 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / September 2003Crane, Gaubster, PhilP
"Ann Martin" <anmartin1@rogers.com> wrote in message My question is, what are you all so frightened of that you have taken such a defensive stand? You all seemed concerned that I am making all kinds of money from my books and television radio shows. You insinuate that all information in my books are nothing more then scare tactics. Let's look at the pet food industry, an industry that makes billions per year. What is this industry doing? Lying to the pet owner's, brain washing them into believing that feeding commercial pet foods, garbage, is the only way they can have a healthy pet. In the meantime these people, the pet owner's, are incurring thousands of dollars in vet bills from feeding this garbage. Ads depict steaks, whole grains, quality vegetables and fats going into these products when in reality what is going into these pet foods is garbage that would otherwise end up in landfill or be incinerated. All these people have stated that this industry is regulated. Where is the proof? Show me one document that gives any indication that ingredients in pet foods are regulated. One idiot stated that the USDA/FSIS regulated the ingredients used in pet foods. WRONG! they have no input at all. The FDA/CVM oversees any drugs that are used in pet foods and the labeling text. NOTHING ELSE. The AAFCO sets guidelines and it is up to each state to adopt these guidlines. Very few states actually do and if they do this group, comprised of many from the pet food industry, has no input at all into the ingredients used. If you follow the AAFCO guidlelines, as I have pointed out in a previous post, the foods can contain such things as "hydrolyzed hair," dehydrated garbage," "dehydrated food waste," "dried ruminant waste," "dried swine waste," "undried processed animal waste products,". NOW WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHO REGULATES THE INGREDIENTS THAT ARE IN COMMERCIAL FOOD. THE PET FOOD COMPANIES, THAT'S WHO REGULATES THIS INDUSTRY. You ramble on about the nutrient value of the ingredients in pet foods but you neglect to mention what these ingredients actually are. You can derive nutrients from nearly anything including garbage. To that garbage add a substantial amount of vitamins, minerals and you want us to believe that you will be feeding your pet a "complete and balanced diet." You have persisted in asking for documentation as to the information I have posted. I've provided that including the e-mail from the USDA/FSIS stating they have no input at all into the ingredients in pet food. I've quote from letter received from the FDA/CVM as to their knowledge that pets ARE used in commercial pet foods and from David Dzanis, DVM, formerly with the FDA/CVM who stated that the AAFCO ingredient definitions applied to both livestock feed and PET FOOD. Crane wrote that he had spoken to Halo, the company that makes 'Spots Stew. > "I spent nearly an hour on the phone with > this lady and found out she had never had the food analyzed and could > not even begin to give me an answer about the calcium and phosphorus > levels in the food. She kept insisting that since it was all "human > grade" the levels of these minerals didn't matter." Well he must have spoken to the cleaning lady because Andi Brown, the owner of the company was out of town last week. If this is the conversation he had with the cleaning woman then she lied because Andi Brown replied that they continually have their food analyzed and are always in compliance. I suggest that you get your story straight the next time you post such inaccurate information. These three also continue to insist that the pentobarbital in pet food poses no danger. I've questioned them a number of times that if this was the case why was the investigation begun in the first place? It was because dogs were building up a resistance to this drug and it was taking more to euthanize the. If this drug ws having no effect then there should have been no change in the amounts it took to euthanize. Also, the FDA/CVM did not consider the interaction of this drug with other drugs. They did not consider the interaction with other chemicals found in pet food. They measured ONE liver enzyme then sought to find the minimal daily dose that did not elevate this enzyme. The conclusion arrived at was this drug was "probably" safe. Probably does not mean it is safe. As I have also mentioned, the FDA/CVM has admitted that if this drug, in any amount, was found in human food it would be pulled from the shelves immediately. Not so with pet foods. When anyone questions any of you and you are backed into a corner your resort to derogatory remarks and name calling, you never answer the questions that are addressed to you. As I've said before, I don't have the time to spend with people like you and won't bother wasting anymore time with your posts. Others on the list know that I am more then happy to provide any documented information they require. Ann > My question is, what are you all so frightened of that you have taken > such a defensive stand? I don't think they're frightened at all. To me it sounds like you've made claims in a book that aren't substantiated. If that is the case, the burden of proof is on you, not on anyone else. You have to prove what you say is true; they don't have to prove it's false. (who doesn't care, really)  Signaturehttp://www.mindspring.com/~slywy/ http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > My question is, what are you all so frightened of that you have taken > > such a defensive stand? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the burden of proof is on you, not on anyone else. You have to prove > what you say is true; they don't have to prove it's false. Martin makes unproven, conjectured statements then demands people disprove them! Ain't that a hoot! ...What a con artist and manipulator! > "Ann Martin" <anmartin1@rogers.com> wrote in message I thought you weren't going to waste your time replying to me? LOL! Now comes the poor innocent, little victimized, altruist routine! LOL! > My question is, what are you all so frightened of that you have taken > such a defensive stand? ...of you starting and perpetuating rumors and scare tactics to scare people into a feeding plan that isn't necessary and they may not be prepared to follow -- all based largely on innuendo, conjecture and manipulated facts - as demonstrated to your reference to taurine-deficient diets which was corrected nearly 20 years ago.... How's that, for starters? You all seemed concerned that I am making all > kinds of money from my books and television radio shows. You insinuate > that all information in my books are nothing more then scare tactics. They *are* - Are your books free? Do you appear on radio shoes for free, too or to promote your books - i.e., free advertising? . > Let's look at the pet food industry, an industry that makes billions > per year. So does, GM, Ford and about a 1000 other companies.... > What is this industry doing? Lying to the pet owner's, brain washing > them into believing that feeding commercial pet foods, garbage, is the > only way they can have a healthy pet. Obviously they;re not lying.... since cats are living longer today than they've ever lived before.... Because cats are living longer, didn't it ever occur to you that most of the diseases occur secondary to aging...? Or doesn't that fit with your agenda....? In the meantime these people, > the pet owner's, are incurring thousands of dollars in vet bills from > feeding this garbage. Bullsh!t. I can singlehandedly debunk your bullsh!t because my cats have been eating commercial food for >18 years and have never been sick a day in their lives... other than a case of worms they got in the shelter when they were kittens...My other cats lived to 22, 19, and 20 years- on commercial food. So much for your bullsh!t, eh Annie...? <Fodder snipped just for the hell of it> > You ramble on about the nutrient value of the ingredients in pet foods Obviously a subject you know nothing about.... > but you neglect to mention what these ingredients actually are. The ingredients are defined in the AAFCO Ingredients Definitions, You > can derive nutrients from nearly anything including garbage. To that > garbage add a substantial amount of vitamins, minerals and you want us > to believe that you will be feeding your pet a "complete and balanced > diet." That's what feeding trial are for, Einstein! That's how the digestibility, and bioavailabilty of the nutrients are determined! Does "gross energy", "digestible