The truth about carrageenan

[pushylady]

Just to add to the list of canned food without carageenan:



-Blue Wilderness Wild Delights

-Blue Bistro

-Lotus

-Taste of the Wild

-Newmans Organic

-Fromm

-Tiki cat (depends on flavour)

-Wellness Healthy Indulgences Pouches

Also Hound & Gatos which I've just discovered at a local store. They have several varieties and so far my kitties like it. It has guar gum and 95%-98% meat.

 

[violetxx]

Violetxx added a number of foods to the list without carrageenan. I don't know if they have guar gum or not, but a number of them have grains and/or veggies. If you're looking for a grain-free, (mostly) veggie-free food without carrageenan, since there are SO few, some people may be willing to take one with guar gum over carrageenan, since guar gum is not going to cause cancer or stomach ulcers.

They are all grain-free options actually! 

 They also do not contain very many veggies and the carbohydrate %'s are all relatively low.

Quote:
Cool! I never heard of Hound and Gatos, looks good on the website, I'll see if I can pick some up. Also, the food Lotus that I mentioned earlier is carrageenan, guar gum and xanthum gum free, they use agar instead.

 

[kittylover23]

Yes, Hound and Gatos does look good!

 

[mariaanddonnie]

Wow, lots of info.

 

[ldg]

And bumping this thread up so as not to divert discussion in someone else's thread.

 

[numystic]

Bumping with a question as I figure most folks that care a great deal about carrageenan would keep up with this thread...

Any recommendations for a reasonably priced low carb (single digit) / high protein carageenan/fish/grain/clay free canned food?

Was feeding BG and NV Instinct up until now, but BG has carrageenan and NV uses the sodium/calcium clay.

I'm open to anything that can be fed for less than .35 cents per ounce shipped by the case. 

So far the only two contenders I've found which meet all of the above criteria are:

>> Nature's Logic

Long list of fruits/veggies but given how low incredibly low it's carb profile is I think total percentage must be very small overall?

>> Hound and Gatos

Looks FANTASTIC with a short ingredient list with guar gum being the only undesirable element. Includes USA sourced rabbit and pheasant at very fair prices but limited distribution, but can be gotten at low prices online, including PetFoodDirect soon according to them. 

Am I overlooking any other well regarded canned/pouched offerings which meet these criteria? 

 

[bluebo]

I know, that's another thing that baffles me. But having lost one cat to cancer, I'm willing to do anything to avoid the disease again, at any cost.

A lot of the time cancer is genetic. Depending on what age you cat was when it was diagnosed- its a 50/50 split between the possibility of genetics or diet/environmental factors.

 

[numystic]

Sorry, but your statement is a common fallacy and incredibly misleading. Please do some scholarly research before making entirely false statements like "50/50 split between the possibility of genetics or diet/environmental factors". In fact only a VERY small percentage of diagnosed cancer is inherited genetically. 

Taken directly from the American Cancer Society website:

Cancer is such a common disease that it is no surprise that many families have at least a few members who have had cancer. Sometimes, certain types of cancer seem to run in some families. This can be caused by a number of factors. Often, family members have certain risk factors in common, such as smoking, which can cause many types of cancer.

When many cases of cancer occur in a family, it is most often due to chance or because family members have been exposed to a common toxin, such as cigarette smoking. Less often, these cancers may be caused by an inherited gene mutation. 

In some cases the cancer is caused by an abnormal gene that is being passed along from generation to generation. Although this is often referred to as inherited cancer, what is inherited is the abnormal gene that can lead to cancer, not the cancer itself. Only about 5% to 10% of all cancers are inherited. 

Genetic predisposition increases the risk it is not the cause itself.

Furthermore a genetic predisposition is only a further argument for the need to minimize exposure to carcinogens, not an argument for why avoiding carcinogens is pointless. 

 

[bluebo]

Sorry, but your statement is a common fallacy and incredibly misleading. Please do some scholarly research before making entirely false statements like "50/50 split between the possibility of genetics or diet/environmental factors". In fact only a VERY small percentage of diagnosed cancer is inherited genetically. 

Taken directly from the American Cancer Society website:





Genetic predisposition increases the risk it is not the cause itself.

Furthermore a genetic predisposition is only a further argument for the need to minimize exposure to carcinogens, not an argument for why avoiding carcinogens is pointless. 

I see your point and agree with it. That doesn't mean that diet is the only thing with carcinogens. Environment can play a massive role in how an inherited cancer gene may or may not be provoked.
Chemicals in: perfumes, household cleaners, bug sprays, outdoor pesticides, vaccines, de-wormers/flea treatments, detergents, and even tap water. There is no possible way to eliminate all of these things from you or you cat's life.
Food may definitely contribute to whether or not an animal could possibly get cancer but it is only a portion of what may/may not contribute.
If the animal is genetically sound (according to what you are saying) carcinogens wouldn't affect the animal (or affect it very little) because the genetic predisposition is low... which is basically what I was saying. What I was saying just needed a bit of tweaking is all.

