Joined
·
26 Posts
I just don't get it, Taste of the Wild is a very popular and beloved brand, yet they have a terrible recall history. Why do people love this brand?
Why is Taste of the Wild such a beloved brand when they have a bad history?
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
There was a voluntary recall in 2012. Theres no reason to assume that will automatically lead to another. There aren't many brands that have never had a recall.
It's popular because it's a moderately-priced dog food that works for a lot of dogs, including mine.
It's popular because it's a moderately-priced dog food that works for a lot of dogs, including mine.
Joined
·
364 Posts
Taste of the Wild doesn't have a terrible recall history. Diamond, the manufacturer, has had quite a few recalls in the past, but I don't think that was anything recent..
Many foods have recalls and I do not think that is a reason to never feed a brand again. For me personally, it all depends on what the food was recalled for and how the company handles their recalls. Everyone has to choose what they themselves are comfortable feeding. Not everyone has an issue with long since past recalls. I've also seen companies who clearly have a repeat issue with their food and should voluntarily recall it, but they have a record of no recalls so they do everything in their power to avoid having to recall it.
Many foods have recalls and I do not think that is a reason to never feed a brand again. For me personally, it all depends on what the food was recalled for and how the company handles their recalls. Everyone has to choose what they themselves are comfortable feeding. Not everyone has an issue with long since past recalls. I've also seen companies who clearly have a repeat issue with their food and should voluntarily recall it, but they have a record of no recalls so they do everything in their power to avoid having to recall it.
Joined
·
26 Posts
Supposedly, Earthborn Holistic was founded in the 1926 and they pride themselves in never having a recall ever because they have serious faith in their quality control.
After doing some research, I see the problem with Taste of the Wild was more with its supplier Diamond, but they haven't had a major recall in years and I think that speaks volumes, but I think it is even more impressive when a company has never had a recall. If you go to dogfoodadvisor.com you can look up recall histories for every brand of dog food and you would be surprised at how many good companies there are that have never had a recall in their entire history.
Purina Dog Chow has been around since 1926, with no recalls in its history. I'd say that's good quality control. The same can be said for most of Purina's dry and canned products.
As to the OP's question, TOTW is trendy and has a wolf on the bag, so no questions will ever be asked about Diamond's shady history. I fed their Chicken Soup brand to a sick cat with no complaints, but a lot of working breeders got the shaft when their dogs started dropping dead from kidney problems about 12 years ago. As I recall, hundred of complaints to Diamond fell on deaf ears for a year or more. I personally don't trust the brand and wouldn't feed anything manufactured by them again.
Joined
·
26 Posts
That's actually not true.
Purina had a recall on both their Beneful and Pro Plan dog food brands in March of 2016. Prior to this they had a had a recall in August of 2013 in regards to their Purina One Beyond brand for salmonella bacteria and these were both listed on dog food advisor.
Other sites list other recalls and Purina overall has terrible ratings, especially when it comes to the quality of their foods.
Here is Dog food advisor's review of the Purina dog food brand:
"Purina Dog Chow Dog Food
The Bottom Line
Judging by its ingredients alone, Purina Dog Chow looks like a below-average dry product.
But ingredient quality by itself cannot tell the whole story. We still need to estimate the product’s meat content before determining a final rating.
The dashboard displays a dry matter protein reading of 24%, a fat level of 11% and estimated carbohydrates of about 57%.
As a group, the brand features an average protein content of 26% and a mean fat level of 11%. Together, these figures suggest a carbohydrate content of 55% for the overall product line.
And a fat-to-protein ratio of about 43%.
Near-average protein. Below-average fat. And above-average carbs when compared to a typical dry dog food.
When you consider the protein-boosting effect of the corn gluten and soybean meals in this recipe and the soybean germ and corn germ meals contained in other recipes, this looks like the profile of a kibble containing a modest amount of meat.
Bottom line?
Purina Dog Chow is a plant-based dry dog food using a modest amount of unnamed meat and bone meal or named by-product meals as its main sources of animal protein, thus earning the brand 1 star."
When you compare this to dog food advisor's review of the Taste of the Wild brand, it is basically and night and day comparison:
"Taste of the Wild Dog Food
The Bottom Line
Judging by its ingredients alone, Taste of the Wild Dog Food looks like an above-average dry product.
But ingredient quality by itself cannot tell the whole story. We still need to estimate the product’s meat content before determining a final rating.
The dashboard displays a dry matter protein reading of 32%, a fat level of 17% and estimated carbohydrates of about 43%.
