TruthaboutPetFood.com

This is just more proof that P&G has no intention to do the right thing. Shame on Natura for not forcing them to remove their name, but I guess they sold their souls for easy money too.

I believe anytime you give exclusive sponsorship, you limit your objectivity and openness to the truth to some extent. NO PET FOOD COMPANY DESERVES MY TRUST WHEN IT COMES TO THE LIVES OF MY PRECIOUS KITTIES.

In stressing that point, in reality, most of us rely on these companies to feed our pets but we must stay vigilant and watch them carefully. If sponsorship is given, they must be free to reject that same company if they go down that evil road of greed. Do people have the courage anymore to say no to free dollars? It seems not possible to me.

Proctor and Gamble will NEVER have your pets' best interest in mind. Only profits through by-products and other harmful, useless ingredients. I would sooner let my kitties live outside to hunt for themselves than feed them that crap. It may be a shorter but a more justified life for them, in spite of the horrible pain I would endure by it, worrying and such.

I may be in the minority on this, but I don't think any veterinary organization should be "supported" by a pet food company/supplier. IMHO, from what I have been told by a number of vets, not enough nutrition and for that matter behaviour problem-handling is currently taught in Veterinary Colleges. With the lack of training etc, many vets support the companies that show up at their door first, NOT the ones best for our pets, As an example how many vets still blindly support Science Diet even thru the yrs that ethoxoquin was put into SC foods! Many human doctors no longer accept any "perks" from drug companies because of the ethics involved -veterinarians certainly have their ethics too. BTW my vet does sell SC & Iams junk, but he is constantly asking me what I feed my dogs due to health and beautiful coats -he wants to learn.

Lest anybody was waffling in their belief that P&G would destroy the Natura brands, this should have sealed the deal.

P&G - makers of Iams "Healthy Naturals", which includes such "natural" and "healthy" ingredients as chicken by-product meal, monosodium phosphate, insotol and fructooligosaccharide (copied directly form their ingredients list) - could never in their right minds support anything with the word "holistic" anywhere near its title.

Not to say that profits are bad, or that corporations shouldn't pursue them. Champion Petfoods is plenty profitable. The issue is whether your corporate philosophy is to make a quality product, or whether to spend the money you would have spent on quality on advertizing - on paying David Duchovony to go on TV and say "dogs rule".

This decision is an outgrowth of what I'm sure will be P&G's modus operandi going forward. Buy TV time and tell people the food is healthy, rather than spend money and make the food actually be healthy.

I agree with Ann.

It would be far better if ALL petfood companies were charged a levy by the government that was put into a fund administered by a board of university  representatives (academics/lecturers and students) who then made annual donations to those veterinary universities according to size and need. Universitites who required donations for specific projects in addition to their annual share of the pot could submit applications to the board for consideration.

These blind handouts of cash with food for the recipients' pets is nothing short of bribery and should be outlawed.

The owners of Natura sold because they retired.  So far none of the ingredients have changed so why not give it a chance.  I admit I am a bit nervous myself but at one time I worked as one of their CSR's and they built a wonderful business on its amazing product.  They were real and super honest, pet loving people.  

Call their 800# if you have questions or concerns.  You can also email them. 

thanks!