energy" and "metabolizable energy" ring any bells...Einstein? .. or didn't you even get that far in Nutrition 101! LOL! > You have persisted in asking for documentation as to the information I > have posted. I've provided that including the e-mail from the > USDA/FSIS stating they have no input at all into the ingredients in > pet food. I would have liked to see your original inquiry.... You can ask a question in such a way to get almost the exact, if not the exact answer you want... Hey, be realistic, you're not exactly unbaised and you do have an agenda... I've quote from letter received from the FDA/CVM as to > their knowledge that pets ARE used in commercial pet foods and from > David Dzanis, DVM, formerly with the FDA/CVM Formerly? He wouldn't be a disgruntled former employee would he? Hey, I can play the innuendo and conjecture game too! How do you like it? LOL! who stated that the AAFCO > ingredient definitions applied to both livestock feed and PET FOOD. Nice manipulation! You're pretty good - but not good enough.... Because an ingredient has the same description, that doesn't mean that ingredient can be used in either food! "9. ANIMAL PRODUCTS . Official *Use of this ingredient, from mammalian origins, is restricted to non-ruminant feeds unless specifically exempted by 21 CFR 589.2000." All the ingredients only allowed in cat food bear the "*". The same ingredient can have different energy and nutritional values for different animals.... I'll make this real simple so I know you'll understand: For example, Einstein, grass has different energy and nutrient values for a cow that it does for a cat. And even though a horse is a nonruminant, the energy and nutrient values are different than for a cat or a cow because of the lenght of the horses digestive system.... I guess you slept through that class of Nutrition 101! LOL! > Crane wrote that he had spoken to Halo, the company that makes 'Spots > Stew. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I suggest that you get your story straight the next time you post such > inaccurate information. ROTFLMAO! You just made a liar out of YOURSELF! (Not hard to do). What happened to the "garbage"??? > These three also continue to insist that the pentobarbital in pet food > poses no danger. I've questioned them a number of times that if this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > enzyme. The conclusion arrived at was this drug was "probably" safe. > Probably does not mean it is safe. So you perpetuated a rumour and scare tactic based on nothing more than innuendo and conjecture - even though *your own source* didn;t even imply there was a danger! You created a rumour and scare tactic -- no way out of that! You just admitted it youself! LOL! There is no proof, even according to you, that pentobarbital poses any danger at the levels found. About 90% of all food ingredients are GRAS! "Gernerally regarded as safe" As far as I'm concerned, even based partly on your *own* admission, YOU'RE FULL OF sh.t and nothing but a scamming, manipulator - if not an actual liar Anyone who believes your book, I know where they can get "waterfront" property in Fla (not far from the Everglades) and Rolex watches real cheap! LOL! <more bullsh!t snipped >NOW >WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHO REGULATES THE >INGREDIENTS THAT ARE IN COMMERCIAL FOOD http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/petfoodflier.html "The Act does require that pet foods, like human foods, be pure and wholesome, contain no harmful or deleterious substances, and be truthfully labeled." That's about it. Also, if this is the IBD group Petco now sells Bene-bac, probiotics in tubes. I used some on my squirrels and cat after giving them antibiotics and it worked great. Maybe the IBD cats could use some. I think if you have the knowledge of nutrition, desire and money, a homemade food would be preferable as it won't have additives, colorings, flavorings, preservatives... My IBD cat couldn't eat store bought food. I had to make it for him. I used the same ingredients in the can food, chicken and rice with vitamin/mineral powder, but it didn't make him sick so it must have been everything else in there. > >NOW > >WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHO REGULATES THE [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's about it. Mary, I believe that is from Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Food and Drugs, Part 500. I also think if you contact the FDA/CVM they will advise you that neither they nor any other agency actually inspects or tests the ingredients used in pet food. A good example of this is the sodium pentobarbital. Dr. Stephen Sundlof from the FDA/CVM, replied when I questioned the pentobarbital which was found in pet food. He stated that this drug was not to be in food for human or animal consumption "Do not use in animals intended for food" in the regulation (21 CFR 522.900) for Euthanasia solution applies only to food destined for human consumption or food for human and animal consumption." The FDA/CVM has also stated that if any amount was found in human food it would be pulled from the shelves immediately yet they do not plan any action to remove it from pet foods. It is a barbiturate under the Federal Controlled Substance Act (DEA). What I suggest is that people contact the FDA/CVM and ask them directly if they, or any other branch of the government or any agency such as the AAFCO, actually test the materials used in commercial pet food. I can guarantee that as long as the contents meet the label requirments, levels of protein, carbohydrate, fats, that is all that is considered. It does not matter what comprises the protein, carbs or fats. Someone also stated that the AAFCO, classifed livestock and pet food in different catagories. Dr. David Dzanis, formerly a veterinary medical officer with the CVM, made it clear in a letter that ALL AAFCO 'ingredient definitions' applied to both livestock and pet food. > I think if you have the knowledge of nutrition, desire and money, a homemade > food would be preferable as it won't have additives, colorings, flavorings, > preservatives... My IBD cat couldn't eat store bought food. I had to make it > for him. I used the same ingredients in the can food, chicken and rice with > vitamin/mineral powder, but it didn't make him sick so it must have been > everything else in there. At least you would know what is going into the food you are feed your IBD cat which is not the case with commercial pet foods. The pet food industry states that home prepared diets are not complete and balanced and that we are basically killing our pets if we don't feed commercial pet foods. I know hundreds of pets that are now eating a homemade diet and doing extremely well including my three cats and dog. Ann >From: anmartin1@rogers.com (Ann Martin) >The pet food >industry states that home prepared diets are not complete and balanced >and that we are basically killing our pets if we don't feed commercial >pet foods. I know hundreds of pets that are now eating a homemade >diet and doing extremely well including my three cats and dog. My cats are also on a homemade diet and thriving on it. I am on a list of over 950 people who feed homemade diets, and these animals are doing great on them. I don't think all commercial pet food is bad, but I do think a person really can never know what's in it. I personally like the feeling that I know exactly what goes into my pets' food. 