Consumer Paid-For Nutro Testing Results

Originally Posted by darlili

I've looked at Don's site and still have the same questions about posted, confirmable information - heck, could someone just say what lab he uses? Why is that such a secret? Where is page 1 of 2 of the posted documents? I did see his 697 documents in the Washington state court system, though. That's a heck of a lot of pro se motions.

Click to expand...

The lab that he uses, is noted right on the report - "UI Analytical Sciences Laboratory" - is University of Idaho Analytical Sciences Laboratory. It is not a secret, and he didn't hide... If you googled that, you would find it... They do Veterinary diagnostic Toxicology cooperatively with the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (WADDL) at Washington State University.
I don't think he would be stupid enough to post fake documents on the internet against a company like Nutro... He would have been sued and the website would have been down already, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by carolinalima

The lab that he uses, is noted right on the report - "UI Analytical Sciences Laboratory" - is University of Idaho Analytical Sciences Laboratory. It is not a secret, and he didn't hide... If you googled that, you would find it...

Click to expand...

If you had read all the posts you would have seen that *I* did Google it and came up with nothing. I now know the reason is because when I cut and pasted the lab name from the report I got "Ul" not "UI" [edit: The difference isn't obvious with my font. The upper case "I" pasted as a lower case "L"]. Do you see the problem with incomplete disclosure? The point being made is that when posting a report of that sort it would be nice if unambiguous identification of the lab was also included rather than leaving it as a research exercise for the reader.

Originally Posted by mschauer

If you had read all the posts you would have seen that *I* did Google it and came up with nothing. I now know the reason is because when I cut and pasted the lab name from the report I got "Ul" not "UI" [edit: The difference isn't obvious with my font. The upper case "I" pasted as a lower case "L"]. Do you see the problem with incomplete disclosure? The point being made is that when posting a report of that sort it would be nice if unambiguous identification of the lab was also included rather than leaving it as a research exercise for the reader.

Click to expand...

Well, I read all the posts. Regarding the UI and UL confusion, as far as I know, initials are written in upper case... so UI would be the correct one... I don't know the guy, but IMO he would be incredibly dumb to post false info on the internet against a company...

when I googled, I got the same issues with UI - and that could be University of Iowa, Indiana, Illinois - or Underwriting Industrial, Universal Investigations or any other combination of words with U and I in them. Again, it wouldn't have been that hard in the presentation to say something along the lines of 'here's a report conducted by the University of Whatever' - that's simply standard practice.

He also only attached page 2 of 2 - where the heck is page 1? Maybe it's just a transmittal page, but it looks odd to not include all pages, with no explanation. And, again, he mentions board of directors, with no names listed - unless you contribute money. He doesn't describe his background anywhere that I could find reasonably quickly (is he an attorney? or does he just enjoy pro se motions?) He doesn't include any financial statements to indicate exactly how funds received are spent (and I would think some CPA somewhere would do pro bono work for this organization).

The sad thing is, the holes in his presentation raise so many questions that even if his allegations are totally correct, they're going to be discounted by anyone reading analytically. Maybe he could just use some help in that area.

And people can be incredibly dumb and try to dare lawsuits - like all the ponzi schemes that people have initiated, and eventually gotten caught on. Or, how about that woman blogging about her dying baby - a complete fake conducted over months, which garnered support, and money, from thousands of pro-life supporters, and which just fell apart in the last week or so; I suspect she may be mentally unbalanced, but the downside of the internet is that anyone can post anything, make up documentation, and hope others fall for it.

I was able to quickly find that Earl has filed over 500 pro se motions in Washington state courts - although he doesn't seem to prevail very often - so, if he's competent in that area, I'd think he'd be more than competent to provide nice solid documentation on his web site, if such documentation exists.

Originally Posted by Sohni

The first article says that two days of normal feeding would result in lethal doses. A lot of cats, just on this board, were fed the food for over a week before the recall was found. Has anyone read about any sick cats as a direct result of the food? I am just curious.

Click to expand...

