[Jill S]

It’s alarming and disheartening to know you can’t trust the label of a product sold in the United States. My heart goes out to the owner who lost her precious dog, but as with any chew type treat, always supervise your dog. When I offer my two German Shepherds a bully stick I stay in the same room with them. If I need to leave the room I either take the treat away or call for my husband to sit with them.

[aimee]

Hi Jill,

I just want to clarify that the dog that passed was in the same room with the owner and was lying right next to the owner at her feet and was being watched. Th owner acted immediately.

When I read things like “supervise” I wonder what does that mean? For example, it is oft recommended to supervise all child and dog interactions. yet many bites occur while the child and dog are being “supervised”. This is because the person supervising hasn’t been educated on what types of interactions are inappropriate or on recognizing canine signaling that indicates the dog is uncomfortable.

There are plenty of child /dog videos posted by well meaning individuals in which the child is clearly in danger but the person filming doesn’t see it. Similarly, I’ve seen plenty of videos of dogs chewing on chews and the person filming their dog doesn’t “see” the danger present.

For me, my rules are that my dog can neither get the entire length or width of the product into the mouth if it is made of a material that is not expected to easily fracture into many small consumable pieces. The dog owner team must have an impeccable “drop” cue in the “toolbox” so that recovering a chew is not stressful to the dog or owner.

[anonymous]

Yup, supervise all you want, it doesn’t prevent bad stuff from happening.
Broken teeth/infection, may not notice it right away. Bowel obstruction that doesn’t show up till a few days later, yes, finely ground up bone can cause this.

/forums/topic/antlers-a-safe-alternative-to-bones/#post-98128

[AlexT11]

There is something missing here…I do believe these chews are not rawhide but there is a process the company is being very deceptive in not disclosing it .

What I see interesting is the way they are hidding the real process of making these chews, I mean…just as @aimee has described about the connection between the guaranteed analysis and ingredients….they just do not match.

It can’t be a rice based product. Rice is a high carb ingredient and they are reporting carb contents as only 5% (even being second on the list). Another hint…there is no way that you could obtain a fiber-like sheet by compressing brown rice and gelatin (not rawhide enzyme-treated), besides brown rice flour gives a dark gray tone.

There is a product at Sam’s, “Hide Free Chews”:
https://www.samsclub.com/p/chicken-chews-10-ct-rawhide-free/prod23390967

The pieces look very much as “No-Hide” by Earth Animal, at much lower cost, the ingredient line up is similar (all natural ingredients), my dog LOVES them although they do not last quite long as rawhide but they last decent amount of time and there is no doubt the ingredients deck is congruent with the guaranteed analysis for the same base ingredients.

[aimee]

Hi AlexT11,

I hadn’t seen the Sam’s club rawhide free rolls before. They have the same ingredient line up and Guaranteed Analysis as Dentley’s rawhide free retriever rolls. The Dentley’s product ,like the Sam’s club product, is labeled as being a product of Mexico. Maybe they are the same????

The Dentley’s product looks like a roll but after soaking I can’t unroll it. I suspect it is an injection molded product made to look like a roll. It eventually breaks down in boiling water whereas the Ole Roy product dissolves quite quickly. I wonder if it could be that the Ole Roy product has a higher gelatin content than the Dentley’s( min 60% protein in the Ole Roy vs min 20% in the Dentley’s ) Gelatin melts at about 95 degrees.

[AlexT11]

Hey Aimee,

yes they are the same, but I found the best offer per chew at Sam’s.

Gelatin melting points exist in a small temperature range, but it is also known that it depends on gelatin grades and concentrations.

I’ve made the water test too, pieces of No-Hide chews immersed in water are still intact (for weeks) on the other hand, chunks of hide free chews dissolved in a day in the same pure water.

Ol’ Roys are made in Asia, if I’m not wrong…China to be precise, higher gelatin contents into a chew of that nature seems too much for me but who knows, so to speak…you can always expect anything from Chinese inventions.

[aimee]

Hi AlexT11,

Gelatin melting temps do vary a bit but all well below the temp of boiling water. The addition of starch to gelatin does raise the melting temp too. but again not too different from baseline on the combinations I found referenced. There is actually papers written on gelatin/starch films properties. All very complicated and fascinating.

Papers also written on Gummy candies that made of gelatin and starches along with sugars.

The Ole Ray packaging I have states “product of China” Buy a pack and check them out. i found them very different from the other chews I’ve looked at.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by aimee.

