Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

Why is Taste of the Wild such a beloved brand when they have a bad history?

1525 Views 7 Replies 5 Participants Last post by  Barklee
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?
1 - 2 of 8 Posts
Are there any brands that have been around for more than a couple years that haven't had any recalls?

IMO not all recalls are created equal. TotW's was for salmonella, iirc, which isn't even particularly dangerous for dogs.


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.
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.

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.



Other sites list other recalls and Purina overall has terrible ratings, especially when it comes to the quality of their foods.
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).


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"...

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.
See less See more
1 - 2 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top