Bakers & Pedigree...

...say they are 'excellent' dog foods...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/10581715/Battle-lines-drawn-over-the-nations-favourite-dog-food.html

List of E numbers in Bakers, as well as their dangers/risks:

E102 (Tartrazine) - Trial on 76 children, who diagnosed as hyperactive, showed that tartrazine provoked abnormal behaviour patterns in almost 80% of them. Linked to a large number of allergies. Banned in Norway and Austria.

E104 – Synthetic coal tar. Another of the E numbers that the Hyperactive Children's Support Group recommended be eliminated from the diet of children. Banned in Australia, Japan, Norway and the United States.

E110 (Sunset Yellow) – Synthetic coal tar. Was found to cause kidney and adrenal damage when fed to laboratory rats. It has also been found to be carcinogenic when fed to animals. Banned in Norway and Finland.

E132 – Has been found to cause skin sensitivity, a rash very similar to nettle rash, irritation/itching, nausea/vomiting, high blood pressure and breathing difficulties. This E number is among the ones that Hyperactive Children's Support Group recommended be eliminated from children's diets. Banned in Norway.

E133 – Often used with E102 (Tartrazine). Recommended to be eliminated from children's diets by the Hyperactive Children’s Support Group. Banned in Argentina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Mauritius, Morocco, Poland, Portugal, Trinidad and Turkey.

E153 - Banned as a food additive in the United States of America and suspected as a carcinogenic agent. Possible that impurities in the colouring may also have contributed. Restricted in Australia.

E171 and E172 – Both banned in Germany. Source of pollution in waters.

E310 (Propyl gallate) - Banned from use in children's foods in the US, as it is suspected to cause methemoglobinemia, a blood disorder, as well as skin and gastric irritation.

E320 (BHA) - found to be tumour-producing when large quantities were fed in trials with rats. In studies conducted on humans, it was linked with urticaria, angioedema and asthma. Prohibited for use in infants’ food. Linked to hyperactivity. McDonalds prohibited use of it in their US products. Banned in Japan. Almost banned in UK, but industry pressure prevented this.

E321 - use in food was banned in Sweden, Japan, Australia and Romania. The US has barred it from being used in baby foods. McDonalds have also eliminated this E number from all of their products.

I would never feed either of them, especially Bakers. As far as I'm concerned, Bakers isn't fit to polish poo, let alone feed a dog.

Before I learned a lot more about this subject from you good people, I thought Bakers was excellent food and both my Dobies were fed it, were always super-fit (apart from Rio's under-active thyroid) and died at 10 and 11 years old, which is average for Dobes. However, they both died of bone cancer and I'd hate to think that in my innocence I'd fed them something carciogenic.

Sensible Kuchar wouldn't look at Bakers, which was when I turned to you guys for help, and learned how to read ingredients lists (indeed, to read them at all!)

btw Caryll, could you delete the first (incorrect) link above because I can't open the second link on its own? Thanks.

cant open the link x

Fixed the link

Well done!

LyndaW wrote:Before I learned a lot more about this subject from you good people, I thought Bakers was excellent food and both my Dobies were fed it, were always super-fit (apart from Rio's under-active thyroid) and died at 10 and 11 years old, which is average for Dobes.  However, they both died of bone cancer and I'd hate to think that in my innocence I'd fed them something carciogenic.

Sensible Kuchar wouldn't look at Bakers, which was when I turned to you guys for help, and learned how to read ingredients lists (indeed, to read them at all!)

btw Caryll, could you delete the first (incorrect) link above because I can't open the second link on its own?  Thanks.

  A lot of people feed their dogs Bakers, but I personally feel that the manufacturing company should be held responsible for that, not the owners who want what's best for their dogs.

I don't think you should blame yourself for your dogs' bone cancer; unfortunately, Dobes are among the top five breeds prone to cancer, so they may have been predisposed to it due to their breed.

Added the list of Bakers E numbers + their risks.

Thanks Eleanor!   

 

So many people have used Bakers & Pedigree, and that's because a) they've been around for a long time, especially Pedigree and b) because they have used very clever advertising.

When we got Dempsey I knew nothing about the nutritional content of commercial food, and still don't know that much to be honest! But we live and learn. Dempsey was given Bakers for about 2 weeks, and he was so hyperactive he was bordering on dangerous! We really thought we had a dog with streak of nastiness in him! The best thing I did was to change him over to raw! It calmed him down very quickly (although he still had the odd 'mad' moment!), and it was months afterwards that I found out just how bad Bakers is.

Dempsey was a menace when he was on Bakers! Little bomb waiting to go off!

Maybe different breeds of dogs, or even just different dogs, react in varying ways to the constituents in foods. I can honestly say that neither of my Dobies were nasty or hyperactive, in fact they were calmer than my current Staffy is! (Except when someone knocked at the door, and then they went bonkers!) But maybe that's the difference between the two breeds.

But, knowing what I know now that some foods are full of chemicals and others are less so, I wouldn't now choose to feed over-engineered and adulterated food. I just hope the Wainwrights Trays aren't too bad in this respect, as it's the only food I've found (although I never tried Pedigree, being long prejudiced against their tinned food) that Kuchar will eat.