[Summer G]

@Aimee what you really tanned these things??? Do you have pictures or anything. I work at a small independent pet store and we recommend these all the time but after finding skin Beatles in our stock today I got suspicious. Turns out we stop selling them for a brief period during the 2017 stuff but then the manager was convinced. We all recommend them all the time, needled to say I won’t be going forward. I really want to see pictures of this tanned “no” hide if you have any and any more information you can give about how you did it.

[aimee]

Hi Summer G,
Do you have a facebook accnt ? I may have just sent a message to you. : )

[Yvonne H]

DO NOT BUY THESE CHEWS.

I gave my dog a NO-HIDE chicken chew and now have a very sick dog.

I did not leave the room. I watched her chewing. I cut off the pieces, with a scissor, she managed to loosen. After unrolling what seemed to be a piece of hide, I took the rest away from her.

Now she has vomited two days in a row . Loose stools and this morning vibrating or shaking probably due to pain and/or discomfort. This will now incur a vet visit and who knows what kind treatment.

Initially, because of their 100% satisfaction guarantee, I asked them for a refund. They want me to go back to the store and make the store responsible for their 100% product guarantee. In my opinion, Earth Animal should be backing their product not the seller.

And the customer rep has asked me to send them the remaining chew.
Not going to happen. I can only imagine the chew disappearing right after they tell me there is nothing wrong with it.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Yvonne H.

[aimee]

Hi Yvonne,

So sorry you and your dog are going through this. I hope she is feeling better.

[Yvonne H]

@aimee – thank you. We went to see the vet today. Close to $170 later, I SO regret buying the $5 NO-HIDE chew that ends up being rolled rawhide.

I asked my vet to file a case with the FDA and I will also file a case with the local Department of Agriculture here in Washington state.

My friend directed me to a class action lawsuit that is currently running against Earth Animal and I started to read all the horror stories posted by other people.

Holy cow … no wonder my dog is sick.

[M]

@aimee, I literally just read this entire thread, as I was searching for what was in the earth animal / no raw hide chews. I thought if it’s rice, then, maybe I can cook rice make it into pasta like sheets and roll them up and soak them in chicken gelatin !!! 😂 how hard could it be to make them?

I am so so thankful for all of your research and time and effort spent on this as sadly I have been feeding these to my dog for a few years now!!! Thank God that I searched the subject and this thread came up.

If it wasn’t for this thread I would have continued to buy these chews as my dog loves them!!! You might have saved his life 🙏 so I thank you for investigating this.

Do you recommend any safe chews I can give him? He’s only 9lbs and needs to chew on something … The Himalayan Milk sticks might be something I could go back to. I need a dental chew for breath that’s safe.

Again Thank you so much for this amazing thread 🙏

[aimee]

Hi Amina,

I’m glad you found the information helpful. It is hard to believe that it has been a little over 3 1/2 years since my initial post when I, like you, tried to recreate a No Hide using labeled ingredients. It is interesting to note that when the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture sent Salmon No Hide for testing the lab reported a protein content of 88.49%. This suggests that the water, carbohydrate, fat, and ash taken together would be ~ 11.5%. Starch test results were reported as 0.5% . Truly baffling to me when I consider the reported ingredients. It appears to me that there is an unreported nitrogen source in this product. ( In lab analysis protein is estimated based on nitrogen testing) and I have no explanation for the very low reported starch content in a product which lists brown rice flour as the second ingredient.

There is a lot of information since posted about this product and a current class action suit that alleges the product contains rawhide.

I don’t know that there are any truly “safe” chews. There is risk and benefit in everything. If looking for a consumable dental chew I’d suggest you choose from the Veterinary Oral Health Council accepted products for dogs list. Personally, I look for a product that was found effective against plaque and I appreciate that Greenies are formulated to meet AAFCO maintenance making it easy to incorporate them into a feeding plan without concern of unbalancing the diet. Keep in mind that just as we need to see a dentist regularly despite daily brushing and flossing, your dog also needs to be treated by a veterinarian on a regular basis.

[M]

Hello Aimee,

Thank you for your response, to an old post that you thought must have ended … I changed my profile name to what everyone calls me … M …

I think all the research you did was just amazing and I can’t tell you how appreciative I am as I was using the earth animal no rawhide chews for a long time! It was such an eye opener for me as will now double and triple check what I use as treats.

