Small Breed Dog Food??

ORIGINAL: chelsea_b
No, they preserve the food without causing cancer. I really don't get why this is so difficult to understand. [&:]

Definition of Antioxidant Antioxidant: Any substance that reduces oxidative damage (damage due to [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10690]oxygen[/link]) such as that caused by free radicals. Free radicals are highly reactive chemicals that attack molecules by capturing electrons and thus modifying chemical structures. Well-known antioxidants include a number of [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15392]enzymes[/link] and other substances such as [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12420]vitamin C[/link], [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15295]vitamin E[/link] and [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2453]beta carotene[/link] (which is converted to [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8661]vitamin A[/link]) that are capable of counteracting the damaging effects of oxidation. Antioxidants are also commonly added to food products like vegetable oils and prepared foods to prevent or delay their deterioration from the action of air. Antioxidants may possibly reduce the risks of cancer and age-related [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10027]macular degeneration[/link] (AMD). Antioxidants clearly slow the progression of AMD.
So I'm curious... how do anti-oxidants, which reduce the risks of cancer, cause cancer? Obviously anything, (even water) in the right concentration can be harmful, but I very much doubt the low levels of anti-oxidants found in foods are actually harmful. I've yet to see a single study supporting these claims. How is one chemical found in nature any more safe than a chemical made in a laboratoy?? Broad sweeping "natural is better" claims show a solid lack of understanding of chemistry. Where something was made has little to no bearing on its toxicity.

ORIGINAL: jenns

ORIGINAL: papillon806

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Thanks for the info Misskiwi. I didn't think of e-mailing the company to ask about the meat/bone ratio. Good idea!

Lilea- Good luck with the Royal Canin, although I personally believe that it is overpriced for the ingredients. Same with Eukanuba and Science Diet. Considering the ingredients, there's no reason for the price to be so high other than extra profit for the company.

I do agree that it is over-priced, but alot of the money is to fund their research facilities.  []

Not to criticize any specific brand here - but something I've been wondering -

Why does there seem to be a direct correlation with the amount of $$ spent on research and the usage of cheap ingredients?

I think all of the brands mentioned have decent ingredients.  I even looked at science diet when I was at PetSmart too and now that I have, I can't figure out why people speak so poorly of it and refer to it as science death. 

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67

ORIGINAL: jenns

ORIGINAL: papillon806

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Thanks for the info Misskiwi. I didn't think of e-mailing the company to ask about the meat/bone ratio. Good idea!

Lilea- Good luck with the Royal Canin, although I personally believe that it is overpriced for the ingredients. Same with Eukanuba and Science Diet. Considering the ingredients, there's no reason for the price to be so high other than extra profit for the company.

I do agree that it is over-priced, but alot of the money is to fund their research facilities.  []

Not to criticize any specific brand here - but something I've been wondering -

Why does there seem to be a direct correlation with the amount of $$ spent on research and the usage of cheap ingredients?

Cheap, like what, corn? The grain that is 91% digestable and has an excellent amino acid profile? Maybe the "un-named" company believes that science and quality control are more important than giving in to consumer fads. In my opinion, nutritionists should have just as much say about what goes into foods as the consumer. Thanks to consumers, the market is flooded with foods full of expensive ingredients that look pretty, but have no information about digestability. You see an ingredient list of a dozen fruits, I see a powder that smells nice, and is probably sprinkled over the mixing vat just to get it onto the ingredient list. Enzymes, what kind of ridiculous nonsense makes people think those help a functioning pancreas work better?  BHA and BHT have been replaced by mediocre antioxidants such as vitamin E. The bag says "a natural source of vitamin E" hoping people will forget that its an anti-oxidant, because for some reason chemicals are scary. Does anybody else care that less than 1/6 of that is actually absorbed by the body, and that just because its "natural" doesn't make it useful? You talk about corn being waste that the dog just poops out, but rave about mixed tocopherols replacing the evil cancer-causing chemicals when they're just waste too. Its all a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Misskiwi I'm really glad you are posting in this thread because you have really opened my eyes and taught me a lot.

  BHA and BHT have been replaced by mediocre antioxidants such as vitamin E. The bag says "a natural source of vitamin E" hoping people will forget that its an anti-oxidant, because for some reason chemicals are scary.

 
since when are people trying to forget about antioxidants?  It is common knowledge among nutritionists and the general public that they are very desirable!
 
