I pulled glyphosate into this? Good grief. The thread is about reported problems with Beneful dog food. YOU're the one who brought up glyphosate:
"Not that I blame the FDA , but GMO food IS toxic - not because it's GMO but because it's loaded with glyphosate , which IS toxic"
And while it hadn't been "incrinimated" by anyone, you sure attempted to do so.
Idiot.
Somebody is lying!
They use red ink for the "artificial" entries. Makes it easeir for trolls to read. ;)
nb
I notice you completely gloss over the fact GMO foods are essentially banned in most of Europe. It's the reason Monsanto withdrew its FDA application for GMO wheat. Zat powerful enough?
As you should. Problem is, in US, there is zero GMO labeling. Gee, I wonder who is responsible for that little --but hotly contested!-- oversight?
nb
notbob wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:
email.me:
They are. Here's a photograph of an actual Nestle ingredient label:
And easier to spot the lies, too...
It's simply not true. GMOs, like everything else in socialist Europe are heavily regulated and approved one at a time. There are many GMOs approved in the EU. Food containing GMO is legal, as long as it's marked. There is no "ban" in most of Europe. The fact that socialists and hippies are screwing around with it, trying to delay it, make it case by case, isn't very compelling evidence as to it's safety. And if it's unsafe, why is it being used in the EU at all?
Yeah, like I can read that!
Where does it say whether or not Nestle's includes GMO foods? Oh! Not required, you say. How convenient.
You have proof? Let's see it. And not some picture of a lable too small to read.
You better pull yer head out. Nestle's is one of the bad guys. Ppl are fighting them, tooth and nail, all around the planet. Got water? If not, it's probably cuz you didn't pay Nestle's enough for it. That, or they jes stole it from you.
nb
Follow the money . 'Nuff said .
Heres my belief........
Nestle beneful knows there dog food is hazardous but is attempting to cover it up.....
GM knew cobalt ignition switches were hazardous but covered it up.
lumber liquidators knew some of their products were hazardous but tried to cover it up.
both car makers and takata knew the airbags were hazardous but covered it up.
.toyota knew their vehicles had runaway acceleration troubles but covered it up.
all of these were finally made public after people died and manufacturers LIED
when companies are only concered with the bottom line and reputation means nothing. it makes covering it up or trying to the best fiancial decision.
add some laws, put a couple CEOs in prison, fiancially devastate some companies and products will be safer for everyone.
The only flaw in that argument is that reputation means everything to the bottom line. Destroying the Purina consumer brand would be about as dumb a thing as one could do. Even if they only cared about the bottom line, the smartest thing they could do would be to quickly correct whatever could be causing the problem. If they changed the formulation to add something, just go back to the previous one. If they changed suppliers, go back to the previous ones, etc. On the other hand, if they really don't know and it's something that's entered via the long list of things that goes into their product, then you can't fix it until you find it.
I'd also note that the FDA has known of this, been tracking it for quite some time too. If it's some poison that's easy to indentify, kind of odd the FDA apparently can't figure it out either.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to find out what's actually wrong, first?
companies find defects, and rather than come clean and fix the problem they decide it cheaper to cover them up.
takata knew for years its airbags were killing people, and even once the info became public, they fought a general recall to save a buck.....
Were you feeding them Beneful and nothing else? That could have been the problem. Dogs should have a variety of foods.
That's certainly true in some cases. In some cases the "fix" could involve hundreds of millions, for example recalling cars. In that case, I can see motive to try to avoid a recall. But even that doesn't explain what happened at GM, for example. They knew they had some kind of problem with the ignition switches moving too easily to the off position. Your profit explanation is a reasonable explanation of why they didn't do a recall earlier. But it doesn't explain why they kept using the same switch for many more years. The only thing that had to be done was have a pin that was 1/8" longer in the switch. Certainly a profit motive doesn't explain their failure to at least fix it moving forward.
The problem with the Beneful thing is that I don't see reason to believe that a fix would cost them anything. The product was OK for a long time. Just go back to making it like they used to make it. And if they know what the problem is, but are covering it up, it has the liklihood of severely impacting the whole company as dogs continue to die, get sick etc. It just doesn't make sense to me that they know what it is, but won't fix it and are going to continue to make a deadly product. It's possible, but it doesn't seem too likely. It seems more likely that they can't figure out what it is either. The FDA knows about it, so far apparently they either haven't looked into it or if they have, they don't know what's causing it either.