I’m not sure if there is a way to send you a private message on here? Or if one can share their email as I’d like to stay in-touch with you if possible.

Many thanks 🙏 Amina or M

[Yvonne H]

Here is an update on Wanda and her NO-HIDE chew.
Having a sick dog while away from home (and our family vet), in itself, is very stressful.

Our $5 NO-CHEW has now gone over $300 with vet bills.
The vet did a test for Giardia. None found.
The vet put Wanda on a second round of metronidazole and added Purina’s probiotics.
Things are better but not resolved.

Because of this experience, I bought a food processor and a dehydrator.
From here on out, my dogs are getting nothing that I would not eat myself.
I have decided to cook (not raw) for my dogs. I will be making their dog food and treats using human grade products.

As a matter of fact, the slices of dehydrated chicken breast is so good, I have to make extra for the dogs (smile) because I eat it too.

As a side note: Earth Animal representatives, in their emails, appeared to be very concerned about the welfare of my dog UNTIL I let them know I was aware of the class action lawsuit. Since then I have not heard another word from them.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by Yvonne H.

[aimee]

Hi Yvonne,

So sorry to hear that the issues with Wanda are not fully resolved.

Hi M,

There isn’t a private message feature on Dog Food Advisor. I usually check the comments section and forums on a regular basis so you can catch me here!

[aimee]

It has been 2 years since a class action was filed that alleges Earth Animal’s No Hide contain rawhide; the case is still pending.

Recap: On July 27,2017 Susan Thixton raised the question ” Is No-Hide Dog Treat Actually Hide?” on Truth About Pet Food. Also in 2017, the FDA apparently tried to answer the same question, but it appears they could not. Results on sample number 1020257, “4 inch Earth Animal No-Hide Chicken Chews” “were “inconclusive as to whether or not product contains rawhide.”.

In 2018, The Dept of Ag., Penn. investigated. They interpreted the test they had done at Penn State as “inconclusive.” They asked Dr Brooks “to determine whether or not animal hide (skin and related structures) is present.” Dr Brooks was not even able to identify a labeled rawhide as skin saying, “they are no longer identifiable by this method.” I think one reason the rawhide sample could not be identified as skin is because the structures needed to identify skin, like hair and oil glands, are in the layer of the skin that is removed at the tannery. Interestingly though, Dr. Brooks starts his report with “All slides….” indicating that both the rawhide samples and the No Hide samples appeared similar enough to each other that he did not find it necessary to describe them separately. This I feel was a very important finding because a chew made from skin, I would think, should look very different from one made with plants.

“Microscopic examination of dog chews.” was published on June 20, 2020. Susan Thixton made a post about the study. From the abstract “Two products labeled as rawhide free appeared similar to the dermis [ a skin layer].” In the comment section, Earth Animal appears to claim that one of those two products was No Hide. They also report in reference to one of the authors ” She has already been served a Cease-and-Desist Letter by Earth Animal threatening to institute legal proceedings. ” Apparently, in a Sept.26, 2018, e-mail there was mention of a plan to test and submit for publication a study looking at various types of dog chews. That e-mail apparently reached Earth Animal, and the author of the email received a letter dated Oct. 5th, 2018, to “serve as a notice of potential litigation” making it look to me that Earth Animal did not want the researcher to investigate dog chews.

The lawsuit was filed Oct 12, 2020. A quote from the lawsuit reads, “A recent study was published….. According to Defendants, one of their products, a No-Hide chew, was included in the study and was found to contain rawhide….”. In my opinion, that study triggered the filing of the class action because :1. The apparent statement made by Earth Animal . 2.The study is a reference for how chews labeled rawhide and rawhide-free look under a microscope. Broadly speaking, in the study, the chews tested that had a starch ingredient like flour in them, had a blue background, while labeled rawhide samples stained red (H & E stain). Penn State lab reported Earth Animal No Hide stained red with H & E stain.

On Dec.23,2020 Earth Animal reported. “Ms. Beveridge has agreed to put the lawsuit on hold for 4 months, to give the parties the opportunity to develop a mutually-agreeable protocol which will appoint one or more credentialed experts to conduct a site visit.” To the best of my knowledge a site visit did not occur during the 4-month period, and to the best of my knowledge the lawsuit resumed. I have not found any other formal updates issued by Earth Animal.

Two years after filing, the case is reported as pending. My understanding is that judges can dismiss cases for lack of merit. Initially, Judge Janet Bond Arterton was reported as judge and now Judge Omar A Williams is listed. It appears to me that 2 different judges have overseen this case and neither has dismissed it.