 

Does anybody else care that less than 1/6 of that is actually absorbed by the body, and that just because its "natural" doesn't make it useful? You talk about corn being waste that the dog just poops out, but rave about mixed tocopherols replacing the evil cancer-causing chemicals when they're just waste too. Its all a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

 
I think you're missing the point about vitamin E vs. BHA/BHT.  chelsea_b summed it up correctly, its using an antioxidant (which IS healthy!) as a preservative vs. suspected carcinogens.  And that is regardless of whether 1/6 or 6/6 is absorbed or pooped out.  [sm=uhoh.gif]

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67

ORIGINAL: chelsea_b
No, they preserve the food without causing cancer. I really don't get why this is so difficult to understand. [&:]

Definition of Antioxidant Antioxidant: Any substance that reduces oxidative damage (damage due to [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10690]oxygen[/link]) such as that caused by free radicals. Free radicals are highly reactive chemicals that attack molecules by capturing electrons and thus modifying chemical structures. Well-known antioxidants include a number of [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15392]enzymes[/link] and other substances such as [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12420]vitamin C[/link], [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15295]vitamin E[/link] and [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2453]beta carotene[/link] (which is converted to [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8661]vitamin A[/link]) that are capable of counteracting the damaging effects of oxidation. Antioxidants are also commonly added to food products like vegetable oils and prepared foods to prevent or delay their deterioration from the action of air. Antioxidants may possibly reduce the risks of cancer and age-related [linkhttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10027]macular degeneration[/link] (AMD). Antioxidants clearly slow the progression of AMD.
So I'm curious... how do anti-oxidants, which reduce the risks of cancer, cause cancer? Obviously anything, (even water) in the right concentration can be harmful, but I very much doubt the low levels of anti-oxidants found in foods are actually harmful. I've yet to see a single study supporting these claims. How is one chemical found in nature any more safe than a chemical made in a laboratoy?? Broad sweeping "natural is better" claims show a solid lack of understanding of chemistry. Where something was made has little to no bearing on its toxicity.

 
who is saying antioxidants are causing cancer?  i am utterly confused. [&:]

You still are not getting it. I'm not saying anti-oxidants cause cancer, I'm saying BHA, BHT and ethoxyquin MIGHT. The antioxidants you listed are FINE and GREAT, they're not the ones I'm worried about. How stupid would it be to be scared of all antioxidants? Maybe that's why you're posting like this. You just think I'm that stupid.

Personally, I don't give a rat's behind what you feed, or what you think is safe. And I'm really not trying to be stubborn. Here's my problem. By the time these chemicals we make and distribute so widely are recognized as dangerous, it's WAY too late. I'd rather avoid them while my gut says they're bad, then ignore what I feel and be sorry later.

I'm also not saying everything natural is good and everything artificial is bad, although the latter is not a terrible rule of thumb...
 
Oh, and I can predict what you're going to say (or at least think). Science isn't about feelings. It doesn't matter what I feel, just what's proven, and chemical preservatives are not proven to cause cancer. You'd be right if you said that, of course, but to me life IS about feelings. And Cherokee's health and longevity is a lot more important to me than always trusting what the scientific community recognizes as truth at a given moment. Believe it or not, I'm a pretty left-brained person, I've just opened my mind a bit recently to things like the chemicals we bombard ourselves with. I don't know why. I used to be perfectly content arguing about facts. It's a lot more work to argue about ideas and feelings. [8D]

ORIGINAL: jenns
I think you're missing the point about vitamin E vs. BHA/BHT.  chelsea_b summed it up correctly, its using an antioxidant (which IS healthy!) as a preservative vs. suspected carcinogens.  And that is regardless of whether 1/6 or 6/6 is absorbed or pooped out. 

And you're missing MY point... which is that BHA/BHT are also antioxidants, and are considered healthy by nutritionists, at least the ones I've worked with. I'm currently feeding a food with ethoxyquin. A prescription one. I wonder why?? Maybe because vitamin E wouldn't last long enough to keep the food healthy until its sold since its such a specialty food? I don't know, I'm guessing.

My personal preference is to use ingredients I know will work. I don't want half-assed preservatives in my food any more than I want a sprinkling of fruit powder and enzymes, especially when the bags don't have expiration dates on them (not that I can find anyway). To each their own I suppose. I do think ethoxyquin has been shown to be dangerous (in nursing females), I have no problems with it being taken out of the majority of foods. What I have a problem with is the CONSUMERS (not nutritionists) decided that if a synthetic antioxidant like ethoxyquin was dangerous, then all the other synthetic preservatives must be dangerous too... which just isn't true. Now I'm stuck feeding a substandard product to one dog, and a dangerous one to another because a bunch of misguided consumers pressured the companies into changing their formulations. How am I supposed to feel??

This could be an interesting conversation if you weren't being so patronizing. Yes, we know you're a vet student. Honestly, it's obvious at this point because you have the "I know everything so don't question what I say" typical vet act down perfectly. I'm gonna try to answer your questions anyway, but I'm guessing they were more rhetorical than anything...

[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Misskiwi you remind me of a vet i 'used' to see who also seemed brainwashed by the science diet et al brigade. I thought the new breed of vet students were a little more open minded then the old schoolers.Especially re: a more natural way of feeding. Ofcourse they arent going to tell you about the perils of BHA/BHT and ethoxiquin in your classes.Science diet would NOT have it!! [8|] Please try and think outside the box every now and then,you might just learn something from the experienced members here who have had dogs for many,many years []

especially when the bags don't have expiration dates on them (not that I can find anyway).

