| They are. Here's a photograph of an actual Nestle ingredient label:
| http://techiefather.com/wp-content/u...estle-info.jpg
|
| Yeah, like I can read that!

It's also apparently 2 years old, as well, and doesn't
match any of the items on the page you linked. (I also
got my info there. It's surprising how much variation
there is among products. Some of them even still include
hydrogenated fat.)
But Doug Miller is unusually rude, uncommunicative
and just happened to have a picture handy, so I'm
guessing he has some kind of personal interest in
Nestle's reputation.

| Where does it say whether or not Nestle's includes GMO foods?

This is going a bit OT, but I came across a very
interesting Consumer Reports article last week.
Unusually, it was available for download:

http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/CR...t_10062014.pdf

They tested processed foods labeled organic
and/or GMO. The gist of the result was:

* Organic labeling can generally be trusted as non-GMO.

* Packages labeled "Non-GMO Project Verified" can
generally be trusted as non-GMO.

* Anything else -- natural, GMO-free, etc means
pretty much nothing.

* If it's not organic and it contains soy or corn
in the US, one should assume it's got high GMO
content.

But with many foods in that category there's
no reason to think they're particularly edible in the
first place: Kelloggs, General Mills (GM and Nature
Valley), Frito-Lay (Doritos), etc. Those are all factory
food companies.

notbob wrote in :

On 2015-03-15, Doug Miller wrote:

They are. Here's a photograph of an actual Nestle ingredient label:
http://techiefather.com/wp-content/u...estle-info.jpg

Yeah, like I can read that!

I didn't have any problem reading it.

Where does it say whether or not Nestle's includes GMO foods?

We were talking about whether it contains artificial ingredients.

On 2015-03-15, Doug Miller wrote:

We were talking about whether it contains artificial ingredients.

I'm sorry. I missed the part where you were appointed god of this
newsgroup and specifically forbade anyone expanding on the subject.

Troll.

nb

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:14:01 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| They are. Here's a photograph of an actual Nestle ingredient label:
| http://techiefather.com/wp-content/u...estle-info.jpg
|
| Yeah, like I can read that!

It's also apparently 2 years old, as well, and doesn't
match any of the items on the page you linked. (I also
got my info there. It's surprising how much variation
there is among products. Some of them even still include
hydrogenated fat.)
But Doug Miller is unusually rude, uncommunicative
and just happened to have a picture handy, so I'm
guessing he has some kind of personal interest in
Nestle's reputation.


Why yes, I'm sure Doug who's been here for years has a new
job as a shill for Nestles. They hired him this afternoon.



| Where does it say whether or not Nestle's includes GMO foods?


The specific claim you made was that Nestle chips use "artifical
flavoring". So why the segue now into GMO? But even that
is pretty dumb. If you look at the ingredients for their chocolate
chips WTF is GMO? Cacao? Would be the first. You made the
claim that Nestle used artifical flavoring in their chocolate
chips. The fact that you;re now talking about everything except
that, is pretty much proof that Doug is right.



This is going a bit OT,

Only because you're desperately trying to evade.


but I came across a very
interesting Consumer Reports article last week.
Unusually, it was available for download:

Rest of irrelevant GMO drivel deleted.

You hippies are something else.

"Mayayana" wrote in :

| They are. Here's a photograph of an actual Nestle ingredient label:
| http://techiefather.com/wp-content/u...estle-info.jpg
|
| Yeah, like I can read that!

It's also apparently 2 years old, as well, and doesn't
match any of the items on the page you linked.

Fine, don't take my word for it. Go to a grocery store, pick up a bag of Nestle chocolate chips,
and look at the ingredients list yourself.

No artificial flavorings.

Either you're a liar, or you're mindlessly repeating what some other liar said.

nutjob wrote in :

On 2015-03-15, Doug Miller wrote:

We were talking about whether it contains artificial ingredients.

I'm sorry. I missed the part where you were appointed god of this
newsgroup and specifically forbade anyone expanding on the subject.

Come back after you've done something about that reading comprehension problem.