As a group, the brand features an average protein content of 32% and a mean fat level of 18%. Together, these figures suggest a carbohydrate content of 42% for the overall product line.
And a fat-to-protein ratio of about 57%.
Above-average protein. Above-average fat. And below-average carbs when compared to a typical dry dog food.
When you consider the protein-boosting effect of the pea products, garbanzo beans, brewers yeast and flaxseed in this recipe, and the potato protein contained in other recipes, this looks like the profile of a kibble containing a moderate amount of meat.
Bottom line?
Taste of the Wild is a plant-based dry dog food using a moderate amount of named meat meals as its main sources of animal protein, thus earning the brand 4.5 stars.
Highly recommended."
On consumer affairs, Purina Pet Foods currently holds a 2.7 rating out of over 155 votes while the Taste of the Wild brand has a 4.3 rating out of over 729 reviews.
Now when I started this thread I like you thought that Taste of the Wild had a very bad reputation, but it turns out they actually have a stellar reputation beating out premium high quality brands like Wellness, Merrick, Blue Buffalo, and Nature's Variety. They have only had one recall in their entire history and that was back in 2012. While it is true that Diamond manufacturers their food, Diamond currently has a pretty good reputation as well, at least if consumer affairs is any indication. A lot of their foods have scored pretty high on sites like dog food advisor as well.
I will honestly never know why people continue to feed their pets brands like Pedigree, Purina, Science Diet, Royal Canin etc. You see vets always pushing this stuff and it makes me wonder if some vets actually even care about your pets or just making money from kickbacks. I had a vet one time who was really pushing my dog to eat Science Diet and when I asked why, he said that he "believed in the science of how it was made"...
It is perfectly true, because Dog Chow is not the same product, nor does it have anything approaching the same ingredients as Beneful, Pro Plan or Purina One. They just happen to be made by the same company. It is technically the original dry kibbled food, because before that, dog diets were in powdered meal form. In 1926, the dry Dog Chow "checkers" were introduced, and that brand has not been recalled once since its inception.
Right off the bat I'll say that I have been in dogs for over 30 years and give no credence to Dog Food Adviser or any other "starred" dog food rating sites on the internet. Your own statement, however, contradicts that of DFA, because if I'm not mistaken, that website states their ratings are not based on quality, but mainly on amount of meat in the food, or so called "controversial" ingredients. The higher the meat content, the higher DFA's rating. This is dangerous because a food with 18% protein that uses good quality ingredients, is produced by a brand with a reliable history or uses feeding trials will automatically receive a 1 or 2 star rating, while foods that exceed the safe requirement of protein and minerals will automatically receive 5 stars. There are highly rated foods on that site with over 40% protein, which I would consider unsafe for long term feeding even to a cat (i.e. obligate carnivore).
Because those foods WORK. They give tangible results, the dogs are healthy, the owners don't go broke feeding them and the dogs live long lives. I never had a single Vet push any brand of dog food on me since owning my first dog in 1983. A Vet sees a dog in good condition, and figures the owner knows what they're doing, end of story. I trained dogs professionally and bred spaniels for gun dog trials for over 10 years, so I know from experience the difference between a food with science behind it and one with a fancy looking ingredient list is like night and day. Clients and former client's dogs on high protein/calcium/phosphorous foods long term have such a high rate of osteosarcoma that I've begged people not to feed such things to large or medium breed dogs. In the past 18 months, three friends and clients of mine have lost or currently have dogs with bone cancer; dogs ranging from 40-60lbs. I can remember when this cancer was rare, and almost always struck Rotties and other giant breeds. These are not very old dogs either, ranging from 9-12 years old. Their expensive food did not buy them a better, longer life. That is not even mentioning the possible issues with grain free foods the FDA is now looking into. The question is, why would anyone feed one of those untested foods that are formulated by fly by night companies looking to dip their toe into the Big Business of dog food. With people willing to spend $80+ on a bag of dry kibble, why should I trust some of those brands rated so highly by DFA are not just jumping on the money train?
Anyway, I've always found Purina to be reliable, and never had an issue whenever I fed it. At my training facility, we used to feed Dog Chow exclusively, probably to upwards of 40 dogs at once. A bad food must cause problems by virtue of it being low quality or imbalanced in some way. It cannot give good results, at least not long term, but we saw good results with it consistently. That's why I fed it once, that's why I'm using Purina again after a several year hiatus with another brand, and that's why so many people continue to use it.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
