BCSNOB wrote: So how many more months will it be until we read that you're changing food again because your dogs got sick eating the food they've been eating? And we can again read about another dog food company that has gone to the dark side, based upon how your dogs can no longer stomach the food?
Actually I am pretty loyal to a dog food until I see an issue - I have switched 3 times in the last 15 yrs.
I think the information posted is good for those who might be having issues with their pet and can not figure out why - maybe it is the food and a recall whether it is mandatory or volunteer by the company needs to be put out there for people to decide what they want to do.
Bottom line is what ever you are comfortable feeding your dog is the right decision for you & your pet and that is all that matters.
Information is good and helpful which is why I posted the recall.
Some information should be given in context, without context inappropriate conclusions can be drawn. The media is very good at providing information without the appropriate context. The results of epidemiological studies (correlation studies) are very good examples of where the media doesn’t provide context.
Example of correlation without context
Cancer in dogs has increased over the past decades
Use of kibble has increased over the past decades
Cancer rates and kibble use are correlated
The missing context:
Dogs are living longer and cancer rates increase with age
Detection of cancer in dogs has improved
Cancer awareness in dogs has increased
COIs in dogs has increased which can lead to increasing genetic diseases like cancer
Quote: If my company had a product failure because a supplier changed a process used to make one of our supplies; who is at fault? Did my company have a detailed SOP and product specs in place that the supplier must follow? Did my company test to see if the supplier actually supplied what we asked for? Did my company go to the supplier to audit their processes?
Yes most likely both you and I WOULD make sure these things happened if something was found to be wrong from a supplier.......
Diamond did NOT and did NOT on NUMEROUS occasions.
BCSnob wrote: Information is good and helpful which is why I posted the recall.
Some information should be given in context, without context inappropriate conclusions can be drawn. The media is very good at providing information without the appropriate context. The results of epidemiological studies (correlation studies) are very good examples of where the media doesn’t provide context.
Example of correlation without context
Cancer in dogs has increased over the past decades
Use of kibble has increased over the past decades
Cancer rates and kibble use are correlated
The missing context:
Dogs are living longer and cancer rates increase with age
Detection of cancer in dogs has improved
Cancer awareness in dogs has increased
COIs in dogs has increased which can lead to increasing genetic diseases like cancer
I agree with you but quoting cancer misrepresentation isn't what we are talking about here.
We are talking ingredients causing death and organ failure directly and proven to be from tainted food which resulted in a recall AFTER the fact and only when reports of death and organ failure were reported.
Which BTW I think that in the instance of public dog food recalls with full disclosure flooding the internet is a GOOD THING. It allows vets to be more aware and act accordingly and maybe reporting a rash of problems all related to one type of food. There HAD to be veterinary reporting to uncover the 200 dogs that ended up at Cornell due to tainted food.
I think today more vets are better informed of recalls because of media coverage and are more apt to ask a client what they are feeding their pet when they are presenting with an "acute" illness/organ failure.
And if the vet is aware of the recall can instruct the client to stop feeding that particular food to see if the condition improves before bombarding the client and the dog with a barrage of treatments as if it were an age related organ failure instead of an acute possible do to tainted food.
IMHO, JMHO. Too much information regarding the health and well being of man and dog is never a bad thing!
"We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us".
I think today more vets are better informed of recalls because of media coverage and are more apt to ask a client what they are feeding their pet when they are presenting with an "acute" illness/organ
Media coverage has little or no effect as every vet I know subscribed to one of multiple web based professional sites that email warning/info. Granted these notifications are the same that the media use to make their stories, but I never use commercial media as their notifies are riddled with inaccuracies and hype.
Also, diet is ALWAYS and has always been a part of a good physical/history. Nothing new here. But I suspect we are giving diet more weight when problem solving.
Look far enough into any company's history -- assuming they've been around long enough to have a history to look into -- and it's pretty easy to find something questionable or downright wrong with just about any of them. And of course the same is true with just about all suppliers of human foods and medicines, too.
Having just heard that Dole is recalling cases of their salad mix - I agree with you. Dole is one of my "go-to" brands because the quality is always there.
Until I have the inclination to grow/raise my own food - I'll have to rely on the FDA to keep my food (and my dogs' food) sources safe. Having typed that, I realize that it's a scary premise...LOL! - but it's all I have.
The context you're not including here is how and why the recalls were needed. You imply or boldly state that in all cases of a diamond recall, diamond did something willfully wrong; and now any time there is a recall from diamond you will continue to state that they did (and continue to do) something willfully wrong. Your attitude is no company can (or tries to) change their ways; once they do something wrong which requires a recall they will continue to do wrong.
I guess that means Dole should be off your list of places to buy food (since they have a recall), same for Kraft, General Mills, most commercial meat processors, etc.
In terms of recalls coming after the fact; how does one know there is an issue with product sent to customers until it is used by customers? If it went to customers the testing found nothing wrong (because the testing was insufficient, not done correctly, or insufficient number of samples from the entire product lot were tested). If you only could see how many customers complaints we deal with where the complaint stems from inappropriate customer use and then see how much time we spend tracking the actual cause of the product not meeting customer expectations (which is about 90% of the complaints). Pet food manufactures probably get tons of calls from pet owners stating "my pet got sick after eating your food" when in fact their pet also ate lots of other things. All this takes time to confirm the product was good or bad.
* This post was
last
edited 04/16/12 11:41am by BCSnob *
View edit history
Offline