So did the govt and they let it go on. The problem with Takata may be similar to the problem with Beneful. My understanding is that to this day no one knows what the exact cause of the problem is. They thought it was excess humidity on the factory floor, then something else, etc. And one aspect of that whole scenario that made no sense to me was the auto companies were recalling cars based on where they were registered on the theory that they were only likely to misfire and cause injury in states that were hot and humid. And again, the govt is OK with that. So, the same car in FL gets recalled, if it's in MD, it does not.
I see a couple Senators are getting involved in the Beneful thing now. Maybe they can at least get some more attention on it at the FDA.
In our case I have a just opened 30 pound bag that appears to make our 5 dogs ill.
yet beneful refuses to test it for toxins,
toxicity could come from something in the bags material, some idiot poisoning in the supply chain etc.
they should get as many samples as possible, compare production locations, ship and manufacturer dates to see where the source might be from.
instead they refuse to do anything but a visual inspection...
remember the tylenol scare. idiots were adding poision to the bottles. perhaps beneful doesnt want more expensive packaging?
our dogs always had beneful, but have a varied tasty food.
liver, fresh boneless chicken breasts etc
That's what they said they would do with your product. Do you know that they haven't already tested hundreds or thousands of samples of their product that was returned where dogs died, were hospitalized, etc? That is samples that should be even more probative? This has been going on for quite some time, no? If you were the manufacturer, would you spend your time lab testing one more sample from a case with mild symptoms or would you be trying to figure out other strategies to pursue with what you already have? If I tested a lot of product already, I'm not sure I'd send out more to do the same tests that show nothing. I'd be looking at what they haven't tested for in what they have from cases where dogs died, autopsies had been done, etc. In other workds, I'd be looking more closely at samples from severe cases. And I'd be looking at anything that changed in their formula, sourcing, etc that could account for it. I agree the visual inspection makes no sense.
Anything is possible, but this looks more like a possible contamination of something in one of the supply streams. That's been the experience so far with similar problems. If it was a common poison, done intentionally, seems likely they would have found it by now. And it's going on all over the country, isn't it? Seems unlikely it's someone tampering with the product. You would certainly think they've looked at whether it's product from one factory, one distribution center, etc. They almost certainly have and can't pin it down. The alternative that you suspect is that they know, just want to deny it and not even correct whatever it takes to fix it. That seems unlikely to me, but anything is possible.
| > They are. Here's a photograph of an actual Nestle ingredient label: | >
It's also apparently 2 years old, as well, and doesn't match any of the items on the page you linked. (I also got my info there. It's surprising how much variation there is among products. Some of them even still include hydrogenated fat.) But Doug Miller is unusually rude, uncommunicative and just happened to have a picture handy, so I'm guessing he has some kind of personal interest in Nestle's reputation.
| Where does it say whether or not Nestle's includes GMO foods?
This is going a bit OT, but I came across a very interesting Consumer Reports article last week. Unusually, it was available for download:
They tested processed foods labeled organic and/or GMO. The gist of the result was:
But with many foods in that category there's no reason to think they're particularly edible in the first place: Kelloggs, General Mills (GM and Nature Valley), Frito-Lay (Doritos), etc. Those are all factory food companies.
notbob wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:
I didn't have any problem reading it.
We were talking about whether it contains artificial ingredients.
I'm sorry. I missed the part where you were appointed god of this newsgroup and specifically forbade anyone expanding on the subject.
Troll.
nb
Why yes, I'm sure Doug who's been here for years has a new job as a shill for Nestles. They hired him this afternoon.
The specific claim you made was that Nestle chips use "artifical flavoring". So why the segue now into GMO? But even that is pretty dumb. If you look at the ingredients for their chocolate chips WTF is GMO? Cacao? Would be the first. You made the claim that Nestle used artifical flavoring in their chocolate chips. The fact that you;re now talking about everything except that, is pretty much proof that Doug is right.
Only because you're desperately trying to evade.
but I came across a very
Rest of irrelevant GMO drivel deleted.
You hippies are something else.
"Mayayana" wrote in news:me4sl5$g3p$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Fine, don't take my word for it. Go to a grocery store, pick up a bag of Nestle chocolate chips, and look at the ingredients list yourself.
No artificial flavorings.
Either you're a liar, or you're mindlessly repeating what some other liar said.
nutjob wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:
Come back after you've done something about that reading comprehension problem.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.