It may be years before the legal case is resolved, but until then pet parents can decide for themselves what this product is made from. Reading all the original test results, documents, and e-mails on Truth about Pet Food.is a good place to start if you desire more information about this product. Also, you can test the product yourself. Iodine changes color if starch is present. The No Hide chew roll’s main ingredient appears to be rice flour, a starch containing ingredient. Open a No Hide treat. Put iodine on an inner piece that is free of any of the flavor coating. Also put iodine on the flavor coating, then compare your results.

.

[crazy4cats]

I can’t believe how long this is taking. This company is getting away with lying and basically cheating their customers. This product appears to be VERY expensive fancy wrapped raw hide!

Keep up the good work, Aimee!

[aimee]

Personally, I think regulatory really dropped the ball for consumers. I’m not aware of any follow-up testing after declaring their initial tests inconclusive. I suspect perhaps they ran out of funds to devote to the issue.

It is rather disheartening that the case is progressing so slowly. Apparently, a third-party expert has done a site visit and the case is still active. Earth Animal, to the best of my knowledge has not issued any formal updates after this visit took place.

Personally, I’d encourage anyone interested in the issue to soak both a No Hide and labeled rawhide in non- iodized salt water until well hydrated, let it partially dry and then apply a tanning process to each product and decide for themselves.

[aimee]

Four years after filing a Freedom of Information Act request, it arrived. FDA tested three products: Earth Animal No Hide, Dreambone(non-rawhide control), and Busy Rollhide (rawhide control). Multiple scientists examined the products.

Jennifer Jones DVM reported, “”No Hide”-wide bands of eosinophilic hyaline material” “”Dreambone” : loose eosinophilic flocculant material..” ,””Busy Rollhide”: ” Rawhide: hyaline fibers similar to those present in Sub 1 [No Hide] ” It seems she is saying she found No Hide and rawhide to look similar to each other and both were very different from the non-rawhide control, Dreambone.

Daniel F.Gross FDA sample 1020256 Rawhide vs No Hide scanning electron microscopy test results: “Cross sections of both products appear indistinguishable from each other. Very fibrous”

David Rotstein DVM MPVM Dipl ACVP reported “The non-rawhide treat[Dreambone] consists of amorphous substance… There were no similarities to Sub 1 [Earth Animal No Hide] and 6[rawhide].. .Collagen bundles in Sub 1 [No Hide] were similar to Sub 6[Rawhide]…The statement that this is a “no-hide” product may not be accurate”

And from the Case Summary attributed to Jennifer Jones ,David Rotstein and Andriy Tkachenko ” The Earth Animal No Hide has characteristics of both the Dreambone (non-rawhide) and the Busy Rollhide (rawhide) products”
IMO this conclusion could make sense because No Hide is a chew roll coated in a flavor slurry, the coating could have the characteristics of the Dreambone, while the roll itself could have the characteristics of rawhide.

I think the FDA investigation was compromised by sampling error. Apparently, the microscopy sample tested was taken from a 1 cm slice off the very end of the chew roll. It appears they primarily tested the flavor coating and little of the actual chew material. I think if they had separated out the coating from the chew roll and tested them separately as Dr. Adam Stern did, they could have reached a conclusion other than “inconclusive”(test 1020257)

Interesting, to me is that nowhere in the ~250 pages did I find that the governmental investigation came to an “undisputable conclusion that Earth Animal No Hide Chews do not contain rawhide” as Earth Animal apparently claims they did in the Truth About Pet Food Website comment’s section of the article” New Study Finds some Rawhide-Free Treats are actually Rawhide”. Instead, the report says “The statement that this is a “no-hide” product may not be accurate” David Rotstein DVM MPVM Dipl. AVVP

Going forward, I think consumers need to do their own tests. Buy the new plant based Earth Animal No Hide (claims the only animal-based ingredient used is egg), a labeled rawhide and a non-rawhide chew with an ingredient list similar to the No HIde. Soak the products in warm water to rehydrate them. Do the products soften or stay intact? Dissect them and examine them under magnification, I used a microscope. Using iodine, test the products for the presence of starch. (This is a very sensitive test wash your hands well before testing each sample.) Test any coating separately from the interior of the chew. If, based on your testing, you think like Dr Rotstein did that “The statement that the product contains “no-hide” may not be accurate” file a report with the FDA. IF they get enough reports there is a chance they may investigate.