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 > Someone also stated that the AAFCO, classifed livestock and pet food > in different catagories. Dr. David Dzanis, formerly a veterinary > medical officer with the CVM, made it clear in a letter that ALL AAFCO > 'ingredient definitions' applied to both livestock and pet food. Did you misrepresent others' statements in your book to suit your agenda, also? What I actually said was: "Because an ingredient has the same description, that doesn't mean that ingredient can be used in either food!" Followed by the AAFCO regulation: "9. ANIMAL PRODUCTS . Official *Use of this ingredient, from mammalian origins, is restricted to non-ruminant feeds unless specifically exempted by 21 CFR 589.2000." IOW, Martin the Manipulator, some of the ingredients used in food for ruminants cannot be used in cat food. Cats are non-ruminant animals - I doubt you knew that... I said nothing about different definitions for the same ingredients used in feed for livestock and food for cats. *You* conjured up that misrepresentation all by yourself...I wonder how many misrepresentations you conjured up in your book for effect..... I wouldn't believe your so-called documentation unless it was notarized and witnessed by a priest... and a rabbi... and a minister... and a monk... All your hyperbole and sensationalism can't change the fact that cats are living longer today than they've ever lived before - and the overwhelmingly vast majority eat *commercial cat food* their entire lives... which is usually into their late teens and even early twenties. As I said before, if 1/10 of the "danger" you sensationalize to sell books was *real* or *true*, the vast majority of cats that eat commercial cat food would be dropping like flies at young ages instead of living longer... into their late teens and even into their early twenties. *Reality* debunks your scaremongering... you should try opening your eyes to it... But then you wouldn't sell many books, now would you? >From: mmmaryinla@aol.comspam (Mary) >>NOW >>WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHO REGULATES THE [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >That's about it. Yeah, that's about it. But I see nothing about pet food be regulated at all. 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 > >From: mmmaryinla@aol.comspam (Mary) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yeah, that's about it. But I see nothing about pet food be regulated at all. You're right, no one regulates the ingredients in these foods. Contact the FDA/CVM and ask them outright if they, or any agencey, inspects or tests the raw materials used in commercial pet foods. One person in this news group stated that the USDA/FSIS regulated pet food. In an e-mail I received from this department they made it very clear ""NO" FSIS does not inspects or oversees any ingredients used in commercial pet food." I believe this same person stated that it was illegal to use euthanized dogs and cats in commercial pet foods. Again I quoted from a letter I received from Christine Richmond of the FDA/CVM who wrote "CVM has not acted to specifically prohibit the rendering of pets. However, that is not to say that the practice of using this material in pet food is condoned by the CVM." First of all, it is not illegal. Second, the FDA/CVM is aware that this is happening but will take no step to prohibit this practice. I also have letters from a number of people associated with the AAFCO, various states across the U.S.. I asked all of them if any testing is undertaken on any of the raw materials used in commercial pet foods. The reply from all was "NO." I have asked the people who over and over again tell us this industry is regulated to provide some proof of this and not one of them has been able to do this. They ramble on about calcium, phosphorus, nutrients in the food, all of which can be sourced from garbage, and then we are told we should be more concerned about kidney disease etc. in pets then basically what we are feeding them. Why on earth do they think the pets are suffering from so many ills. Could it be from the garbage we are feeding them? Sorry that this has been a rather lengthy reply to your statement, Lauren but I think people should find out for themselves how regulated this industry actually is. Ann > 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 Just curious, as I missed a lot of this thread, Ann, are you against the whole, natural pet foods, such as California Natural and Wellness? Both state they use human-grade ingredients. I just started feeding my cats the Wellness canned cat food, and I have to say, it smells much better than most commercial cat food, and I have noticed the litterbox is less stinky. What about the prescription pet foods? What is a pet owner supposed to do if their cat or dog requires a prescription food? Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net Check out www.snittens.com > > >From: mmmaryinla@aol.comspam (Mary) > > >http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/petfoodflier.html > > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html > > Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > Just curious, as I missed a lot of this thread, Ann, are you against the > whole, natural pet foods, such as California Natural and Wellness? Both [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What about the prescription pet foods? What is a pet owner supposed to do > if their cat or dog requires a prescription food? Kelly, I think there are some foods, the ones you mentioned, that do contain quality ingredients and I have often told people that if they don't have time to cook for their pets that these would be good choices. With regard to the prescription diets, one of my cats was on one for five years and it did not help at all. On a homemade diet, which he has been on for fourteen years, the problem was resolved. There is an excellent book written by a very knowledgeable veterinarian, Donald Strombeck, "Home Prepared Dog and Cat Diets," which deals with special diets for many health problems that dogs and cats experience. Ann > > darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message > news:<20030901092753.28444.00000399@mb-m03.aol.com>... [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > > http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html > > > Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >They ramble on about calcium, phosphorus, >nutrients in the food, all of which can be sourced from garbage, and >then we are told we should be more concerned about kidney disease etc. Well, shouldn't we be? Kidney disease is a MAJOR problem in cats, and yet you act as if you can't be bothered w/ it? >Why on earth do they >think the pets are suffering from so many ills. Could it be from the >garbage we are feeding them? More of your opinion and speculation. ANSWER THE FRIGGIN QUESTIONS, ANNIE. Please provide some PROOF that is asked of you by Steve Crane or Phil P. Oh that's right. You aren't "going to waste your time". I guess you can't back up what you allege. >> They ramble on about calcium, phosphorus, >> nutrients in the food, all of which can be sourced from garbage, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, shouldn't we be? Kidney disease is a MAJOR problem in cats, > and yet you act as if you can't be bothered w/ it? It seems to me that those low phosphorus levels aren't coming from foods with meat as the main protein source. >It seems to me that those low phosphorus levels aren't coming from >foods with meat as the main protein source. Very well observed. I had a phone talk once with a vet working for a pet food manufacturer and asked him, how they'd arrive at the low phos for the kidney diets. He said "Well, it would be impossible to reduce the phos once it's in the food, so we just don't add stuff that we do add to the normal food." I suspect that most of the phos is introduced either as inorganic additive (to improve processing?), or is of plant byproduct origin. Why would producers (here in Germany) drag their feet to declare phos content if there wasn't a reason for it they are unwilling to expose? BTW, when I did my reading about pet food, it appeared to me that *diet* pet foods in the US are not regulated at all. Eb >From: "Cheryl" jlh@petitmorte.net >GAUBSTER2 <gaubster2@aol.com> composed with style: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >It seems to me that those low phosphorus levels aren't coming from >foods with meat as the main protein source. I recently read a study that said kidney disease in cats may actually be related to vaccines. Of course more studies are needed, but it sure makes you think what it is that really causes CRF: PARENTERAL ADMINISTRATION OF FVRCP VACCINES INDUCES ANTIBODIES AGAINST FELINE RENAL TISSUES. MR Lappin, WA Jensen, R Chandrashekar, and SD Kinney. From the Department of Clinical Sciences (Lappin), Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO and the Heska Corporation, Fort Collins CO (Jensen, Chandrashekar, and Kinney). Chronic renal failure is a common cause of death in cats. Lymphocytic/plasmacytic interstitial nephritis is common histopathologically, suggesting immune-mediated reactions may play a role. Feline herpesvirus 1, calicivirus, and panleukopenia virus for use in feline vaccines (FVRCP) are commonly grown in Crandall-Reese Feline Kidney (CRFK) cells. As a consequence, commercially available FVRCP vaccines contain CRFK proteins. The objectives of this study were to determine whether cats inoculated with FVRCP vaccines develop antibodies against CRFK cell extracts and if so, to determine if these antibodies reacted with extracts of feline renal tissue (FRT). Fourteen