Every bag of food I bought has a clear expiration date. And I'm sorry, but I don't want food that lasts indefinitely. That to me says unhealthy. I'm perfectly happy with the year that vitamin E and good packaging gives the brands I like.

It's kind of like hydrogenated oil in human food. It makes the food more stable, gives it a longer shelf life, but now we're realizing it's dangerous. How long did it take us to figure that out? How long have we been consuming hydrogenated oil while being told it's fine and safe? How many people have had heart disease to which the hydrogenated oil contributed? We'll never know, but my guess is many millions. I'd be willing to bet a million dollars, if I had it, that one day, not too far down the road, these chemical preservatives will be found to cause cancer or some other awful health problem, and taken off the market. They'll be replaced by other chemicals, that will again be found to be dangerous, and this terrible cycle will continue...

Can you tell me where to find an expiration date on a bag of California Natural? Anyone??? I swear I looked... I wanted to compare to the expiration date on my KO, but couldn't find one there either, although I did at least find a manufacturing code. Maybe I'm just blind.

I don't have California Natural to look at, but this bag of Innova, also made by Natura Pet, has an expiration date and production code on the front, at the very bottom.

ORIGINAL: Edie

This could be an interesting conversation if you weren't being so patronizing. Yes, we know you're a vet student. Honestly, it's obvious at this point because you have the "I know everything so don't question what I say" typical vet act down perfectly. I'm gonna try to answer your questions anyway, but I'm guessing they were more rhetorical than anything...

[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Misskiwi you remind me of a vet i 'used' to see who also seemed brainwashed by the science diet et al brigade. I thought the new breed of vet students were a little more open minded then the old schoolers.Especially re: a more natural way of feeding. Ofcourse they arent going to tell you about the perils of BHA/BHT and ethoxiquin in your classes.Science diet would have it!! [8|] Please try and think outside the box every now and then,you might just learn something from us []

Ugh... you try and you try... but as soon as your experiences teach you differently than the status quo, you're a brainwashed science diet lover... thanks for the support.

quote: This could be an interesting conversation if you weren't being so patronizing. Yes, we know you're a vet student. Honestly, it's obvious at this point because you have the "I know everything so don't question what I say" typical vet act down perfectly. I'm gonna try to answer your questions anyway, but I'm guessing they were more rhetorical than anything...

This is rude and inappropriate, Someone countering your point with studies and facts is hardly patronizing. Regardless of how you feel about her tone, insulting someone in that matter is quite embarassing. Lets be honest, after reading the posts, you don't want to have a good discussion, you want to have a bunch of people agree with you. It always seems to come down to ridiculous insults about how degrees don't count and "don't patronize or talk down to me" when people can't come up with a reasonable argument. Even more embarassing is someone posting applause at an atempt to humiliate or insult another poster who has presented lots of valuable information, which is able to be verified. Please stay on topic and don't get personal.

Edit: what exactly is she supposed to learn from your behavior? To insult others, be disrespectful to professionals who have sacriviced many, many years and lots of money to their love of animals, or oh I know, how to ignore studies and scientific evidence right?

Here's Science Diet Adult Maintenance with "real" chicken:

Chicken, corn meal, ground grain sorghum, ground wheat, chicken by-product meal, brewers rice, soybean meal, animal fat (preserved with BHA, propyl gallate and citric acid), natural flavor, vegetable oil, dried egg product, flaxseed, preserved with BHT and BHA, beta-carotene, minerals (iodized salt, calcium carbonate, dicalcium phosphate, potassium chloride, ferrous sulfate, zinc oxide, copper sulfate, manganous oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite), vitamins (choline chloride, vitamin A supplement, vitamin D3 supplement, vitamin E supplement, ascorbic acid (a source of vitamin C), niacin, thiamine, calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12 supplement).

For starters the food has more grains than meat after the water weight of the chicken is removed. Is that of no consequence? Dogs should have MEAT as the basis of their diet. Soybeans and wheat are two of the most common allergens and don't offer anything to the food other than being a cheap filler. BHA, BHT, and propyl gallate... I'm supposed to believe that those chemicals aren't harmful? [&o]

Also very important to me is what isn't on the ingredient list. Dogs are ominvores and there's not a fruit or vegetable in sight; there's no fish, or fish oil or about a dozen other ingredients that we know are healthy.

ORIGINAL: chelsea_b

I don't have California Natural to look at, but this bag of Innova, also made by Natura Pet, has an expiration date and production code on the front, at the very bottom.

It was in the same spot on my bag. Apparently I didn't scour it carefully enough. I also found where the code should have been on my KO, It says "Best if used by:" in three different languages, and then there's nothing... kinda creepy.