 

[kittylover23]

Carcinogens (chemicals, environmental factors, radiation) and genetic predisposition can definitely cause cancer...this is even proven in human beings. :nod: Candy was fed Friskies all her life, and her food had carrageenan in it. I believe, that this is probably how she developed the lymphoma...either this, or she may have be exposed to FIV before we found her as a kitten. My vet said something about cats exposed to FIV or feline leukemia virus being more at risk for her type of renal lymphoma. for my baby girl in Heaven, I miss her so much.

 

[numystic]

If the animal is genetically sound (according to what you are saying) carcinogens wouldn't affect the animal (or affect it very little) because the genetic predisposition is low... which is basically what I was saying. What I was saying just needed a bit of tweaking is all.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding the medical reality. Your "tweaked" statement is even more wildly inaccurate than the original one which only had the percentages wrong.

Please re-read the quoted statements from the American Cancer Society. 

It explicitly states that only 5-10% of cancer is related to genetics. That means that 90-95% of diagnosed cancer is in patients that are NOT genetically predisposed to it.

That statement from the American Cancer Society is dedicated to dispelling the common myth you are continuing to spread by explaining that the vast majority of cancer is diagnosed in genetically sound patients.

 

[ldg]

I see your point and agree with it. That doesn't mean that diet is the only thing with carcinogens. Environment can play a massive role in how an inherited cancer gene may or may not be provoked.

Chemicals in: perfumes, household cleaners, bug sprays, outdoor pesticides, vaccines, de-wormers/flea treatments, detergents, and even tap water. There is no possible way to eliminate all of these things from you or you cat's life.

Food may definitely contribute to whether or not an animal could possibly get cancer but it is only a portion of what may/may not contribute.
If the animal is genetically sound (according to what you are saying) carcinogens wouldn't affect the animal (or affect it very little) because the genetic predisposition is low... which is basically what I was saying. What I was saying just needed a bit of tweaking is all.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding the medical reality. Your "tweaked" statement is even more wildly inaccurate than the original one which only had the percentages wrong.

Please re-read the quoted statements from the American Cancer Society. 

It explicitly states that only 5-10% of cancer is related to genetics. That means that 90-95% of diagnosed cancer is in patients that are NOT genetically predisposed to it.

That statement from the American Cancer Society is dedicated to dispelling the common myth you are continuing to spread by explaining that the vast majority of cancer is diagnosed in genetically sound patients.

And FYI, whether there is that 5-10% inherited genetic predisposition to cell mutation that can lead to cancer or not, whether a potential source of carcinogens is environmental or dietary - for the health of our animals and ourselves, why not make attempts to minimize the risk? I may not be able to control leaking PCBs from a transformer near my home or something, but I can control what products I use in my home and what food I feed my family and my cats. :dk:

Lazlo developed a cancerous mass in his stomach at age 9. It was explained to me by the oncologist that lymphosarcomas typically develop at sites of chronic inflammation. In some cats, carrageenan can be a source of chronic inflammation of the stomach wall lining.

 

[bluebo]

So what are some wet food brands without carrageenan?

 

[ldg]

Just read back through the thread. . Quite a few were identified. :nod:

 

[jcat]

Also Hound & Gatos which I've just discovered at a local store. They have several varieties and so far my kitties like it. It has guar gum and 95%-98% meat.

That's available here, but only in 156 g. cans, and I can't find any feeding recommendations on the website. Is that for two meals? Jamie usually eats 85 - 100 g. for one meal, depending on the brand.

 

[numystic]

That's available here, but only in 156 g. cans, and I can't find any feeding recommendations on the website. Is that for two meals? Jamie usually eats 85 - 100 g. for one meal, depending on the brand.

The calories for that whole line are between 192-218 per can, so if you compare that to the calories in the varieties you're feeding now it's just simple math to come up with the equivalent. 

Looking at calories was HUGE eye opener for me. Before I started looking to avoid carrageenan I was very enthused about Merrick's Before Grain line.

Then I saw that the calories!

Less than 50% of the total calories vs comparable premium brands!

Now I understand why it was so light and fluffy compared to other pate food, and why my cats always seemed hungry afterwards. 

Apart from the carrageenan I still think it's a great food, but when you factor in having to feed TWICE as much it's insanely expensive due to the deceptively small amount of actual nourishment your cats get per can. 

 

[sevenwonders]

A few more wet food options without carrageenan:

Natural Balance Platefulls Pouches

(I only checked the ones I feed occasionally: Chicken & Chicken Liver / Turkey, Chicken and Duck / and Chicken & Giblets.)

BTW, these are a lot less expensive than Wellness Pouches on PFD.  

 

[otto]

A few more wet food options without carrageenan:

Natural Balance Platefulls Pouches
(I only checked the ones I feed occasionally: Chicken & Chicken Liver / Turkey, Chicken and Duck / and Chicken & Giblets.)

BTW, these are a lot less expensive than Wellness Pouches on PFD.   :nod:

Queen Eva eats those. At least, the chicken ones. They are high in carbs, so I call them her McDonalds. :lol3:

 

[vball91]

There's a new petition in the works to the FDA requesting that carrageenan be removed from our food supply.

Interesting reading here http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Carrageenan-Report1.pdf

Petition here http://www.cornucopia.org/carrageenanfda/

 

[ldg]

Thank you for this!!! Signed.