[crazy4cats]

I can’t believe this company is still getting away with this! Way to stay on top of it.

[aimee]

I suspect that unless people stop buying it, it will continue to be sold.

[crazy4cats]

Super expensive rawhide! I’ve never seen it at PetSmart. But, it looks like Chewy has a lot on their website. 😒

[Mutts and Cats]

This was some great reading. Thanks Aimee for your persistence and for sharing information so dog owners can be informed. Earth Animal will go on my list of companies to not buy from.

[aimee]

I recently became aware that the class action lawsuit involving Earth Animal No Hide chew which alleges that No Hide contains rawhide was dismissed without prejudice.

From what I can gather,
this can occur when there is a procedural error, and the judge finds merit in the case. This gives the plaintiff an opportunity to correct/modify the error and then refile the case.

Certainly, this is disappointing. It has been over two years since the case was filed and now it appears this essentially means starting the process over.

Of great significance to me though is that the case was dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. My understanding is that cases which a judge deems frivolous, insufficient or lacking in evidence are dismissed WITH prejudice in that situation the case cannot be refiled.

I suspect, based on past behavior, that Earth Animal may leave out this detail and falsely declare “victory” just as they seemingly did when they claimed that “There are several, very thorough, governmental investigations that have all come to the same undisputable conclusion: Earth Animal No-Hide® Chews do not contain rawhide and are not mislabeled.”; a statement in direct contrast to one from the FDA report received through FOIA ” The statement that this is a “no-hide” product may not be accurate” David Rotstein DVM MPVM Dipl ACVP

[crazy4cats]

What a disappointment. There is so much evidence! I hope it gets refiled . It would be nice if people quit buying those expensive fancy rawhide chews and put them out of business!

[aimee]

What is really disappointing to me is that regulatory agencies report tests as “inconclusive”, then apparently metaphorically gathered their toys and went home instead of following though to a conclusive end. Pet parents deserve better. Absolutely, baffling to me that an amino acid analysis apparently was never done by regulatory.

[keremms F]

Inconclusive test results can happen for various reasons, such as technical limitations or complexities in the analysis. It is essential for regulatory agencies to follow through and conduct further investigations or request additional testing when faced with inconclusive results to reach a definitive conclusion. Regarding the amino acid analysis you mentioned, it’s unclear why it may not have been done by the regulatory agency. Amino acid analysis is a valuable tool in understanding the composition of certain substances and can provide valuable insights into the safety and nutritional aspects of pet products. It’s possible that resource constraints, prioritization of other tests, or specific regulations may have influenced the decision not to conduct this analysis.

[aimee]

Hi Keremms,

Thank you for taking the time to comment. IMO the primary reason the testing was inconclusive was because the regulatory agencies involved did not run tests capable of giving a conclusive result. Digestion study and bite force studies can not tell you what a substance is. Microscopy revealed that No Hide look “indistinguishable” from rawhide, but it needed to be followed up with amino acid analysis. And apparently, not being familiar with how rawhide is typically made, regulators were seemingly unaware that a pathologist can not identify rawhide as skin since identifying elements like hair follicles etc. reside in the layer removed at the tannery.

Unfortunately, IMO many missteps were made along the way. Penn. regulators, apparently stated they missed that their pathologist referred to No Hide as “animal tissue” and needed to be shown that the label of the product they tested did not contain any animal gelatin after saying a finding of collagen could be from gelatin. Also, while they did protein and starch analysis and found No Hide similar to rawhide, they failed to test moisture content which muddied the waters of interpretation and after watching a production run, apparently never had sent a roll they witnessed being made to pathology to compare it to an “off the shelf” product. My understanding is that they seemed willing to do follow up amino acid testing but later apparently said they had run out of money.

It is hard to know why an AA analysis was not done. IMO it was simply lack of knowledge and experience in testing unknowns.

I fully agree with you when you said ” It is essential for regulatory agencies to follow through and conduct further investigations or request additional testing when faced with inconclusive results to reach a definitive conclusion”

[j D]

ATTENTION ALL – I encourage anyone who believes this item/company is a hazard to IN WRITING, reach out to any and all companies that sells the product/brand. Perhaps ALSO email or write the company itself directly. PUT THEM ON NOTICE. Perhaps the more people the better.

KEY – Include in your concern these TWO phrases:
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE and also
YOU ARE ON NOTICE.
And first word in the subject line, use the word URGENT to grab attention of the email receiver.

