill's Pet Nutrition, but Hill's Pet is it's own company. Don't
you think there is some synergy between clinically proven dental diets and the
expertise of Colgate in the dental category? Or is that a bad thing?
  #58  
Old December 2nd 03, 01:27 PM
PawsForThought
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (GAUBSTER2)

Ralston Purina owned interest and still has connected interest in Ralcorp
which produces the Beech Nut food line, a large consumer of grain

products.
http://www.purina.com/company/profile/timeline.asp
Since its merger with Nestle' the giant Swiss owned food company it now

has
more ties than ever to the human food industry.


How could I forget about Nestle merging w/ Purina?

As for Colgate Palmolive I did not state that all major pet food
manufacturers produce human food just MOST of them. This company is

probably
one of the few that does not hold major interest in food production, but
then again I don't know that I would trust my pets health to accompany
that's major product is toothpaste!


Colgate owns Hill's Pet Nutrition, but Hill's Pet is it's own company. Don't
you think there is some synergy between clinically proven dental diets and
the
expertise of Colgate in the dental category? Or is that a bad thing?


Well, IMO, if they were really on the ball, they would not be advocating a dry
food diet for a carnivore.

Lauren
________
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
  #59  
Old December 2nd 03, 01:27 PM
PawsForThought
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (GAUBSTER2)

Ralston Purina owned interest and still has connected interest in Ralcorp
which produces the Beech Nut food line, a large consumer of grain

products.
http://www.purina.com/company/profile/timeline.asp
Since its merger with Nestle' the giant Swiss owned food company it now

has
more ties than ever to the human food industry.


How could I forget about Nestle merging w/ Purina?

As for Colgate Palmolive I did not state that all major pet food
manufacturers produce human food just MOST of them. This company is

probably
one of the few that does not hold major interest in food production, but
then again I don't know that I would trust my pets health to accompany
that's major product is toothpaste!


Colgate owns Hill's Pet Nutrition, but Hill's Pet is it's own company. Don't
you think there is some synergy between clinically proven dental diets and
the
expertise of Colgate in the dental category? Or is that a bad thing?


Well, IMO, if they were really on the ball, they would not be advocating a dry
food diet for a carnivore.

Lauren
________
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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PING Steve Crane Science Diet question Rona Yuthasastrakosol Cat health & behaviour 12 September 14th 03 04:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.