age-matched, mixed-sex, unvaccinated kittens were divided into seven pairs. To each pair of kittens, one of the following was administered: 10µg of CRFK protein SQ; 50µg of CRFK protein SQ; 50µg of CRFK protein plus an aluminum adjuvant SQ; a FVRCP vaccine for intranasal administration, or one of three FVRCP vaccines for SQ administration. The concentration of CRFK protein used was comparable to the range detected in the vaccines. Kittens receiving CRFK proteins were inoculated every two to four weeks for a total of eight times during the study period and kittens receiving vaccines were inoculated every three weeks for three inoculations. Serum samples were collected prior to inoculation and six months later. ELISAs to detect feline antibodies that bind to CRFK cell extracts or FRT extracts were optimized. All sera were assayed in both ELISAs and absorbance values calculated. An individual cat was considered positive for antibodies against either CRFK cell extracts or FRT extracts if the mean absorbance value of duplicate post-inoculation wells was greater than the mean plus three standard deviations of the 14 pre-inoculation sample absorbance values. None of the cats was positive for antibodies against CRFK or FRT extracts prior to inoculation. All six kittens inoculated with CRFK proteins were positive for anti-CRFK antibodies in the post-inoculation sample; five of these six kittens were positive for anti-FRT antibodies. Neither cat inoculated with the intranasal FVRCP vaccine was positive for anti-CRFK or anti-FRT antibodies post-inoculation. Of the cats inoculated with FVRCP vaccines SQ, five of six and four of six were positive for anti-CRFK antibodies or anti-FRT antibodies in the post-inoculation sample, respectively. Administration of FVRCP vaccines SQ to cats can induce antibody responses to CRFK proteins and feline renal tissues. Further research will be needed to define the role of these autoantibodies in the development of chronic renal failure in cats. 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 > They ramble on about calcium, phosphorus, > nutrients in the food, all of which can be sourced from garbage, and > then we are told we should be more concerned about kidney disease etc. > in pets then basically what we are feeding them. > Yea what the heck, let's just "ramble" on about things that have NEVER been proven to cause a single animals' illness or death and totally forget about real disease and real deaths. Here you go putting your stamp of approval on foods (Halo)that may have levels of phosphorus well in excess of maximum recommended levels. When in fact those levels of phosphorus have been unequivocally PROVEN to cause early death in undetected renal failure kitties and then you have the unmitigated gall to suggest somebody is "rambling" on about renal failure. What a monstrous joke to play on the public, scare the heck out of them over things that have NEVER been proven to hurt one single kitty and then imply that worrying about things like phosphorus is of no concern. That is simply unconscionable in my opinion. > As I've said before, I don't have the time to spend with people like > you and won't bother wasting anymore time with your posts. Others on > the list know that I am more then happy to provide any documented > information they require. Ok, here is my question to you... I have a 2 1/2 year old female Ragdoll that weights somewhere between 16 - 17 pounds which is considered normal for her breed. No behavior or health problems whatsoever. A very sweet loving cat. Current food is 75% California Natural dry + 25% Science Diet Nature's Best dry. I cannot get Calfornia Natural locally, current supply comes from where I used to live. I can get Science Diet. I've given her a good try on various canned brands... as much as she loves the food her digestive system cannot handle it. Runny stools and occasional vomiting that disappears once back on dry. Yes, I attempted the switch gradually and spent weeks being patient with it. I finally called a halt to it when one evening she made a mess of her rear after a visit to the litter box... she was trying to clean herself up and looked at me with a quiet little meow as though to say "help me". So, based on this I've decided canned is out. Science Diet is the best food I can find in this northern community and is only available through the vets. The only other foods are available through Walmart and the grocery stores... and well you know the quality there. Recommendations? Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck > "Ann Martin" <anmartin1@rogers.com> wrote in message > Crane wrote that he had spoken to Halo, the company that makes 'Spots > Stew. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > levels in the food. She kept insisting that since it was all "human > > grade" the levels of these minerals didn't matter." > Well he must have spoken to the cleaning lady because Andi Brown, the > owner of the company was out of town last week. If this is the > conversation he had with the cleaning woman then she lied because Andi > Brown replied that they continually have their food analyzed and are > always in compliance. Interesting, she identified hereself as the OWNER almost two months ago. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to post for all to see the DMB levels of calcium, sodium and phosphorus in that food and the ME KCals/kg. (DMB means dry matter basis, ME means metabolizable energy) > What is this industry doing? Lying to the pet owner's, brain washing > them into believing that feeding commercial pet foods, garbage, is the > only way they can have a healthy pet. In the meantime these people, the > pet owner's, are incurring thousands of dollars in vet bills from > feeding this garbage. Big hairy deal. The fast food industry does the same bloody thing to humans, peddling its schmutz as wholesome and good for you, yet we have people filing lawsuits because the easily accessible nutrition information wasn't easily accessible enough. What of it? SignatureDennis Carr - ke6isf@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind, http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way. ------------------------------------+------------------------------- I've quote from letter received from the FDA/CVM as to > their knowledge that pets ARE used in commercial pet foods According to the official FDA website,Miss-Leading Martin is stating *false* information. "CVM scientists, as part of their investigation, developed a test to detect dog and cat DNA in the protein of the dog food. All samples from the most recent dog food survey (2000) that tested positive for pentobarbital, as well as a subset of samples that tested negative, were examined for the presence of remains derived from dogs or cats. The results demonstrated a complete absence of material that would have been derived from euthanized dogs or cats. The sensitivity of this method is 0.005% on a weight/weight basis; that is, the method can detect a minimum of 5 pounds of rendered remains in 50 tons of finished feed. Presently, it is assumed that the pentobarbital residues are entering pet foods from euthanized, rendered cattle or even horses." http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/DFreport.htm Is it really true that you keep rephrasing a question until you get the answer you want??? > I suggest that you get your story straight the next time you post such > inaccurate information. Good idea... You should follow your own advice.. but then you wouldn't sell many books... > These three also continue to insist that the pentobarbital in pet food > poses no danger. So does the FDA/CVM! "Thus, the results of the assessment led CVM to conclude that it is highly unlikely a dog consuming dry dog food will experience any adverse effects from exposures to the low levels of pentobarbital found in CVM's dog food surveys." FDA/CVM Report on the risk from pentobarbital in dog food http://www.fda.gov/cvm/efoi/DFreport.htm > They measured ONE liver enzyme More innuenso! You're implying the test wasn't valid because the FDA tested one enzyme. But you *failed* to mention is that the enzyme that was tested is the *most sensitive" enzyme to pentobarbital! "In dogs, the most sensitive biological response to pentobarbital is an increase in the production of cytochrome P450 enzymes, which is why the scientists chose that as the best indicator of biological effect. If a low level of pentobarbital did not cause a dog to produce additional cytochrome P450 enzymes, then scientists could assume that the pentobarbital at that low level had