My boys both ate the recalled food for almost a month with no adverse effects. I did return the opened bag for a refund as soon as the recall notice was made public and watched them closely but they had no problems at all.

I had two bags of the recalled food as well. One bag I had opened and had fed for just over a day before I came on here and saw the notice. I didn't look at the bag I had just thrown away, but I go through a lot of cat food so there is a chance it was one of the recalled bags )=

I haven't noticed any troubles other than one cat developing a rash from allergies. I think that was from my changing her soft food though.

My 2 cats, together, ate almost 16 pounds of a 20-lb bag before I discovered it was recalled. I am not seeing any side effects they listed. Those results are scary, but I wonder why there was found to be enough zinc to be lethal in 2 days, my cats ate it for weeks and they seem to be okay.

I have long haired cats and in the past couple weeks they both developed a lot of mats around the hip area that have been hard to keep up with and I worry that means they aren't grooming as much. Then again, it's probably more my fault - they are probably shedding for summer and I didn't increase combing them... or maybe it was because I switched to Iams Healthy Naturals for the time being and they aren't getting some vitamins they got from Nutro? Anyway, the matting is the only thing that's concerning me right now; otherwise, I my cats seem healthy.

Ill assume the testing was correct, and the level of zinc was 2100ppm. I however, do not take anything this group says seriously now, given that they claim this is toxic enough to kill a 9lb cat in 2 days. That statement is so ludicrous, I cant even fathom where they obtained this idea from. Very little info exists on zinc in cats, but here is what the actual research has shown: cats fed diets containing up to 230 mg zinc / kg body weight/ day for up to 6 months showed *no adverse effects*. We can do the math easily: 2100 ppm = 2100 mg/kg food. Assume feed serving of 1 cup, which is 3.58 oz of Nutro Max, and is the high end recommended serving for 8-11lb cat. That is 101.4 grams, and at 2100 mg/kg food, it comes out to 212.94 mg of Zinc. Lets assume kitty is 10lb, or 4.5 kg, that makes the zinc intake 42.588 mg/ kg body weight/day - nowhere near the tested levels that DID NOT show adverse effects in cats. Also, there has been no reports of adverse effects of excessive zinc consumption in cats. That said, the level is extremely high when compared with recommended intake values, and for all vitamins and minerals, we should avoid excessive consumption "just-in-case".
I cannot take anything this group says at face value given this - I am now fairly convinced there is a specific agenda being pushed, and I do not appreciate the falsified data that only constitutes fear mongering. Unacceptable imo. I am willing to view any data/research that anyone has showing different research - Id especially like to know how they can claim knowledge of a fatal level of Zinc in cats when no veterinary group can do so. For the record, my information can be found in "Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats", published by the National Research Council.

As most folks who have researched the issue are aware, there are inconsistencies between product runs and even between samples within a product run.

For those who are concerned enough about this issue to still be reading, PFPSA has paid for additional tests on Nutro, as well as on Wellness and Purina.

http://www.pfpsa.org/news.html

June 20, 2009: A concerned pet owner provided pfpsa.org with funds and a variety of unrecalled dry cat food samples, which we received in ziplock bags, to have tested through the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab. Toxicology testing is done through WADDL by the Analytical Sciences Laboratory University of Idaho. We tested 5 samples believed to be three each of Nutro, one Wellness and one Purina. The tests show two of the three Nutro samples contained zinc at levels that would be illegal for sale in the European Union, at 270 ppm and 380 ppm. The third Nutro sample came in at 230 ppm. Purina and Wellness both came in at 190 ppm, which is still 40 ppm higher than the European Union’s recommended maximum of 150 ppm. The huge variation in Nutro results suggests very poor consistency and quality control. From one bag to the next, it’s about like playing Russian Roulette. It’s important to keep in mind pet food is typically the only thing our pets eat, day in and day out, month after month, year after year. Chronic exposure to over supplemented food, especially metals, hasn’t been studied enough to justify over supplementation as an industry standard.

pfpsa.org/testresults

Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab

In addition, there is yet another instance of a cat dead of zinc poisoning, as reported here on Pet Connection's blog. See post #191. The cat's zinc levels were twice normal.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone is still denying that there's a problem.

