Settlement: Expensive food does NOT extend the life of dogs (lab, clean)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WE buy Merrick brand dog food. It may not extend my little girls life but it won't kill her like some of the cheap crap. I lost 2 of my babies to cancer causing melamine from China that was included in the formula for protein. If I could have found the SOB that included it, I would now be in jail. For me and my kid, it's USA made and all ingredients are from the USA or she'll be eating what I eat. As of now, it's Merrick or nothing.
The more expensive grain free foods may not cause a dog to live longer but I know my dogs have been healthier and I have not had any skin issues in dogs that have eaten grain free food. I have known lots of dogs on the cheaper grocery store brands that suffer skin issues and owners end up spending a lot more on vet bills then I do on food.
Years ago with Jazz and Dash my vet asked me what I used to bathe them as he was so impressed with their healthy skin and glossy coats. ( Here in Santa Barbara many dogs get what they call the Santa Barbara itch so vets were use to seeing dogs with skin issues) I told him the dogs had not had a bath for over a year as unless they stink I do not bathe them but instead I felt it was what they ate that gave them the healthy skin and glossy coats. Learned a lot about how it is what we put in our bodies not on our bodies because of the two of them and yes it does apply to humans too, You really are what you eat!
So maybe they do not live longer but they do live healthier.
Good grief. The title of this thread and the title of the article are both deceptive. The article wasn't talking about ALL "expensive" dog foods, just one very particular brand that practiced questionable advertising.
Presumably this thread title was taken from the title of the article "The arf-ful truth: That pricey dog food won't extend Fido's life". However, the article is referencing a very specific food made by Mars Petcare/Eukaneuba whose advertising claimed that their food allowed a dog to live 30% longer. (If I recall correctly, Eukaneuba is equivalent to Science Diet). So, no, this very specific dog food referenced in the article does not extend a dog's life 30% more.
Good high quality food (expensive or not) is better and healthier for our pets than crap food in the same way we humans are healthier (and thus likely to live longer) if we eat a healthy balanced diet of fresh non-processed foods.
Eukanuba is expensive, but not high quality. This is a link to their "premium performance" food. 2nd ingredient, chicken byproduct meal (something very different from chicken meal, which is a quality ingredient), followed by several grain ingredients... bleh.
I use the costco grain-free. It's cheap and the dogs do great on it. Good poops and no skin issues. But if they needed something else, I'd cheerfully spend more.
Makes me think of the Purina Incredible Dog Challenge. Virtually none of the competitors would ever feed their dogs Purina foods.
How the neck do you know whether or not a dog food will extend life. My dog died at the age of 14. How old would he have been when he died if I had fed him something else all of his life?
The daily ration for a midsize dog cost just 18 Cents if you choose the best food. If you would choose the worst one, it would cost ten times more.
Almost all such studies reveal that you get better quality if you choose the cheapest option. It's quite nice.
I can't speak to pet food in Germany, but that is absolutely not true in the U.S. This doesn't even begin to make sense just from the most basic standpoint that high-quality ingredients cost more, and since most companies are out to make a buck, their pricing system will pass on their cost to the customer.
Stiftung Warentest which did the testing is roughly the German equivalent of Consumer Reports here. I take these results with a huge grain of salt.
They looked at nutritional content, packaging, contaminants, and caloric value. To my mind, looking at nutritional content is NOT anywhere near close to looking at ingredients or the quality of ingredients, rather it only considers whether a food provides "X" amount of nutrition, not whether that nutrition is derived from healthy sources or not. So, is the protein from chicken/chicken meal or animal by-products; are there unnamed fillers, unnamed by-products, etc? Same old story, nothing new. You can get "nutrients" from a big Mac, but that isn't the same quality of nutrients as eating grilled chicken over a fresh tossed salad.
Last edited by twelvepaw; 08-07-2016 at 02:52 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
