Beneful Problems

Dearest Dulce, I'm twice your age and have two children of my own...I know what a child sounds like.   And you sound like one that hasn't gotten their way..........

Here's Benefuls ingredients. Lots of junk. That's all we're trying to say is that it isn't the healthiest for dogs. And the fact that they are selling proucts infested with mold? And you still think it's good food?

I'm not arguing about if someone is a bad owner because they feed their og a certain food. I'm arguing that it isn't the healthiest food.

Ground yellow corn, chicken by-product meal, corn gluten meal, whole wheat flour, beef tallow preserved with mixed-tocopherols (source of Vitamin E), rice flour, beef, soy flour, sugar, sorbitol, tricalcium phosphate, water, animal digest, salt, phosphoric acid, potassium chloride, dicalcium phosphate, sorbic acid (a preservative), L-Lysine monohydrochloride, dried peas, dried carrots, calcium carbonate, calcium propionate (a preservative), choline chloride, vitamin supplements (E, A, B-12, D-3), added color (Yellow 5, Red 40, Yellow 6, Blue 2), DL-Methionine, zinc sulfate, glyceryl monostearate, ferrous sulfate, niacin, manganese sulfate, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin supplement, biotin, thiamine mononitrate, garlic oil, copper sulfate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, folic acid, menadione sodium bisulfite complex (source of Vitamin K activity), calcium iodate, sodium selenite.
F-4090
Isn't that icky? The FIRST ingredient is CORN. chicken BY PRODUCT, SUGAR, and ANIMAL DIGEST. Do you have any idea what animal digest is?

I'm just concerned for the dogs who eat this, whether they seem in healthy condition or not.

There ARE some people whos dogs have DIED from this product. However, I am NOT saying that dogs who eat this food WILL die from it. I'm saying it's not healthy.

But you're all right, if people still choose to feed this to their dogs, then so be it. Can't stop them. All I can do is make sure MY dog is healthy, and eating REAL food, and hopefully educate others.

Right,  I can agree with that.......I don't feed my dog Beneful and if the OP is correct in stating the owner said the food was moldy...then that's their fault.  I'm not going to feed my dog moldy food and if that's what they did then they should be ashamed.

I feed what I think is best and you feed what you think is best.  I think unfortunately this topic has gone awry and maybe we should all find something else to post about......I'm tired-I played with my kids and my dogs all day.

Well, I can't see what you've written since I've "Ignored" you.

But, I''m not here to argue. Just want to educate and discuss.I'm not here to have petty arguments, and to be insulted by people who don't know me.

I hope the people who have lost their dogs from the "tainted" Beneful seek justice and closure.

To everyone else, I wish your doggies all the best! []

ORIGINAL: Dulce Pit Bull

Well, I can't see what you've written since I've "Ignored" you.

But, I''m not here to argue. Just want to educate and discuss.I'm not here to have petty arguments, and to be insulted by people who don't know me.

I hope the people who have lost their dogs from the "tainted" Beneful seek justice and closure.

To everyone else, I wish your doggies all the best! []

A bit quick to judge aren't we? The moldy food could have happened at a distributor or store, and have absolutely nothing to do with the Purina Company. One persons unvalidated claim should NOT be enough to destroy a companies reputation.

My dog looked like Cr@p and developed degenerative joint disease of the elbow while on Merrick... but you don't see me telling everyone its an awful food, do you?

ORIGINAL: pollypuzu.   And you sound like one that hasn't gotten their way..........

I thought so myself.....

This has become rather annoying as it is just people re-stating their opinions which we ALL already know; it's obvious.  Nobody is going to change how they think and that is OK....lets get over it!

Just because a dog doesn't get SICK on crummy food, doesn't mean it is GOOD for them, and doesn't mean they should continue to eat it because you don't see any signs of poor health.

 
I have read so many posts telling about dogs oily, smelly, coarse, thin  dull coat constant ear infections, constant licking, goopey eyes, etc from eating the lesser foods and surely, one would notice these things?   How could one NOT notice these things?  How could a vet not notice poor blood work, over or under weight, etc.    If your dog is not getting what it needs it will show, regardless if it is a lesser food or the top of the line food.  Also, does the fact that my Buck threw up  every meal for 4 days on a "better" food mean it was bad food?  No, it simply means it did not agree with him. 
 
Because Purina does not agree with a dog, or the owner does not like the ingredients, does that mean purina --or whatever other 'lesser food" is bad  for all dogs?  Just bcause two pit  bulls attacked 4 people over in Corpus a couple of weeks ago does that mean ALL pit bulls are going attack people?  No it does not.  What works for one dog won't work another.  Just because one dog attacks (or two in this case) doesn't mean every pittie is going to attck. My DIL's sister has a great young pittie that i doubt could even be taught to attack much less do it on it's own.