On 3/15/2015 5:02 PM, trader_4 wrote:

The alternative that you suspect is that they know,
just want to deny it and not even correct whatever it takes to fix it.
That seems unlikely to me, but anything is possible.


Mu view also. We feed it to my grandson's dog with no problems. She
does get other foods to supplement too. Like a scrambled egg every morning.
My wife won't get up at 5:30 to make me breakfast, but the dog gets hers
at 8. Can't say that I blame her. This is a 7 year old, 65# pit bull
that grandson got from someone that could no longer care for her.
Sweetest dog I've ever met. She also makes sure my wife takes a nap
every afternoon.

| Fine, don't take my word for it. Go to a grocery store, pick up a bag of
Nestle chocolate chips,
| and look at the ingredients list yourself.

It's interesting what one can and can't find online.
I was unable to find any ingredients lists at any
Nestle site. But I did find this:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/business...al-ingredients

Nestle was pledging a year ago to remove artificial
flavors and colors (artificial colors?!) from many
of their candies by the end of 2015. Did they? Maybe.
Will I now buy Nestle products? No. I wouldn't consider
it. Aside from political and business issues, and the fact
that at least up until recently they considered artifical
flavors and colors to be proper ingredients of candy,
there's one glaring issue that I happen to find relevant:
their chocolate is almost tasteless compared with good
quality chocolate. Also, some of their products still
appear to have hydrogenated fats. I can't confirm
that, though, because Nestle doesn't seem to want me
to see their ingredients lists.

I generally try to buy food products from local or
known, accountable companies. That's not always
so easy, though. For instance, I've been buying
Muir Glen canned, organic tomatoes because the
cans say they don't contain BPA lining, and because
I don't consider Whole Foods house brands to be
trustworthy. But it turns out that Muir Glen is actually
owned by General Mills. Does GM allow them to make
a decent product? There's no way to know. That's
the problem with factory food. Decisions are made
by businessmen and products are more marketing than
substance. The marketing and
name brands make things very confusing. Coke owns
Honest Tea and Green Mountain Coffee. Pepsi owns
Naked Juice. Post owns Erewhon. Dannon owns Stonyfield
Farms, which owns Brown Cow. (yogurt) It seems the
best indicator of sellout companies is when they suddenly
get good distribution. Which is a case made for the local
food fad.

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:02:57 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
In our case I have a just opened 30 pound bag that appears to make our 5 dogs ill.

yet beneful refuses to test it for toxins,

toxicity could come from something in the bags material, some idiot poisoning in the supply chain etc.

they should get as many samples as possible, compare production locations, ship and manufacturer dates to see where the source might be from.

instead they refuse to do anything but a visual inspection...


That's what they said they would do with your product. Do you
know that they haven't already tested hundreds or thousands of samples of
their product that was returned where dogs died, were hospitalized, etc?
That is samples that should be even more probative?
This has been going on for quite some time, no? If you were the
manufacturer, would you spend your time lab testing one more sample
from a case with mild symptoms or
would you be trying to figure out other strategies to pursue with
what you already have? If I tested a lot of product already, I'm
not sure I'd send out more to do the same tests that show nothing.
I'd be looking at what they haven't tested for in what they have
from cases where dogs died, autopsies had been done, etc. In other
workds, I'd be looking more closely at samples from severe cases.
And I'd be looking at anything that changed in their formula, sourcing,
etc that could account for it. I agree the visual inspection makes no sense.


remember the tylenol scare. idiots were adding poision to the bottles. perhaps beneful doesnt want more expensive packaging?

Anything is possible, but this looks more like a possible contamination
of something in one of the supply streams. That's been the experience
so far with similar problems. If it was a common poison, done intentionally,
seems likely they would have found it by now. And it's going on all over
the country, isn't it? Seems unlikely it's someone tampering with the product.
You would certainly think they've looked at whether it's product from one
factory, one distribution center, etc. They almost certainly have and
can't pin it down. The alternative that you suspect is that they know,
just want to deny it and not even correct whatever it takes to fix it.
That seems unlikely to me, but anything is possible.