Februa - I'm with you on this one. When someone has lied or misled me on one thing, I cannot and will not believe anything else they say. I just cannot trust them anymore and when they exaggerate to the point this group did, forget it - their credibility has totally disolved as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

June 20, 2009: A concerned pet owner provided pfpsa.org with funds and a variety of unrecalled dry cat food samples, which we received in ziplock bags, to have tested through the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab. Toxicology testing is done through WADDL by the Analytical Sciences Laboratory University of Idaho. We tested 5 samples believed to be three each of Nutro, one Wellness and one Purina. The tests show two of the three Nutro samples contained zinc at levels that would be illegal for sale in the European Union, at 270 ppm and 380 ppm. The third Nutro sample came in at 230 ppm. Purina and Wellness both came in at 190 ppm, which is still 40 ppm higher than the European Unionâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]s recommended maximum of 150 ppm. The huge variation in Nutro results suggests very poor consistency and quality control. From one bag to the next, itâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]s about like playing Russian Roulette. Itâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]s important to keep in mind pet food is typically the only thing our pets eat, day in and day out, month after month, year after year. Chronic exposure to over supplemented food, especially metals, hasnâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]t been studied enough to justify over supplementation as an industry standard.

pfpsa.org/testresults

Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab

In addition, there is yet another instance of a cat dead of zinc poisoning, as reported here on Pet Connection's blog. See post #191. The cat's zinc levels were twice normal.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone is still denying that there's a problem.

Click to expand...

The link you and the pfpsa provide to WADDL states that zinc testing can only be done on serum, plasma, liver, kidney, or pancreas tissue samples. Using a test designed for tissue samples on dry food is not the appropriate way to measure metal contents in a food sample. I have emailed WADDL about this form of testing, and am interested to hear what they have to say.

Please provide evidence that elevated zinc levels in cats causes fatality - the available information and research suggests the opposite, and if you are claiming death from zinc poisoning, I assume you have actual data to support this, and are not just trying to stir up a panic among consumers.

I am beginning to understand, at least in part, why the pets I had on the farm lived such long and healthy lives. The majority of their diet consisted of table scraps and what they could catch to eat. All of my pets as a child lived to ripe old ages with no health concerns. Of course I am sure at least in part it was also due to all the exercise running around outside and the clean air.

Originally Posted by Februa

...Please provide evidence that elevated zinc levels in cats causes fatality - the available information and research suggests the opposite, and if you are claiming death from zinc poisoning, I assume you have actual data to support this, and are not just trying to stir up a panic among consumers.

Click to expand...

*I* didn't claim anything, as the post clearly states, the vet who cared for the now dead cat ran the necessary tests to determine the (doubled) zinc levels. Anyone who reads the actual blog will see this.

As for what particular zinc levels are needed to produce a dead cat - why should I do that research for you? There's a whole slew of folks over on the Itchmo forums who are tackling that issue, feel free to pop in and see what's going on.

My intent here is to alert cat-owners to testing that's been done outside the Pet Food Institute's umbrella, and let THEM make their own decisions as to what to do with the info.

I am NOT here to argue with folks who want to continue feeding a particular food; you want to feed it, feed it! Since I don't serve commercial, it'd be pretty hard for me to convince you one brand is better than another.

Not to mention, some folks have very little choice in what they can put down in front of their kitties. Their feline friends refuse other foods or they've got financial concerns or maybe geographical constraints.... there are as many reasons people feed their cats a particular food as there are people who own cats. It'd be a waste of resources to try to convince them all that one can of food is better than another!!!

I'm simply here to disseminate info so that caring pet-owners, like you and everyone else on this board, can take that info into consideration the next time you're standing in the middle of the pet-food aisle.

And insulting me is only going to encourage me.

You are right - we can all quote things we read on the internet, but we must also be very careful not to "assume" it is all 100% correct.