no significant effect on the dog." > I don't have the time to spend with people like > you ..who you can't bullsh!t and don't fall for your innuendo! I'm *very* happy you posted to this group because now people can see your books are largely based on *your* conclusions, innuendo, conjecture and scare tactics which the real facts *do not* support You're a manipulator of the worst kind! You play and profit on peoples' fear! > So does the FDA/CVM! You are so innocent! I wonder why documents in the FDA are NOT accessible to YOU, an American citizen, the one who they are supposed to protect. It´s all about money Phil. Pharmaceutical and chemical industry will have the FDA approve whatever they want approved. That holds for any such agency in the world, not just the FDA. >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >Date: 9/4/03 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >industry will have the FDA approve whatever they want approved. That >holds for any such agency in the world, not just the FDA. Liz, don't be paranoid. There is no big conspiracy. If you let yourself be duped by people like Ann Martin, then you're setting yourself up to be taken advantage of for the rest of your life. Btw, that doesn't explain why the FDA doesn't approve some drugs. Why would pharmaceutical companies spend all the $$ only to have a developing drug not get approved? Beware those black helipcopters spying on you! > Liz, don't be paranoid. There is no big conspiracy. If you let yourself be > duped by people like Ann Martin, then you're setting yourself up to be taken [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pharmaceutical companies spend all the $$ only to have a developing drug not > get approved? Beware those black helipcopters spying on you! There is no conspiracy. There´s making money. There´s public manipulation for economic reasons. Look at Monsanto. They had the FDA approve ethoxyquin for pet food. Now most manufacturers are taking it out of their food. The vet board suggested pet food should have no more than 75ppm when the FDA approved as much as 150 ppm. The same Monsanto had the FDA approve genetically modified seeds. NOBODY knows what environmental or health hazards these genetically engineered plants will cause in the long run. Then Bush backs up Monsanto saying that there are too many people starving in the world and this is reason enough to increase agricultural productivity through GEPs. Yeah right. As if Bush was going to go around distributing food to those starving. Growing crops has a cost and nobody is willing to plant for free. Look at vaccines. All the vaccines the FDA has approved. Many of them cause ADD (attention deficit disorder) and autism. The percentage of children with these disorders has risen dramatically over the last few years. I could give you many more examples but I´m sure with some reading you can find out what is going on in the world you live in. And some companies do not have their drugs approved either because they have a ´no bribe´ policy (yes, these companies exist), or they are unwilling to pay what it takes or it´s just a little theater: they ask for review and the FDA approves the product in the second round. I worked for the pharmaceutical industry for ten years and I sure know what it´s all about. > Look at Monsanto. They had the FDA >approve ethoxyquin for pet food. Now most manufacturers are taking it >out of their food. The vet board suggested pet food should have no >more than 75ppm when the FDA approved as much as 150 ppm. That's not exactly a complete history of the subject. The reason most pet food companies are avoiding ethoxyquin is because it's been given a bad rap. In fact, did you know that vitamin e itself is preserved (in a lot of instances) w/ ethoyxquin? The same people that freak out over ethoxyquin don't have a problem w/ foods "preserved w/ vitamin e"--when in fact those foods may have just as much ethoxyquin! > Then Bush backs up Monsanto saying >that there are too many people starving in the world and this is >reason enough to increase agricultural productivity through GEPs. Yeah >right. As if Bush was going to go around distributing food to those >starving. Oh, I see. You hate President Bush. > Look at vaccines. All the vaccines the FDA has approved. Many of >them cause ADD (attention deficit disorder) and autism. Are you against vaccines? They have made our world much safer, yet I suppose you are one to only look at the few negatives. >The percentage >of children with these disorders has risen dramatically over the last >few years. I could give you many more examples but I´m sure with some >reading you can find out what is going on in the world you live in. Are you being condescending? I'm quite aware of what is going on around me. I just don't fall for all of the fear mongering and conspiracy theories that the less-intelligent people go around believing in. >I >worked for the pharmaceutical industry for ten years and I sure know >what it´s all about. Why did you get out? > That's not exactly a complete history of the subject. The reason most pet food > companies are avoiding ethoxyquin is because it's been given a bad rap. In > fact, did you know that vitamin e itself is preserved (in a lot of instances) > w/ ethoyxquin? The same people that freak out over ethoxyquin don't have a > problem w/ foods "preserved w/ vitamin e"--when in fact those foods may have > just as much ethoxyquin! Ok, lets talk about concentration and half life. Suppose you feed your cat 100g of food containing 75ppm of eq. That´s 75ppm of 100g which gives you 7.5mg of eq daily. Suppose now that you give your cat a daily tablet of vitamin E at 400mg preserved with eq at 75ppm (not needed because vitamin E capsules are protected from oxygen by their gelly shells). That would be 30 micrograms of eq, that is, 250 times less than that same eq in the food. I do not know the half life of eq but suppose most cats can eliminate 5mg/day. They would have eq build up in their systems when fed eq but not when given vitamin E tablets preserved with eq. I did not use a sci calculator for the math so I hope the numbers are right but they shouldn´t be too off. One thing is fact and proven: eq does build up in the liver of animals fed feeds containing eq. Fatty liver disease *only* occurs in chicken fed commercial feeds. > Oh, I see. You hate President Bush. It´s not about Bush, it´s about hypocrisy. Any other money-oriented politician (or person) would do the same. > Are you against vaccines? They have made our world much safer, yet I suppose > you are one to only look at the few negatives. Yes and no. Some vaccines are reasonable. Other vaccines are unreasonable. If there´s a greater chance to get a side effect from a vaccine than to get the disease itself, I´d rather not take the vaccine. If the disease is not life-threatening, I´d not take the vaccine. In my childhood I had nearly all childhood diseases you can name: measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough, etc. I was only vaccinated against small pox and polio. I was not vaccinated against rubeola and still haven´t had it. I know the vaccine exists but I´d rather have the disease. I never had a flu and if I had three colds in the last 20 years it was too much. Our immune system learns through exposure. The more you protect yourself, the more fragile you become. I never had an infection either, never took antibiotics. > Why did you get out? Got sick of the money-oriented mentality. >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >> That's not exactly a complete history of the subject. The reason most pet >food [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >containing eq. Fatty liver disease *only* occurs in chicken fed >commercial feeds. I've never heard of Eq in Vitamin E, and wonder why they would do that since Vitamin E IS a preservative. I know the Vitamin E I use absolutely does not have Eq in it. As far as build up of Eq, what you say makes sense. Afterall, we know cats don't metabolize as efficiently as other species. Why take a chance of having something like Eq build up in your cat's body when you can feed foods that don't have it? 