THEY CLAIM THERE IS NO PROBLEM AT ALL, AND ITS ALL A SOCIAL MEDIA HYSTERIA.

but when theres this much smoke theres obviously a fire.

in addition they didnt ask for production code numbers on the bags and havent recalled anything'

no doubt they are trying to avoid the costs of recalls, the costs of testing, and the costs of fixing whatever is wrong.

On 03/15/2015 12:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
That's certainly true in some cases. In some cases the "fix" could involve
hundreds of millions, for example recalling cars. In that case, I can
see motive to try to avoid a recall. But even that doesn't explain what
happened at GM, for example. They knew they had some kind of problem with
the ignition switches moving too easily to the off position. Your profit
explanation is a reasonable explanation of why they didn't do a recall
earlier. But it doesn't explain why they kept using the same switch for
many more years. The only thing that had to be done was have a pin that
was 1/8" longer in the switch. Certainly a profit motive doesn't explain
their failure to at least fix it moving forward.

It's not my intent to be insulting but apparently you have never worked
for a large corporation. If you had, you'd know why this scenario could
easily happen.

The Peter Principle is alive and well!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

On 03/15/2015 11:51 AM, bob haller wrote:
companies find defects, and rather than come clean and fix the problem they decide it cheaper to cover them up.

takata knew for years its airbags were killing people, and even once the info became public, they fought a general recall to save a buck.....

Exactly! This situation is even worse because it only involves animals.
My God, look at the abuse that has been occuring in factory farming for years.
You think these greedy assholes care about Rover or Fifi?

On 03/15/2015 10:19 AM, notbob wrote:
As you should. Problem is, in US, there is zero GMO labeling. Gee, I
wonder who is responsible for that little --but hotly contested!--
oversight?

In the US, you can assume that everything contains GMO ingredients except
foods labeled organic. FWIW, if it is not labeled organic, I don't buy it.

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 4:35:14 AM UTC-4, Mac wrote:
On 03/15/2015 12:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
That's certainly true in some cases. In some cases the "fix" could involve
hundreds of millions, for example recalling cars. In that case, I can
see motive to try to avoid a recall. But even that doesn't explain what
happened at GM, for example. They knew they had some kind of problem with
the ignition switches moving too easily to the off position. Your profit
explanation is a reasonable explanation of why they didn't do a recall
earlier. But it doesn't explain why they kept using the same switch for
many more years. The only thing that had to be done was have a pin that
was 1/8" longer in the switch. Certainly a profit motive doesn't explain
their failure to at least fix it moving forward.

It's not my intent to be insulting but apparently you have never worked
for a large corporation. If you had, you'd know why this scenario could
easily happen.


Seventeen years at a Fortune 100 company in engineering, marketing
and sales. And we never did what was being alleged here. We did
have product returned for failure analysis on rare occasions. We
analyzed it to find out why it failed. The analysis wasn't cheap,
it included electron microscopy when necessary. A very few of those
turned out to be something that was due to something that had gone
wrong on our end. If it affected other customers, we informed them
and gave them options to return product, etc. It was rare, but we
did it right. Not only was it the right thing from a moral perspective,
but we weren't going to destroy the whole company image, lose customers,
etc.



The Peter Principle is alive and well!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

Sure, it's possible that all the upper management at Purina and Nestle
are really, really dumb. But I tend to doubt it. This is now at the
level where it's in the media, top management knows about it. It would
be really dumb to continue to ship product that you know is killing dogs
and thereby destroy the whole brand. They even have a class action law
suit now. If the alleged poison is so easy to identify as some here think,
there will be powerful, damning evidence in court. What's that going to
do to the Purina brand? And if Purina knows what's causing it, the
further damage moving forward could be eliminated by some steps that
would cost them almost nothing, eg change ingredient, switch suppliers....
Also factor in the potential disaster of the cloud spreading to their
other products at Nestle itself.
And if the poison is so obvious, easy to find with a test, where exactly
is the FDA? Are they part of the cover-up too?