As with anything in life, do your own research and make your own decisions. I've never been a big fan of scientific testing anyway - they can skew the results in any direction they want -depending on where their research monies are coming from.

I don't have any experience with the testing. I do know that I added a bag of the Nutro Natural Adult to my cat's usual Nutro Natural weight control it was about 2 weeks before the recall. Jordan stopped eating. Jordan has had many problems, so his system is very sensitive to this type of thing. I took Jordan to the vet all blood work was normal, we was constpated, but an enima did not help. He still would not eat the dry food. I have no proof that I had a recalled bag, since I had already thrown the bag out, but since I switched to TOTW his appitite returned. It is possible Jordan was just having a sensitive tummy problem, but it just seems Odd to me. That was all the motivation I needed to switch foods.

You know, some of this might carry more weight for people if any citations were made outside the "Itchmo/Richard Earl-Alliance/Pet Connection/consumeraffairs.com" circle. Right now it's just watching the same people wind themselves up, quoting from the same small pool of supposed data, without providing one iota of verifiable information.

For those who truly believe this, who have good hearts and good intentions, their contentions are weakened by lack of citation and refusal to supply even basic documentation, IMO. And, for those who have seen how companies with allegedly deep pockets can be targeted, simply because they appear to have cash reserves, well, you have to wonder what the agenda is for the folks involved in making non-substantiated allegations - well, we know about consumeraffairs.com, as a front for attorneys looking to file class action suits, whether they are likely to prevail or not. Some suits are filed just because they hope a company will settle with them, not because they know they actually have a good case. Those are the attorneys who give all others a bad name, IMO - and those are the attorneys who prey on emotion and irrational discourse.

Of course, when it comes down to it, it's an odd business model that includes planning to kill off your customers over a relatively short term, don't you think? As odd a business model as that which refuses to supply reasonable documentation, to my mind.

*sigh*

The Pet Connection folks are COMPLETELY unrelated to the other folks. And I dare you to tell any of the blog writers they aren't. They don't even LIKE consumers affairs! http://www.petconnection.com/blog/20...food-safe-yet/ The individual who posted about his cat that died with double the normal zinc levels did not and has not, to my knowledge, contacted any of the other sites you mentioned. That is solely a Pet Connection link.

Itchmo has HUNDREDS of members, many of whom lost pets in the 2007 poisoning. Like me, that's all the doggone motivation they need to start paying attention to what goes into the food they feed their beloved family members. They have no spooky ulterior motives. Neither they, nor I, are out to get the big bad corporation wolves, we just want safe pet food on the shelves.

Don Earl lost Chuckles in early 2007. Chuckles meant everything to him. He has spent HUNDREDS of dollars in litigation and in testing, two entirely different issues. The litigation is his response to Chuckles death; it is NOT going to make him a millionaire, in fact, it's quite likely to be the opposite, and he knows this. His reasons for continuing are on his sites; personally, I think he's a very courageous individual, fighting an enormously tough fight for all the cats and dogs who died from eating foods their owners thought were good for them.

As for the testing, Don doesn't do these tests himself, he sends the samples out to certified labs for that. What would be the profit in the technicians skewing the results? I find that to be a fairly weird accusation; I don't even know how to respond to it. And no one variety or vendor is being targeted, the tests are all across the board. Surely you realize Wellness and Nutro have nothing in common? Well, other than the public's desire to know what's in the food, of course.

If you wish to believe that these four separate entities/organizations/communities are secretly in cahoots to make a buck off the entire Pet Food Industry, there's certainly nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. But just in case there's some truth in some of these reports and tests, why don't you ease up a bit on the acrimony? These are good people who have lost animals they love and are trying to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else. If you can't/won't support them, at least ease off on attacking them.

It's wonderful that you and some others believe in this fellow, but until I see some information from a recognized testing lab, I won't be giving him any of my hard-earned money. This Itchmo site - is it really all that reliable? I have to admit I do not know much about it.

Honestly, as in everything, there are reliable pet food companies and then the others.