We're getting pretty close to personal attacks now.  Not called for.
 
As I said earlier, this thread is circling the drain and has been for hours.  I think it's time for someone to just flush it.

Whoooooosh...........................[sm=rotfl.gif]

ORIGINAL: dyan

So why don't we ask the big pet food corporations who have all the $$ and conduct all the "research" to conduct such a study?  If there product is all it's marketed to be, than why aren't they doing a brand vs brand health comparison study? Or studies to compare some pricier ingredients to find more nutritious alternatives to corn and brewer's rice?

I think the study should not be conducted by any dog food company,,,Purina or any other. I believe it has to be a scientific study,,by nutritionists or veterinarians.  It would most probably be slanted if it were run by any company.
 

Trust me, I know lenty of very senior dogs who have lived their lives eating cheap food. My Aunt's standard poodle lived to 18 y.o. on Alpo.  I also know a 95 year old women who smoked most of her life. 

 
Just because a dog doesn't get SICK on crummy food, doesn't mean it is GOOD for them, and doesn't mean they should continue to eat it because you don't see any signs of poor health.

I don't think I understand....what is our ultimate goal here?  Isn't it to have a healthy dog that lives a long happy life?  Sure some people smoke until their 95 and don't die of lung cancer and that doesn't mean that smoking is good for you,,,,but tests have shown that more people die of cancer caused by smoking.        Where is the test that tells us that more dogs die of Purina?   Its a different case.
My ultimate goal is to have my dog live a long healthy life...no matter how I get her there. And I think the point I am trying to make is that most people that feed their dogs Purina or the likes claim to have dogs that live long healthy lives. 

How many of the 50%  of dogs that die from cancer every year, are on foods like Purina?  I would think the vast majority. 

ORIGINAL: Dulce Pit Bull

Here's Benefuls ingredients. Lots of junk. That's all we're trying to say is that it isn't the healthiest for dogs. And the fact that they are selling proucts infested with mold? And you still think it's good food?

I'm not arguing about if someone is a bad owner because they feed their og a certain food. I'm arguing that it isn't the healthiest food.

Ground yellow corn, chicken by-product meal, corn gluten meal, whole wheat flour, beef tallow preserved with mixed-tocopherols (source of Vitamin E), rice flour, beef, soy flour, sugar, sorbitol, tricalcium phosphate, water, animal digest, salt, phosphoric acid, potassium chloride, dicalcium phosphate, sorbic acid (a preservative), L-Lysine monohydrochloride, dried peas, dried carrots, calcium carbonate, calcium propionate (a preservative), choline chloride, vitamin supplements (E, A, B-12, D-3), added color (Yellow 5, Red 40, Yellow 6, Blue 2), DL-Methionine, zinc sulfate, glyceryl monostearate, ferrous sulfate, niacin, manganese sulfate, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin supplement, biotin, thiamine mononitrate, garlic oil, copper sulfate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, folic acid, menadione sodium bisulfite complex (source of Vitamin K activity), calcium iodate, sodium selenite.
F-4090
Isn't that icky? The FIRST ingredient is CORN. chicken BY PRODUCT, SUGAR, and ANIMAL DIGEST. Do you have any idea what animal digest is?

I'm just concerned for the dogs who eat this, whether they seem in healthy condition or not.

There ARE some people whos dogs have DIED from this product. However, I am NOT saying that dogs who eat this food WILL die from it. I'm saying it's not healthy.

But you're all right, if people still choose to feed this to their dogs, then so be it. Can't stop them. All I can do is make sure MY dog is healthy, and eating REAL food, and hopefully educate others.

I have a feeling that if Purina put saw dust in their food, some of the Purina fans would defend it....As long is it is cheap and easy to buy and has a nice looking package with some TV advertising thrown in, it would be a winner in the dog food market.. Look at the money that these expensive energy drinks like Red Bull  generate and all it is is some caffeine and sugar and a bit of flavoring. It's all about marketing. People that buy foods like Canidae and Natural Balance and Solid Gold, which have very little marketing,  know something  about what is good for their dog, and seek out the best that they can afford, which is what I do.  I don't buy junk food for my home for myself, so why would I buy it for my dog?  Before I buy anything for my dog, I carefully read the ingredients and if I see any carcinogens, or cheap fillers, or things that a dog wouldn't eat naturally , it gets placed back on the shelf. 

How many of the 50% of dogs that die from cancer every year, are on foods like Purina? I would think the vast majority.