When the situation was at this stage with the GM ignition switch, with
the deadly air bags, the companies had admitted there was a problem and
were taking steps to correct it. So, it's possible Purina knows what's
going on and is going on a path of self-destruction, but I tend to doubt it.
My bet would be that whatever it is, if it's there, it's not easy to
identify what it is.

On 3/16/2015 12:26 AM, bob haller wrote:

THEY CLAIM THERE IS NO PROBLEM AT ALL, AND ITS ALL A SOCIAL MEDIA HYSTERIA.

but when theres this much smoke theres obviously a fire.

in addition they didnt ask for production code numbers on the bags and havent recalled anything'

no doubt they are trying to avoid the costs of recalls, the costs of testing, and the costs of fixing whatever is wrong.


I don't see the fire. Lots of allegations, but has anyone offered any
proof? Any lab test results? Bad ingredients? What would the basis for
a recall be?

Sounds a bit like the old mashed potato story. My grandfather ate
mashed potatoes and the next day he was dead.

I'm not proclaiming their innocence, but I've not seen hard evidence of
a problem. Surely, soone would have had a cause.

trader_4 wrote:
Not that I blame the FDA , but GMO food IS toxic - not because
it's GMO but because it's loaded with glyphosate , which IS toxic .
Don't have the link at hand but I read an article about a pig farmer
in Europe Netherlands
that stopped feeding GOM feed to his pigs and a number of problems
he had
disappeared . Yup , empirical evidence , but still ... you won't
catch me using that stuff on anything my family eats , and I'll buy
non-GMO when I can .

--
Snag

Sure, anecdotal report of one pig farmer, there you go..... What
powerful evidence. And curiously, if it's glyphosate that's causing
the alleged Beneful problem, why exactly is it apparently confined to
Beneful and not all the other pet foods that also use all kinds of
grains? Good grief. If it was that, one would expect widespread
problems across all kinds of pet food.

A little light reading for you.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/I..._04_Seneff.pdf

Bob F wrote:
trader_4 wrote:
Snag wrote :
Not that I blame the FDA , but GMO food IS toxic - not because
it's GMO but because it's loaded with glyphosate , which IS toxic .
Don't have the link at hand but I read an article about a pig farmer
in Europe Netherlands
that stopped feeding GOM feed to his pigs and a number of problems
he had
disappeared . Yup , empirical evidence , but still ... you won't
catch me using that stuff on anything my family eats , and I'll buy
non-GMO when I can .

--
Snag

Sure, anecdotal report of one pig farmer, there you go..... What
powerful evidence. And curiously, if it's glyphosate that's causing
the alleged Beneful problem, why exactly is it apparently confined to
Beneful and not all the other pet foods that also use all kinds of
grains? Good grief. If it was that, one would expect widespread
problems across all kinds of pet food.

A little light reading for you.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/I..._04_Seneff.pdf

Gee trader , it looks like I'm not the only one that thinks glyphosate is
bad for humans and other living creatures ... FWIW , and this really is
anecdotal , my wife started having extreme digestive problems around the
same time they started using GMO corn doused with glyphosate . She cannot
eat corn or any corn products any more , soda with corn syrup as a sweetener
will have her doubles over in pain and running to the bathroom within
minutes of ingestion , and it lasts for several hours . Store bought breads
often cause similar problems , particularly white bread , and that also
began around the time they started "dessicating" wheat with that stuff .
You'll never convince me that glyphosate is not involved with her problems
..
--
Snag

"Bob F" writes:
trader_4 wrote:
Not that I blame the FDA , but GMO food IS toxic - not because
it's GMO but because it's loaded with glyphosate , which IS toxic .
Don't have the link at hand but I read an article about a pig farmer
in Europe Netherlands
that stopped feeding GOM feed to his pigs and a number of problems
he had
disappeared . Yup , empirical evidence , but still ... you won't
catch me using that stuff on anything my family eats , and I'll buy
non-GMO when I can .

