What’s in the bag, pouch or can? Consumers push to know
By Gina Spadafori
October 2, 2007
No labeling would have ever revealed adulterated ingredients, such as the melamine thought to be responsible for thousands of sick or dead pets in the rolling pet-food recalls of last spring. But those deaths got many people reading pet-food labels, which they quickly came to realize were confusing, misleading and in some cases, downright alarming as they tried to figure out what on earth their pets were eating.
Diane C. Lade, of the Sun-Sentinel (which covers South Florida) has a story (thanks, Nadine) about consumer drives for pet-food labeling that’s more helpful to anyone trying to choose a high-quality food their a pet:
The pictures on pet food labels show dishes fit for a buffet table: A platter heaped with sliced tender beef covered in gravy, a brimming bowl of chunky stew.
But do consumers really know what’s in the can when they buy food for their cats and dogs?
Some pet owners and animal advocate groups say no. Obscure labeling requirements keep shoppers in the dark, they say. And glossy packaging or advertising, showing meals styled to look like human cuisine, lead people to believe they are treating their beloved animals to quality food almost good enough for themselves.
Here’s the rest.
The other day I was in my local Pet Supply store, and did a double take while passing the Innova EVO shelf. Conspicuously displayed on each and every bag was a large white sticker proudly proclaiming that this food “Contains no Melamine or Cyanuric Acid”!
I had a mixed reaction. Bully for them for making the information so easy to find. On the other hand, what a shame that such a warning should ever have had to become necessary. And can you imagine the reaction of any one of us at this same time a year ago had we seen such a warning on a pet food bag?
I wish I thought it was all over, but alas, I’m not nearly that optimistic . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 2, 2007 @ 8:38 am
Other Pat—-I think those labels are great because it keeps the focus on the pet food crisis—-that there WAS one—-worthy enough of a reassurance label. The problem I see is that it still doesn’t say what really IS in that bag! How about “Contains no feathers or hair.” Eeeeeuuuuwwww.
Comment by Nadine L. — October 2, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
The problem I see is that it still doesn’t say what really IS in that bag! Nadine L.
Your Right, at least the pet industry should adopt a standardized labeling system like the technology we have running http://www.scoringcontainers.com where the user or purchaser can put in a code and see the ingredients ,their source and tests to prove the anounts used in the container. But one problem,they don’t want anybody to see the crapy ingredients they use and the source site.
Comment by William Kanitz — October 7, 2007 @ 10:15 am
P&G contemplating divestitures - probably will keep IAMS although that was in question back around June:
http://www.bizjournals.com/cin.....st=b_ln_hl
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 9, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Menu Foods Cutting BACK !
Link: http://canadianpress.google.co.....uZZx_C3YTg
Comment by William Kanitz — October 10, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
Menu Foods Cutting BACK !
Upper management setting examples they say for taking cuts in pay? Paul Henderson still isn’t suffering any with his 22% pay decrease. You can bet HE doesn’t eat anything out of a can on that quoted ridiculously huge salary in the Canadian Press!!! He isn’t worth more than minimum wage IMO.
Comment by Nadine L. — October 11, 2007 @ 1:17 am