I also agree with Darlii - if that many cats were dying, I'm pretty sure someone, even a group as bad as Peta, would have made it public.

Ok, so I did some looking around on the PFPSA site to help answer some of the questions in this thread. Here's what I pulled together:

CAVEAT: This is not all-inclusive, just a quick run-through. Some of this is copied and pasted, some is re-worded to shorten the text.

PFPSA has either paid for the following tests or received copies of the results from a consumer who paid for the testing after dealing with a sick animal (cat and dog food has been tested) http://www.pfpsa.org/news.html:
2009
--Nutro - two of three samples contained zinc at 270 ppm and 380 ppm, levels that would be illegal for sale in the European Union. The third sample came in at 230 ppm.
--Wellness & Purina - Zinc came in at 190 ppm
--Nutro Max Cat - Zinc at 38 times the amount of zinc recommended by the National Research Council
2008
--Nutro Natural Choice Chicken Meal - e-coli, salmonella, and listeria, aflatoxin, all non-detected. Copper was approx 2 and 3 times higher than AAFCO recommendations. Zinc over 4 times the recommended amount
--Nutro Max Cat Gourmet Classicsr" - positive for cyanuric acid
--Fancy Feast - Ethylene glycol and DEG were not detected. Organic acids were undetected at a level of sensitivity of 1,000 ppm, with the exception of lactic acid, which was present in the food at 2,200 ppm.
--Fancy Feast - no unknown toxins and below detectable limits for peroxide and mercury
--Evangers pheasant and brown rice - Solanine and Aflatoxin tested negative. Copper levels were approximately twice the recommended level for dogs.
--Hill's Science Diet (test not requested by PSPSA) - positive for cyanuric acid and melamine
2007
--Waggin Trails Brand Chicken Jerky Dog Treats - Unknown Toxin Scan and Radiation by Geiger Counter both non-detected.
--Hills Science Diet - Acetaminophen only, non-detected
--Frisky's - No foreign objects found
--Special Kitty - positive for acetaminophen and melamine

The following labs were used for the above testing:
Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab.
Analytical Sciences Laboratory University of Idaho
ExperTox Inc. Analytical Laboratory
MidWest Laboratories Inc.
Bodycote Testing Group
Silliker JR Laboratories, ULC

PFPSA is not (that I could find) involved in any group litigation, nor does it ask for anyone to join any litigation cases. It DOES say that litigation has it's place in forcing change - but that's nothing more than the truth - and mentions at least one case (I think) that someone else has or is putting together.

Here's a paragraph reference the finances:
"June 14, 2008: ..... Pfpsa.org has been helping pet owners with testing pet food suspected in a pet's illness for almost nine months now. At this time, we felt it would be appropriate to make information on donations and expenses available to persons interested in the progress of this start up phase of the effort. Through June 8, 2008, pfpsa.org has received $2454 in donations and our expenses totaled $2116. To date, pfpsa.org has been operated strictly through the efforts of volunteers. As a result, we're proud to report that 95% of all funds donated to the effort have been applied directly to the project's objectives, with the remainder going to merchant services for processing contributions."

- - - - - - - -
Itchmo is my first go-to for recall information and pet food product issues. I've been a member of the forum since early 2007 and I deeply respect the efforts those people put into delving into nitty gritty details. Are they passionate about what they're doing? You bet, but that doesn't invalidate the info they're collecting. Itchmo has enough respect that Pet Food personnel come and discuss issues with board members.

Finally, I found another site that tracks recalls (both human and animal) and conducts it's own research as well as interviews of the parties involved:http://efoodalert.blogspot.com/.

Ok, *whew*, I'm out of breath!

I think my final thought here would be - just be aware folks. Keep up with Itchmo, check out Pet Connection every now and again, get the efoodalerts sent automatically, then find your own comfort level with the information you're receiving. Don't panic, but don't buy blindly either.

Originally Posted by Auntie Crazy

I think my final thought here would be - just be aware folks.
Don't panic, but don't buy blindly either.

Click to expand...

This is my thinking also ... NO company or human is perfect ...