News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by ebg13 on Thursday July 04, 2019 @11:40AM (#20355474)
A very good friend of mine who is a laboratory veterinarian once told me that the most important difference between niche brands like these and major players like Purina is that Purina actually dedicates massive resources to longitudinal testing of their products for things like all cause mortality, and hippie brands can't or don't.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by gtirloni on Thursday July 04, 2019 @11:59AM (#20355617)
I can confirm the same happens with Mars products (Whiskas, Pedigree, Royal Canin, etc). They have impressive facilities for that kind of testing.

Disclosure: worked at Mars a few years ago.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by ebg13 on Thursday July 04, 2019 @12:07PM (#20355679)
Yeah, I didn't mean to put Purina specifically on a pedestal as the only company doing it (originally I had this long list and then went ugh they'll probably know what I mean if I just put one).

Just that these "your pet is a wild animal!" emotional insecurity brands slap an AAFCO tag on and call it a day or haven't been around for long enough to have any meaningful data.

Like...animals in the wild don't live very long, yo! Maybe pretending that your Boston Terrier is the king of the jungle isn't so good for him.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by eznoonze on Thursday July 04, 2019 @05:07PM (#20357807)
How many people who feed their pets the cheapest food out there would take their pets to a vet?

Just because the expensive brands get reported more doesn't mean the cheap brands are better.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by kortilla on Friday July 05, 2019 @01:55AM (#20360157)
Most? Recognizing that a cheap food is fine for a dog has no bearing on healthcare.

Feeding your child chicken and rice instead of caviar and brie doesn’t mean you wouldn’t take your child to the hospital for treatments.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by serf on Friday July 05, 2019 @06:04AM (#20361264)
> Most? Recognizing that a cheap food is fine for a dog has no bearing on healthcare.

it's not always the recognition; in some cases it's an indicator of economic capability.

In other words : some people choose to feed their pets with cheap food because it is not economically feasible for them not to.

>Feeding your child chicken and rice instead of caviar and brie doesn’t mean you wouldn’t take your child to the hospital for treatments.

No, but the example can be made significant if you consider an extreme example.

If a family is incapable of providing a constant supply of food to their children and themselves due to economic hardship they're also less likely to pursue healthcare options due to the intrinsic costs of doing so. Travel, copays, time discussing social welfare options, etc. It all costs something.

In other words : the poor are in worse health than those that make more money.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by seandougall on Thursday July 04, 2019 @01:35PM (#20356319)
Our family vet said the same thing. At the time she was personally tracking seven cases of unexplained bladder problems, all of them in dogs who ate Blue Buffalo. This was at a small local practice, not a huge patient base.

There are still the big pet food issues like melamine contamination, but those seem to affect both large and small brands.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by jliptzin on Thursday July 04, 2019 @12:01PM (#20355642)
I also have a good friend who is a vet who laughs at people spending 5x as much on hippie dog food brands that either don’t do anything good or make things worse. He has had 4 dogs all live past 15 and only fed them the cheapest big brand name pet foods.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by Scoundreller on Thursday July 04, 2019 @12:10PM (#20355703)
Sometimes it’s an enterprising vet at fault: oh, your pet has ______ and needs a special diet containing _____, which we just happen to sell and you can’t find at a big box store.

Now the vet has turned your pet into a recurring revenue source beyond labour-intensive checkups.

It’s kinda like Luxxottica: a lot of their brands are only available through brick and mortal clinics. You can’t buy them through an online provider because they won’t sell to them.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by ebg13 on Thursday July 04, 2019 @12:15PM (#20355744)
Every vet will tell you that Hill's Science Diet is an excellent brand that they don't give to their own pets because it's too expensive.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by dehrmann on Thursday July 04, 2019 @01:29PM (#20356278)
The "prescription" version is even worse. You need a "prescription" from your vet to buy it for authorized retailers, but it doesn't actually have any drugs in it that are regulated in a way requiring a prescription. They've been sued over this (but I think they won).

My vet told me to put my cat on it after he had stress-related urinary problems. The problems went away, but the food is stupid-expensive, I'm a little peeved at how the system is taking advantage of me, but I don't know what to switch to other than starting to give my cat tryptophan.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by krageon on Friday July 05, 2019 @03:26AM (#20360531)
Take your pet to a different veterinarian for a second opinion. There has to be at least one that doesn't shill for corporate product and can give you grounded, practical advice.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by jliptzin on Thursday July 04, 2019 @07:42PM (#20358726)
That sounds like a really shitty vet. I would stop going to one who is peddling products to me that I can’t find anywhere else.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by dillonmckay on Thursday July 04, 2019 @02:26PM (#20356717)
There are quite a few online shops selling Luxottica, it is that they use their brick-and-mortar presence as a front for their online business.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by sh-run on Thursday July 04, 2019 @12:36PM (#20355909)
I've got a lab mix who used to have horribly itchy dry skin. Since his coat is black, this also led to visible dandruff in his coat.

I tried several different types of shampoo (and a lack of shampoo), along with a spay on solutions. None of those helped. My vet suggested Iams, but that didn't seem to change anything, so I started using grain free dog food (at first Diamond Naturals) and he quickly improved.

Of course this was nearly 6 years ago, maybe now that he's older he'll be less sensitive.

Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by dole on Friday July 05, 2019 @02:55PM (#20364864)
Did mostly the same, went to Taste of the Wild and the food helped but not entirely. Vet recommended Apoquel and it does a much better job of controlling itching. It does have a usual list of major and minor side effects but so far, so good.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by dorusr on Friday July 05, 2019 @05:35AM (#20361124)
Our dog had wildly differing faeces, in color and consistency. It wasn't healthy. Switched to grain-free feed that's just a tad more expensive than normal feed and she has been healthy ever since, more energetic too.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by rmrfrmrf on Thursday July 04, 2019 @12:13PM (#20355721)
I have a friend who has done the "just get the cheapest thing" for the past few years. Unfortunately, the cheapest has been Rachel Ray Nutrish in the clearance bin, which is on the list.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by fencepost on Thursday July 04, 2019 @02:26PM (#20356712)
Our vet has been just fine with us feeding our cats Friskies wet food and I believe uses that himself, which while not quite the cheapest thing out there is half the price of a lot of other brands. Interestingly a lot of the formerly considered-expensive or medical-suggestion brands are now actually cheaper than the bulk of the available foods, just because their prices didn't change as new brands came into the market.
Re:FDA names dog-food brands with potential link to canine h... by fencepost on Friday July 05, 2019 @09:16PM (#20367106)
Following up a bit for context and using Petsmart as an example, in 5.5-6oz cans there's a store brand at $0.46, Friskies at $0.56, the gourmet version of the store brand at $0.56, Simply Nourish and Authority (another store brand) at $0.89, Evolve at $0.95, some Simply Nourish grain-free options at $0.95 (which likely contain the pea protein that's part of the article's coverage), then you're headed up towards the $1.20 and higher range for the larger cans. Notable at $1.25-1.29 is Science Diet.

If you're looking at the 3oz cans instead, they start around the same $0.45-0.55 range then migrate upwards quickly, so you're typically paying the same as Science Diet for anything except the cheapest of wet foods. At both sizes there are plenty of options that move up into the $2+ range.

It's remarkable to think about the profit margin there has to be on these, particularly when you look at the ingredient lists and find all the "meat by-products," "chicken by-products," "turkey by-products," "fish meal" and the like. For the price per pound of this stuff I might as well be buying them fresh fish, boneless/skinless chicken and the occasional New York strip steak or even a nice filet.