The two phrase are LEGAL terms that are often taken seriously by HQ’s and or should be, because they are meant to hold people to a certain standard in the legal world and thus getting an email or letter w/these words being used, SHOULD prompt any and all responsible stores, companies to actually address this concern and to do so in a timely manner or else be held liable if something bad happens.

Time is of the essence is essentially a legal term that encourages prompt attention, using that phrase shows a future judge that whomever is using the term is COMMUNICATING the need for promptness.

The phrase “on notice” essentially COMMUNICATES that whomever is receiving the concern is as of the date, AWARE and ALERTED of a concern and hence now anyone made aware of the concern and not taking appropriate action to mitigate the hazard, fix the hazard, can be held LEGALLY responsible, w/much more certainty than someone who claims in a legal battle that they were not aware and makes the claim that they had no idea that their product on their shelves was a hazard.

Having this all in writing and pointing out in the email/letter to them, that not only are they “on notice” but that the email/letter serves as clear and concise documentation that can and WILL be made available for any and every court case that results from this product, thus it would behoove any all store owners and the company selling this item to FIX the concern PROMPTLY or potentially lose big and lose swiftly.

As I recall it was Amy who had done all the great research, perhaps she could provide somewhere that people could send a copy of these emails/letters that they have sent to store owners and the main company, so that if there ever be a need, the proper authorities wont have to seek them out and potentially miss out on having them to use in court.

Worth noting, it is a common strategy for attorneys to defend their clients by telling judges their client had no idea they were doing anything wrong. it is then upon the claimant, that is to say the person/people who filed the lawsuit, to then move forward and PROVE that actually the company did indeed know they were doing something wrong.

Defendants attorneys do NOT offer up guilt, the attorneys job is to DEFEND their client, which in so many cases in so many courts, equates to NOT honesty and accountability but rather defendants are advised to deny, deny, deny, unless and until they are FORCED by a judge to provide specific documents. Until then, its a war of attrition, a game of deny, deny, deny, make the claimant do the work, provide the proof to PROVE the case of wrong doing. That said, a claimant will have no way of knowing that anyone has put the company or stores on notice unless at some point the judge orders the company or store to hand over whatever documents the claimants attorneys request. That means tho a good attorney will need to request to see any kind of letter, emails, etc, indication that the company (or store) was aware the product was a hazard. A good atty would also look into complaints filed about the company and this is where it would be helpful if Amy could provide somewhere that people can simply forward a copy of their concern emails TO as simply as possible so that they can be sitting somewhere meaningful on file as a record for any future atty to use easily to hold the company and stores accountable.

I almost purchased one of these “no hide” items recently. I was thrilled to discover these in the store. My first impression, I was disappointed and disgusted that there was no wrapper on them, but I minimized and dismissed my concern and was begrudgingly willing to try one despite no wrapper. As I was picking one out, suddenly a bug flew out of one and into another and I was so disgusted I opted NOT to get one after all because my concern at that point was that bug could be laying eggs inside of those, which could not only be ingested by my pet but also be released into my house and or that bug could be transmitting a disease that could harm my pet. When I saw on this post someone had a similar experience, of seeing I think it was called a “skin bug” it reassured me after reading Amy’s extensive research, that these are likely rawhides merely being marketed as no hide.

My trust in companies and stores has depleted more and more in recent years. WARNING, we really cant trust the hype. That “no hide” website was SO charming, so inviting and its just yet another example of how just like w/so much these days, politics, food, household items, just about everything , MARKETING, is designed and in place, to make things, people, products, SEEM, SO good, so trustworthy, MARKETING w/words, pictures, its all a big game, pull our strings, telling us what they think we want to hear, to manipulate and get us to buy their candidate, their product, support them in their endeavors, them gaining profits, gaining power, and we end up being negatively impacted as a result of their lies and or their carelessness. IMHO, so many of us have been wired to trust and believe that if its in a store, if its on TV, if they tell me what I want to hear, then it must be okay. Nope. it is upon each of us to SEEK OUT the facts from reliable sources ESEPECIALLY for upcoming elections and not just trust what we are being told and being sold in politics and on packaging, TV and social media, ads, etc. Facts ARE available as Amy discovered in this instance, people just have to be willing to do a little digging to seek out facts, to question and to push back when things do NOT seem or feel right or seem to good to be true.