--
Snag

Sure, anecdotal report of one pig farmer, there you go..... What
powerful evidence. And curiously, if it's glyphosate that's causing
the alleged Beneful problem, why exactly is it apparently confined to
Beneful and not all the other pet foods that also use all kinds of
grains? Good grief. If it was that, one would expect widespread
problems across all kinds of pet food.

A little light reading for you.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/I..._04_Seneff.pdf



Ah, but Dr. Seneff is widely known to confuse correlation with
causation. A quick google search on her name is illustrative.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...yone-autistic/
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives...glyphosate.php

"Mayayana" wrote in news:me5ejm$bh7$1@dont-
email.me:

| Fine, don't take my word for it. Go to a grocery store, pick up a bag of
Nestle chocolate chips,
| and look at the ingredients list yourself.

It's interesting what one can and can't find online.

Yes, it sure is. Especially interesting is what you can't find, when you're not looking for it.

I was unable to find any ingredients lists at any
Nestle site.

You didn't look very hard, then.
https://www.verybestbaking.com/produ...se-semi-sweet-
chocolate-morsels/

NB: verybestbaking.com *is* a Nestle site.

But I did find this:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/business...al-ingredients

Nestle was pledging a year ago to remove artificial
flavors and colors (artificial colors?!) from many
of their candies by the end of 2015.

Totally irrelevant, of course -- you claimed that Nestle's chocolate chips contain artificial
flavors. "Candies" is not the same as chocolate chips, which are baking ingredients.

I believe beneful had had troubles for years, in a minor way. management hunkerd down and ignored the problems succesfully.

now for unknown reasons the problems size has grown exponentially, and managements hunker down response isnt working.

soon nestle beneful will act as though this is a brand new problem and steps will be taken to address the issue.

if for no other reason, while this can destroy the beneful brand it can damage the purina brand and can effect the parent company purina.

right now management is no doubt wondering what shall we do?

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:04:34 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

I have fed my dogs beneful forever, perhaps 20 years.
anyhow my dogs were acting wierd, throwng up a lot and lethargic.

As an animal lover, I want to Thank You for posting this.
http://tinyurl.com/o3h9fzw
Confirms this is NOT a hoax!

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/16/2015 12:26 AM, bob haller wrote:

THEY CLAIM THERE IS NO PROBLEM AT ALL, AND ITS ALL A SOCIAL MEDIA HYSTERIA.

but when theres this much smoke theres obviously a fire.

in addition they didnt ask for production code numbers on the bags and
havent recalled anything'

no doubt they are trying to avoid the costs of recalls, the costs of
testing, and the costs of fixing whatever is wrong.


I don't see the fire. Lots of allegations, but has anyone offered any
proof? Any lab test results? Bad ingredients? What would the basis for a recall be?

Sounds a bit like the old mashed potato story. My grandfather ate mashed
potatoes and the next day he was dead.

I'm not proclaiming their innocence, but I've not seen hard evidence of a
problem. Surely, soone would have had a cause.

I posted a test.