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 >I've never heard of Eq in Vitamin E, and wonder why they would do that since >Vitamin E IS a preservative. I know the Vitamin E I use absolutely does not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >something like Eq build up in your cat's body when you can feed foods that >don't have it? Why do you think that Vitamin E is encapsulated? That's because it is NOT an effective preservative. As far at ethoxyquin goes, I don't believe that it "builds up" in a cat's system. That is a theory designed to push an agenda, that I don't believe is based in fact. Mr. Smart (Phil) wrote: "Because so-called "natural" antioxidants (tocopherols) are weaker, less stable, and have their own tendency to become oxidized. That's why." The first adjective is incorrect. Eq is easier to oxidise than tocopherols, that´s why it is used to preserve tocopherols and other oils. The second adjective is also wrong. If eq is easier to oxidise, it is therefore more unstable. The last comment is correct. That´s why antioxidants are called antioxidants Phil. They are electron donors but I´m sure you have no clue as to what this means. "The "natural tocopherols" in many products labeled "preserved with natural tocopherols" have already been preserved with a synthetic antioxidant by the supplier before it gets to the manufacturer." Absolutely not. Tocopherols are shipped in oxygen-free sealed containers. Tocopherols are oils Phil. Liquid. You cannot ship them in a paper bag. "If you had any sense, you'd hope your vitamin E was preserved with the more stable and longer lasting EQ...." If you knew what you were talking about, you´d know that tocopherols are oils and are shipped in sealed plastic or glass containers. Phil´s smart friend says: > Why do you think that Vitamin E is encapsulated? That's because it is NOT an > effective preservative. That is exactly why it is encapsulated Mr. Smart II. It is encapsulated to protect it from oxygen, that´s how effective it is. > As far at ethoxyquin goes, I don't believe that it > "builds up" in a cat's system. That is a theory designed to push an agenda, > that I don't believe is based in fact. Well, my heart goes to your cats. If any of your cats ever has fatty liver disease and/or mammary, skin, brain, or liver cancer, blame it on yourself. >> As far at ethoxyquin goes, I don't believe that it >> "builds up" in a cat's system. That is a theory designed to push an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >liver disease and/or mammary, skin, brain, or liver cancer, blame it >on yourself. maybe I'll blame it on the moon. The same (flawed) logic applies. Since I feed Hill's products, I've pretty much taken care of all of the risk factors--so, no, I'm not worried about it. >Phil´s smart friend says: >> Why do you think that Vitamin E is encapsulated? That's because it is NOT [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That is exactly why it is encapsulated Mr. Smart II. It is >encapsulated to protect it from oxygen, that´s how effective it is. Perhaps you want to correct the original poster as I was doing. Instead, you chide me. What's your problem? Are you a troll? > "The "natural tocopherols" in many products labeled "preserved with > natural [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > containers. Tocopherols are oils Phil. Liquid. You cannot ship them in > a paper bag. The above is incorrect. There is only one source for bulk liquid un-preserved tocopherols in the US. They produce enough to preserve about 2 tons of pet food per year. All "natural" tocopherols in liquid form are themselves preserved with an artificial antioxidant of one kind or another. I would love to see your source for such completely non preserved tocopherols. Good to see you around Steve. I have a question for you. Remember when we were talking about the Atkin´s diet and you said you had tried it with your cat and it didn´t work? You were testing a new Hill´s formula but you didn´t want to talk about it at the time. Well, this new formula came out and from what I heard, it´s for obesity, right? Now, if it doesn´t work, why did Hill´s launch it? "Making money out of fools" strategy? >Well, this >new formula came out and from what I heard, it´s for obesity, right? >Now, if it doesn´t work, why did Hill´s launch it? Clinical tests were done that substantiate that this particular product DOES work, based on the research that I've seen. Apparently, Liz, you are another one of the Hill's bashers. That explains a lot, actually. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>Well, this >>new formula came out and from what I heard, it´s for obesity, right? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Apparently, Liz, you are another one of the Hill's bashers. That explains a >lot, actually. Actually, it looks like you are either working directly or indirectly for Hill's. ________ 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 >Actually, it looks like you are either working directly or indirectly for >Hill's. I have a friend of mine that is a vet and he shares new info w/ me. My entire family feeds Hill's products and I am a fan of that company. I've done a fair amount of research on them. Just because I support what they do doesn't mean I "work" for them. > Clinical tests were done that substantiate that this particular product DOES > work, based on the research that I've seen. > > Apparently, Liz, you are another one of the Hill's bashers. That explains a > lot, actually. Steve is a salesperson from Hill´s. If he says the product does not work, the product does not work. >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >Date: 9/8/03 9:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Steve is a salesperson from Hill´s. If he says the product does not >work, the product does not work. I haven't seen him say that and I will withhold judgement until such a time. You, I see, already have your mind made up. > I haven't seen him say that and I will withhold judgement until such a time. > You, I see, already have your mind made up. He wouldn´t need to say it for me to know it doesn´t work. You can´t have an Atkin´s type diet with 15% carbs. Biochemically it´d never work. >> I haven't seen him say that and I will withhold judgement until such a >time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >have an Atkin´s type diet with 15% carbs. Biochemically it´d never >work. Liz, did it ever occur to you that there is more to it than just that? Since you haven't even seen Steve make the comment, it's interesting that you too already have your mind made up. > Liz, did it ever occur to you that there is more to it than just that? Since > you haven't even seen Steve make the comment, it's interesting that you too > already have your mind made up. There is? Like what, for instance? I haven´t seen Steve make the comment? Everyone in this newsgroup who followed the thread on Innova (I guess that´s the one) saw him make the comment including myself. Actually, he was replying to me. >I haven´t seen Steve make the comment? Everyone in this newsgroup who >followed the thread on Innova (I guess that´s the one) saw him make >the comment including myself. Actually, he was replying to me. How far back was that? >He wouldn´t need to say it for me to know it doesn´t work. You can´t >have an Atkin´s type diet with 15% carbs. Biochemically it´d never >work. Liz can you elaborate more on that point as I seem to have gotten lost on the original point being made. -mhd > Liz can you elaborate more on that point as I seem to have gotten lost > on the original point being made. > > -mhd The point is some companies will do whatever it takes to make big bucks and they don´t give a penny if their customers get hurt in the process. > Good to see you around Steve. I have a question for you. Remember when > we were talking about the Atkin´s diet and you said you had tried it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now, if it doesn´t work, why did Hill´s launch it? "Making money out > of fools" strategy? I nearly missed this one. It's so high up the thread I wasn't even looking there. Anyway, yes the product that I was feeding my cat was a prototype of the new Prescription Diet m/d in dry format. The results were as follows: week one blood values normal, cat weighed 15.2 lbs week two blood values normal, cat weighed 14.6 lbs week three blood values normal, cat weighed 14.1 lbs. week four blood values normal cat weighed 15.0 pounds So what happened? I was gone for nearly a week at a Shriners Hospital activity and my daughter fed the cat. She insists she fed it the correct amount. In the interest of keeping peace in the family until she moved back out to college I let it go. week five blood values normal, cat weighed 14.8 lbs. Test ended So yes the diet works, but *only* if pet owners follow directions. In testing, all cats became metabolically ketogenic which is the objective of such a low carb diet. Once the state of metabolic ketosis is reached, that is the trigger