 
Exactly. If a dog lives 18 healthy years on Alpo, great! Maybe he would have lived longer on something else, or maybe not. Maybe the food had little to do with his lifespan, or maybe for whatever reason Alpo just WORKED for him. But it obviously doesn't work for most dogs, who die of cancer, heart disease, are PTS because of crippling arthritis, etc. Something's gotta give, and IMO, that something is the food supply, and the chemicals we pump into them. A combination is what's killing our animals. No, it's not one or the other, it's both. But guess what? Some dogs can go their whole lives with minimal chemicals and great food, and still die young. That's their genetics. And some dogs can be pumped full of chemicals, and eat the worst food known to man, and live to 18. That's their genetics. The question is what do you feel gives your dog the best chance for a long, healthy life? I don't think Purina or Alpo is Cherokee's best chance, but that's my prerogative. I'm not bashing Purina, I'm not saying it's awful food, I'm saying I don't want to feed it to Cherokee. And that's all.

One thing to keep in mind is that John and Jane Q Public really has no idea of what a "healthy" dog looks like. They believe that a stinky, greasy coat, vile breath and dropping mushy mega bombs in the yard is normal for a dog. Some even think that allergies and hot spots are normal things that dogs go through. I've had many people come to my house and are surprised that there's no "doggy smell" in the house, that my dogs have nice shiny, grease-free coats and that my Rottweiler's poops are small and firm and my Boston Terrier's poops look like Tootsie Rolls.
 
A lot of people don't understand that there's a correlation between feed and health. We have quite a few dog patients at the pharmacy, a lot of them are on allergy meds. One customer in particular comes in every 2 weeks for Hydroxyzine for her dog and can't figure out why her dog has such bad allergy problems and ear infections. I inquired as to what she is feeding and she said Beneful. I suggested that she might want to feed a healthier food as, more than likely, that is the cause of her dogs health issues. I gave her quite a few suggestions but when she found out how much these feeds cost as opposed to Beneful, she balked. But I guess it's much better to spend money at the vet's every 2 weeks and to spend $40 a month on prescription meds for the dog than to try a better feed that might actually solve the dogs problems. Eh, but what can ya do? She asked for advice, I gave advice, she disregarded advice and in the end... it's her dog.

ORIGINAL: chelsea_b

How many of the 50% of dogs that die from cancer every year, are on foods like Purina? I would think the vast majority.

Exactly. If a dog lives 18 healthy years on Alpo, great! Maybe he would have lived longer on something else, or maybe not. Maybe the food had little to do with his lifespan, or maybe for whatever reason Alpo just WORKED for him. But it obviously doesn't work for most dogs, who die of cancer, heart disease, are PTS because of crippling arthritis, etc. Something's gotta give, and IMO, that something is the food supply, and the chemicals we pump into them. A combination is what's killing our animals. No, it's not one or the other, it's both. But guess what? Some dogs can go their whole lives with minimal chemicals and great food, and still die young. That's their genetics. And some dogs can be pumped full of chemicals, and eat the worst food known to man, and live to 18. That's their genetics. The question is what do you feel gives your dog the best chance for a long, healthy life? I don't think Purina or Alpo is Cherokee's best chance, but that's my prerogative. I'm not bashing Purina, I'm not saying it's awful food, I'm saying I don't want to feed it to Cherokee. And that's all.

You are correct and  health research is based largely on statistical data. If a million people eat this kind of diet, all other things being equal, what is the percentage of people that come down with a disease on food A vs food B ..  It becomes pretty clear with humans, that diet is a significant factor in health and longevity.  To think that animals would not be affected in the same way  by the quality of their diet, to me, is ridiculous.  In fact, to discover possible problems with human food, animals are used for testing. 

You are correct and  health research is based largely on statistical data. If a million people eat this kind of diet, all other things being equal, what is the percentage of people that come down with a disease on food A vs food B ..  It becomes pretty clear with humans, that diet is a significant factor in health and longevity.  To think that animals would not be affected in the same way  by the quality of their diet, to me, is ridiculous.  In fact, to discover possible problems with human food, animals are used for testing. 

Kinda but not really, the strongest evidence that certain foods/food components come from prosepective randomized trials on animals. You of course would never get people to participate in this sort of trial. The evidence against some components in food such as nitrosamines, saturated fats causing problems in human health is fairly strong, but.... The other studies are hard to interpret (such as showing brazilian people get less oral cancer or the asian tend to get more stomach cancer) since genetics may very well play a huge part and don't know every gene that causes every problem. Correlational studies are just that correlation not causation. The human research is not nearly as strong as you are stating, no one really knows the best diet that people should eat to avoid cancer, and every diet that seems to have a decreased incidence of one cancer has increased incidence of others (like in US we have less gastric cancer but more breast cancer). If nutrition was the major factor, you would also expect to see huge increases in cancer in third world countries where their diet is hugely deficient in so many areas, which you do not. Many parts of the world they use as you stated "chemicals" a lot more then we do in the US and they also haven't shown increases in incidence. If there was great evidence that one diet in humans was great, we would love to know it would make my job a whole lot easier. I love to operate, but it sucks to see so many people seriously ill.