Greg

Several weeks after a lawsuit filed in California claimed that thousands of dogs became ill or died after eating Purina's Beneful kibble, two senators are urging the Food & Drug Administration to open an investigation into the allegations.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, along with California Senator Dianne Feinstein, sent a letter [PDF] to the FDA calling for the agency to quickly investigate claims that Purina PetCare Company's Beneful brand dry dog food contains toxins.
The senators also called for immediate updates on the implementation of FDA requirements that could prevent such harmful contamination from occurring in pet foods.
In late February, it was revealed that a California man had filed a class action-seeking lawsuit against Purina saying the company's dry dog food contains substances that are known to be toxic to animals and can lead to internal bleeding and other serious health issues for pets.
The man alleges that less than a month after beginning to exclusively feed his dogs Beneful dry kibble, all three became ill and his 8-year-old English Bulldog eventually died.
According to the lawsuit, illnesses experienced by thousands of dogs across the country were a result of toxins in Beneful such as, but not limited to, Propylene glycol and Mycotoxins.
Propylene glycol, the lawsuit states, is an automotive antifreeze component that is a known animal toxin. However, the substance is also an FDA-approved food additive for humans.
As for Mycotoxins, the lawsuit states they are a group of toxins produced by fungus that occurs in grains.
Representatives for Purina have said that the lawsuit was "without merit" and that the company would vigorously defend itself.
In their letter to the FDA, Durbin and Feinstein are asking for updates to the agency's implementation of a 2007 law enacted to help prevent contaminated pet food from reaching animals.
Under the 2007 law, the FDA is required to ensure that pet food companies report to the agency within 24 hours of determining they have an adulterated product in their supply chain.
Additionally, the law requires the FDA to set ingredient and processing standards for pet food, strengthen labeling requirements, establish early warning systems for contaminated products and mandate that companies report contaminated food and make key records available during investigations.
"The components of the law that FDA has implemented are important to the public and veterinarians, namely the searchable online recall list posted on the agency's website," the letter states. "We appreciate that FDA has implemented an online database to inform consumers of pet food recalls. However, eight years later, most provisions of the pet food safety law have not been implemented and protections Congress enacted are not in place."
Tell a friend:

| I posted a test.
|
| OK, I must have missed it. What did it say?
|
|

I think we all missed it because he just posted
a link with no explanation. See his two posts below.
It's apparently a test for particular toxins, especially
fungus, but without much explanation.

On 3/17/2015 3:22 AM, gregz wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/16/2015 12:26 AM, bob haller wrote:

THEY CLAIM THERE IS NO PROBLEM AT ALL, AND ITS ALL A SOCIAL MEDIA HYSTERIA.

but when theres this much smoke theres obviously a fire.

in addition they didnt ask for production code numbers on the bags and
havent recalled anything'

no doubt they are trying to avoid the costs of recalls, the costs of
testing, and the costs of fixing whatever is wrong.


I don't see the fire. Lots of allegations, but has anyone offered any
proof? Any lab test results? Bad ingredients? What would the basis for a recall be?

Sounds a bit like the old mashed potato story. My grandfather ate mashed
potatoes and the next day he was dead.

I'm not proclaiming their innocence, but I've not seen hard evidence of a
problem. Surely, soone would have had a cause.

I posted a test.

Greg


OK, I must have missed it. What did it say?

Jerry says the fact that the senate is calling for an investigation
proves it is not a hoax. Maybe it should be investigated, but it proves
nothing. Seems simple enough to prove that toxins are in the food.
Maybe what you posted did?

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:57:59 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Jerry says the fact that the senate is calling for an investigation
proves it is not a hoax. Maybe it should be investigated, but it proves
nothing. Seems simple enough to prove that toxins are in the food.
Maybe what you posted did?

An allegation doesn't make it so. Investigating an allegation may be
necessary.

There is a difference between innocence and not guilty.

I agree with you. If pet food is questionable - don't feed it to pets.

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:59:46 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

The man alleges

Enough said! Proof is in the puddin'

bob haller wrote in
:

Several weeks after a lawsuit filed in California claimed that
thousands of dogs became ill or died after eating Purina's Beneful
kibble,

I wonder if there's a problem with the Purina cat food? I've been feeding
that to my cats for years. Maybe I'd better change.

TIA


--
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.

On 17 Mar 2015 17:39:14 GMT, KenK wrote:

I wonder if there's a problem with the Purina cat food? I've been feeding
that to my cats for years. Maybe I'd better change.

TIA

Check out PETSMART or is it pets mark

KenK wrote:
bob haller wrote in
:

Several weeks after a lawsuit filed in California claimed that
thousands of dogs became ill or died after eating Purina's Beneful
kibble,

I wonder if there's a problem with the Purina cat food? I've been feeding
that to my cats for years. Maybe I'd better change.

TIA



Me too, but I feed them both soft and hard food, and of course cat snacks.
My older cat stopped liking what i bought for years. Found only one type of
purina they like. I'm sure mold and fungus.problems can exist and be
random.

Greg