Funnily enough, when my babies were weaned onto bottles, I never even considered using a certain brand of baby milk because even then I recognised that the ingredient list looked like an explosion in a chemical factory. Why I never applied that recognition to dog food I'll never know, except that I trusted that dog food suppliers knew what they were doing, nutrition-wise.

I used to work with a company that sold processing and packaging machines, and we were asked to provide a machine that would handle and pack dog food (honestly can't remember the name of the company; it wasn't one of the Big Ones). They provided a list of the "meat" to be handled and it nearly made me heave - amongst much else I remember udders and viscera. Although the list was   it didn't worry me too much at the time because I was always led to believe that in the wild state dogs would always eat the stomach and entrails first of their prey, because that was where they obtained the most nourishment, muscles were left until later.

LyndaW wrote: I just hope the Wainwrights Trays aren't too bad in this respect, as it's the only food I've found (although I never tried Pedigree, being long prejudiced against their tinned food) that Kuchar will eat.  
 

I think the tray wet foods are much better than the tinned & Wainwrights, as far as I know, is a good quality one!

The trouble is, very few people are knowledgeable about dog food ingredients - why should you be when all the blurb tells you that the companies have done all the hard work for you & all you have to do is put the food in the bowl! I had no idea that wheat, for example, wasn't good for dogs. Neither did I ever look at the meat percentage in food. I do now!

I think it does depend on the individual dog and how lucky they are, but as you said, it's different once you know the risks.

Dempsey didn't get nasty as such, but he already had very limited bite inhabitation, as he had to be pretty much hand reared from birth. Because of this, as well as the Bakers, for a couple of weeks his play biting was extreme!

ECdogs wrote:limited bite inhabitation,

  

  

"I think the tray wet foods are much better than the tinned & Wainwrights, as far as I know, is a good quality one!"

You've told me this before Caryll, at another place (!) but it's good to be reassured, especially when Kuchar won't contemplate dry food or raw, so my options have been limited. He certainly seems to be doing well on it, and although he is an excitable little so-and-so (no aggression) I put that down to the boisterousness of his breed and not his food.

If poor little Dempsey had to be hand-reared from birth, no wonder he had limited bite inhibition (what's a typo amongst friends   )

Caryll wrote:

ECdogs wrote:limited bite inhabitation,

  

  

  Oops!

LyndaW wrote:
"I think the tray wet foods are much better than the tinned & Wainwrights, as far as I know, is a good quality one!"

You've told me this before Caryll, at another place (!) but it's good to be reassured, especially when Kuchar won't contemplate dry food or raw, so my options have been limited.  He certainly seems to be doing well on it, and although he is an excitable little so-and-so (no aggression) I put that down to the boisterousness of his breed and not his food.

If poor little Dempsey had to be hand-reared from birth, no wonder he had limited bite inhibition (what's a typo amongst friends   )

Kuchar sounds like a little star!

Yeah, nobody was quite sure why, but he just wouldn't feed from his mother. Two of his siblings (maybe three) died because of the same thing. Perhaps that's why he eats everything and anything now - making up for lost time!   

I hadn't even noticed the typo until it was pointed out! Woopsie!   

I wouldn't go so far as to say Kuchar is a star, Eleanor, although it's kind of you to say so. More of a little monkey than a little star, although I will say that he doesn't have a bad bone (and certainly not an aggressive one) in his body.

It's so sad to hear about Dempsey's siblings, poor little mites. Sounds as if his mother couldn't or wouldn't let down her milk for them.

I'd definitely call him a star! Just looking at your profile picture makes my heart melt!

Strangely enough, I don't think the problem was with the mother. There were three other surviving siblings, none of whom had any difficulties feeding. I think it was probably something wrong with the pups who wouldn't feed. Dempsey does actually have a wonky head, so it could be possible that this didn't allow him to suckle properly at first.

LyndaW wrote:I wouldn't go so far as to say Kuchar is a star, Eleanor, although it's kind of you to say so.  More of a little monkey than a little star, although I will say that he doesn't have a bad bone (and certainly not an aggressive one) in his body.

It's so sad to hear about Dempsey's siblings, poor little mites.  Sounds as if his mother couldn't or wouldn't let down her milk for them.

There were 7 pups. One was born dead, one died soon after. Dempsey & one of his male siblings just wouldn't/couldn't suckle. They were both bottle fed evry 4 hours round the clock, but sadly the other pup also died. Both pups were put to the bitch's teats each time a feed was due, but for some reason they wouldn't latch on.

After a few days Dempsey finally took a drink from his mum, and went from strength to strength then. But he was thoroughly spoilt! He would beat up his much larger siblings, and if one of them growled at him, he was taken out by the breeder's family! So he never really learnt how to play nicely - that was left up to us!

Basically the same as when a pup is removed from its siblings too early. No bite inhibition and a pain in the bum! Took upwards of six months for us to make real progress with him because of it.

Mother Nature is a strange creature isn't she; guess we'll never know exactly why some pups thrive and others tragically don't. Dempsey, despite his early setbacks, was one of the lucky ones.

Very lucky! He's been a relatively healthy dog as well and always manages to make us laugh. Our little miracle!

A little miracle indeed -