for changing metabolism. Somewhere else on this thread I observed some comment about the carb level being at 14.7% and thus too high. That is incorrect. The carb level is inconsequential as long as the state of metabolic ketosis is engendered. The Purina DM dry product has the same level of carbs. Reducing carbs below the point at which ketosis is engendered serves no valid purpose. Cats lost weight at the appropriate rate equally with a second group of cats on a high fiber low calorie product tested concurrently (Feline r/d). Weight loss did not come from lean body mass with either diet, but came from fat tissue in both diets as confirmed by DEXA analysis. The significant difference is that Hill's managed to drop the carbs to the level required to cause ketosis and still keep calcium (0.89%DMB) and phosphorus (0.76% DMB) levels where they belong. In contrast to some low carb diets on the market with calcium levels as high as 2.2% and phos levels as high as 1.4%, way above max recommended levels. >From: rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane) >The significant difference is that Hill's managed to drop >the carbs to the level required to cause ketosis and still keep >calcium (0.89%DMB) and phosphorus (0.76% DMB) levels where they >belong. In contrast to some low carb diets on the market with calcium >levels as high as 2.2% and phos levels as high as 1.4%, way above max >recommended levels. Steve, how exactly does Hill's keep the phos and calcium levels at this percentage? ________ 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 >Steve, how exactly does Hill's keep the phos and calcium levels at this >percentage? ...by using better quality ingredients??? ;) >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>Steve, how exactly does Hill's keep the phos and calcium levels at this >>percentage? > >...by using better quality ingredients??? ;) LOL!!!! ________ 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 > >Steve, how exactly does Hill's keep the phos and calcium levels at this > >percentage? > > ...by using better quality ingredients??? ;) Perhaps by using more corn (grains) and less meat? > > >Steve, how exactly does Hill's keep the phos and calcium levels at this > > >percentage? > > > > ...by using better quality ingredients??? ;) > > Perhaps by using more corn (grains) and less meat? Ahem, Remember this is a *LOW* carb diet. > Ahem, > Remember this is a *LOW* carb diet. You´re right. They substituted corn for paper. > >From: rosebrook@sbcglobal.net (Steve Crane) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Steve, how exactly does Hill's keep the phos and calcium levels at this > percentage? Now wouldn't you and every competitive manufacturer like to know the answer to that question? Actually it's not terribly difficult to figure out. Have you ever wondered where all the calcium in a pet food comes from? The vast majority comes from the meat meals. Rough estimate but probably 80-90% of all calcium in a pet food comes from the meat meals. There is very little calcium in grains and veggies. So if you want to control the calcium you have to spend some time on the primary source, the meat meals. Straight muscle meat, chicken breast, beef muscle for instance has 0.01% calcium in it. Ever stop to wonder how a pet food can have calcium levels as high as 2.2% (Nutro Veal Pate), or 1.6%, (the average of the WDJ "recommended" diets)? How does a food using meat with 0.01% calcium end up with 1.6% overall calcium? It happens when you buy cheap meats with high levels of ground up bone tissue in the meat meal. The cheaper the meat meal, the higher the level of calcium (ground up bone tissue) is in the meat meal. By specifying expensive meat meals with low levels of bone tissue you can reduce the calcium level in the finished product. As you reduce the calcium you also reduce the phosphorus, since they come hand in hand with the bone tissue. Not terribly difficult, just expensive. ___________________________________________________________________ From: Phil P. (phil@maxshouse.com) Subject: Re: What is the best food for my cat? Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav What most of us are unaware of is that the pet food industry is an extension of the human food industry, also known as the agriculture industry. Pet food provides a place for slaughterhouse waste and grains considered "unfit for human consumption" to be turned into profit. This waste includes cow tongues, esophagi, and possibly diseased and cancerous meat. The "whole grains" used have had the starch removed and the oil extracted -- usually by chemical processing -- for vegetable oil, or they are the hulls and other remnants from the milling process. Four of the five major pet food companies in the United States are subsidiaries of major multinational food production companies: Colgate-Palmolive (Hills Science Diet Pet Food), Heinz (9 Lives, Amore, Gravy Train, Kibbles n Bits, Recipe, Vets), Nestle (Alpo, Fancy Feast, Friskies, Mighty Dog) and Mars (Kal Kan, Mealtime, Pedigree, Sheba). __________________________________________________________________ Esophagi, tongues, and diseased and cancerous meat do not contain bone, right Steve? > > Steve, how exactly does Hill's keep the phos and calcium levels at this > > percentage? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > calcium you also reduce the phosphorus, since they come hand in hand > with the bone tissue. Not terribly difficult, just expensive. >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >From: Phil P. (phil@maxshouse.com) >Subject: Re: What is the best food for my cat? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Mighty Dog) and Mars (Kal Kan, Mealtime, Pedigree, Sheba). >__________________________________________________________________ How odd this post is of Phil's! He actually made sense! I wonder what happened between then and now that Phil is such a proponent of Hill's? He's a printer, right? Maybe he's doing print work for Hill's or something, LOL 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 >How odd this post is of Phil's! He actually made sense! I wonder what >happened between then and now that Phil is such a proponent of Hill's? I can't speak for Phil, but you seem to be stuck in the past and only pick and choose what you want to believe. Perhaps his knowledge and opinions evolved? ...and now that he doesn't agree w/ you, he is somehow wrong? Maybe you are. ;) >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >Esophagi, tongues, and diseased and cancerous meat do not contain >bone, right Steve? Liz, please use some logic that isn't flawed. What exactly do you hope to achieve by asking this question? Have you done your research? Clearly your implication is that Hill's used "bad" ingredients. Why don't you just call them yourself and find out once and for all? Please quit these silly games--the only thing you are doing is painting yourself as an extremist w/ no more credibility. Why do you persist? Seriously? > From: Phil P. (phil@maxshouse.com) > Subject: Re: What is the best food for my cat? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > extension of the human food industry, also known as the agriculture > industry. Pet food provides a place for slaughterhouse waste Since you can't base your argument on *factual* advantages of your diet (because there are none), you're resorting to the diversionary tactic of reposting my 3-4 year old posts in an effort to draw attention away from the fact that all you could come with to support your diet was a *flawed* *60-year-old* basement experiment! Of course no one caught on to your little ruse...... lol1. I'm actually *glad* you posted my old posts!!! Just goes to *prove* that I had an open mind and bought into the au naturel cult bullsh!t, too, once -- until I *woke up* and did *my own research* and found out that just about all of the au naturel cult fodder on the internet originated from the *same* few sources: API and Mis-Leading Martin, and a few vets who need an angle... I chose the side that was backed up by *science* over the side that was backed up by rumors, innuendo and scare tactics.... So you see, Einstein, you're actually doing me a *favor* Bwahaha! > Absolutely not. Tocopherols are shipped in oxygen-free sealed > containers. Tocopherols are oils Phil. Liquid. You cannot ship them in > a paper bag. Ahem, One other minor little detail here Liz. Once those "oxygen free sealed containers" are opened - what do you suppose happens to the vitamin E? I've looked at hundreds of pet foods under the microscope and I have never found any of those tiny miniature "oxygen free containers" keeping the vitamin e fresh in the pet food. Ooops that wouldn't work, they wouldn't be free to sacrifice themselves would they? What's the typical shelf life of a dry pet food? One year. What's the typical shelf life of pure vitamin e, exposed to the air? 90-180 days. Ooops we've got a problem here don't we? > Ooops we've got a problem here don't we? Yes we do Steve. I was talking about shipping from manufacturer of tocopherols to the feed plant. I suppose the containers are shut when the oils are shipped or aren´t they? They are only opened when they get to the feed plant. This would make it unnecessary for the manufacturer of tocopherols to add eq before shipping wouldn't it? Unless, of course, the feed manufacturer asked the tocopherol manufacturer to add it so that they wouldn't have to include it in their label. Further, those paper bags are air tight, aren't they? The paper is covered with some wax or similar to keep it air tight. That´s why they their shelf life is 1 year as long as they are closed. Once opened, they have to be consumed within a short time. The bag should also be closed tightly after each serving. Right? > > Ooops we've got a problem here don't we? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > opened, they have to be consumed within a short time. The bag should > also be closed tightly after each serving. Right? Surely you are kidding right? "Air tight" paper bags, give me a break. > > That's not exactly a complete history of the subject. The reason most pet food > > companies are avoiding ethoxyquin is because it's been given a bad rap. In [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ok, lets talk about concentration and half life. Here she goes again with her convoluted reasoning that makes 2 + 2 = 5! LOL! Watch this: > Suppose plus > Suppose now plus > but suppose equals > fact and proven: That's "Liz Logic"! ROTFL! Your convoluted reasoning and self-reinforcing delusions *still* haven't helped you produce a *single* case of ethoxyquin-related illness in a single cat in the hundreds of millions of cats that ate ethoxyquin-preserved cat food at the recommended levels for generations!!! *That* is *reality*... ... If ethoxyquin was anywhere near as "dangerous" as your scare tactics and innuendo imply, I'm sure many people are wondering why you've *failed*...and *failed* and *failed* again to produce a *single* case of ethoxyquin-related illness in the hundreds of millions of cats that have been eating foods preserved with ethoxyquin for generations.... ...and you wonder why your reasoning and conclusions are laughable and why you have no credibility with anyone but other deluded au naturel fanatics! LOL! > > Why did you get out? > > Got sick of the money-oriented mentality. Yeah sure.... *Every* business has a money-oriented mentality otherwise they wouldn't be in business! My guess is you couldn't sell your ridiculous notions and absurd conclusions to anyone who still had some electrical activity within their brain! LOL! My guess is you are dislexic. >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >Date: 9/6/03 7:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <12c83831.0309061850.5a08f9c@posting.google.com> > >My guess is you are dislexic. You really should run your posts through a spell-checker! This isn't the only time I've noticed misspelled words in your posts. I usually overlook that sort of thing since it's easy to get to typing so fast, but..... ;) > >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) > >Date: 9/6/03 7:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > time I've noticed misspelled words in your posts. I usually overlook that sort > of thing since it's easy to get to typing so fast, but..... ;) IIRC, English is not Liz's first language. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon > IIRC, English is not Liz's first language. > > Cathy Thanks Cathy. :) I do make mistakes in my language too, just like a lot of native English speakers here. Most times I just write too fast and don´t bother checking. I´ve seen many grammar mistakes too such as using one word for another (their/there, two/too/to, of/off, etc.). I do it too, but this kind of mistake is only possible in English, not in Portuguese. In the case of dIslexic, I don´t think Gaubster grasped the irony. >In the case of dIslexic, I don´t think Gaubster grasped >the irony. Actually, I did! ;) > > So does the FDA/CVM! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > industry will have the FDA approve whatever they want approved. That > holds for any such agency in the world, not just the FDA. Liz, there have been a number of documents, under the FOIA, that various government agencies have refused to release. Legal action has been taken in a number of cases in order to obtain these records. At the present time I have retained an attorney in order to get any and all documentation related to the pentobarbital and DNA study the FDA/CVM has undertaken. You have to wonder if all is above board what are they hiding. Ann > I have retained an attorney <snip> You have to wonder if all is above board what > are they hiding. The money would have been better spent on a psychologist.... >Liz, there have been a number of documents, under the FOIA, that >various government agencies have refused to release. Legal action has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ann Ann, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing more to be found other than what has been reported. Since that doesn't jive w/ your conspiracy theory and scare tactics, you are trying to come up w/ something, anything, I suspect. Why not just admit that you've hit a dead end? You're assuming they are hiding "something". > Liz, there have been a number of documents, under the FOIA, that > various government agencies have refused to release. Legal action has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ann The FDA and any such agency is there to protect the population. Withholding this kind of information from the public should be considered a crime. A long time ago I managed to access their file on eq via ftp and that was a nasty file. Phil should send a letter to the FDA asking for their file on ethoxyquin and I´m sure he´ll change his mind. Some time later I tried to access another file via ftp and they closed the backdoor. So they ARE hiding things that should be available to everyone. >The FDA and any such agency is there to protect the population. >Withholding this kind of information from the public should be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >closed the backdoor. So they ARE hiding things that should be >available to everyone. See, it really is all a big conspiracy??!! I hope you people don't vote! Gimme a break. > > So does the FDA/CVM! > You are so innocent! You're so paranoid! Pharmaceutical and chemical > industry will have the FDA approve whatever they want approved. Is that why the FDA is constantly refusing to approve drugs and why they pull drugs off the market? I was wondering when you were going to show up.... It looks like Lauren's calling in the reinforcements! LOL! > Is that why the FDA is constantly refusing to approve drugs and why they > pull drugs off the market? Because these drugs are getting in the way of the patented drugs. Tryptophan, a naturally occuring amino acid, is as effective against depression as prozac or any other anti-depressant drug. Tryptophan is the precursor of serotonin. When serotonin levels in your brain are low, you become depressive. Tryptophan has no side effects whatsoever but cannot be patented because it´s a naturally occuring substance. Prozac and other antidepressants have numerous side effects but are patented so a lot of money can be made selling them. Tryptophan was taken out of the market because people were getting sick. There was an investigation to see what was making people sick and they found that the tryptophan that was being imported from Japan was contaminated with something that I can´t recall, and this is what was causing disease. Yet they prohibited sales of all tryptophan, including those that were being produced in the USA and that were not contaminated. Why? So that Prozac etc. didn´t have to compete with a cheap natural unpatented substance. Have you seen the last ridiculous move of the FDA? They want to prohibit sales of vitamins and other natural substances. Is that absurd or what? Brazil loves immitating USA´s every move. I hope our government doesn´t do the same here. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message