For pets, when in doubt, I suggest check w/vets. These days I have multiple vets and I check w/several of them when I have a question, as they each have different opinions, experience and education, they tho are just one resource. I compare their answers, and go w/what seems logical and wise to me, I also rely largely on my own common sense to make decisions. I too tho am far too often too trusting. I am so thankful I saw that bug fly in and out of that “no hide” that day, cause that bug flipped my common sense “switch” back on after I dismissed my instinct about no wrapper being acceptable. For me, no wrapper was in no way acceptable for my pet and yet I was willing to trust the company’s decision to offer a treat w/no wrapper over my own instinct. We as a society are naive far too often in this way. Im “training” lol myself to NOT be so naive. That bug was yet another training lesson for me.

BTW I have seen comments here about HOW to give dogs rawhides… to me, common sense is that dogs are similar to toddlers, and thus it is my responsibility to keep mine safe in similar ways as a toddler when out and about, in the car, when feeding, around stairs, etc. It is my understanding that in toddler day care there is a rule that if something can fit through a toilet paper tube, then it can be a choking hazard for a toddler. That said, I literally sit w/my dogs when they have gotten rawhides in the past because they are each different in their chewing habits. One is a gulper, so I have to be especially careful w/him and have had to in the past, save him from choking on a rawhide that he was simply swallowing as is his instinct to do when it gets to a size he feels should be swallowed. I have learned from that terrifying experience. We as people learn as we go. So many of us don’t realize that each dog is different. Some just swallow, some chew, sometime habits change from day to day. One never knows when something bad will happen, so its upon us to make time and sit and WATCH them as they chew making sure that what they are chewing on can NOT be swallowed, can NOT be choked on because it is the dogs instinct TO SWALLOW, consume the treat in front of them. Same w/toys, my dogs gnwas off bits of toys and swallows those too I repeat its upon me to PAY ATTENTION, notice these things and adjust the toys he gets accordingly.

I have used rawhides as a tool NOT a treat. 10mins a day, I MAKE that time to sit and watch my dogs to ensure they have NO chance of swallowing the rawhide or whatever else they may be getting, same w/toys. We recently had a rawhide cause a gum issue, tear at the gumline because the rawhide was too rigid and that has caused a whole other set of issues so we have been off rawhides for a while and looking for another chewing option. I appreciate the Kong suggestions in these posts as this gives the dogs something to toss around, and slobber on but can be the tiny pieces of treats taht they cant choke on. Even w/that I will STILL WATCH as they play because one never knows if a problem may show up. All toys, treats pose a risk a hazard.

I personally NEVER by the Greenies, the brushless chewable type treats, that dogs can supposedly chew on for dental health because I don’t want my dogs swallowing the treat whole and choking on it or it causing an obstruction. My dogs arent obnoxious, they are simply seeing something yummy like that and their instinct is NOT to chew on it, but instead to just swallow that yummy thing, when I tried those, my dog chewed it maybe a few times then swallowed it basically whole and I then had to wonder and worry for days about that in his system. Not all of us know our dogs habits or what our dogs will do at any given moment so is best to stick w/something we know will NOT be a hazard. Knowing my dogs are sometimes gulpers, I have learned to now feed ONLY tiny treats that cant be choked on even if swallowed whole. I look for treats that if swallowed whole it will either disintegrate as it goes down w/the saliva breaking it up or it is so tiny (pea size) that swallowing it whole doesnt matter. They still get a treat but I get zero stress and scares in the process. I tho also take time to BRUSH my dogs teeth WEEKLY rather than rely on a treat to do that work for me.
Good luck to all!

[j D]

I can’t see a way to edit my post #189903. I though wanted to add about my toddler comment. How dogs are like toddlers and that in daycare setting there was a standard that anything that could fit into a toilet paper tube was a choking hazard. To be clear, many dogs mouths are larger than that of a toddler and thus the toilet paper roll standard wouldnt apply. It was more of an example and a visual in terms of a toddler but the concept could also apply for dogs but should be considered in slightly different way…

Meaning, if your dog can fit it into its mouth, it can likely fit it into its throat, being a rawhide or any other item. Ive seen xrays of dogs who have swallowed whole, all kinds of unusual things. NOT good. That said, something like a rawhide or even a toy could start out at one size, SEEM harmless and end up another size as it is gnawed and slobbered on. and or the dog may at first see it as something worth chewing, then instinct may at some point tell the dog “enough chewing, time to swallow”…

And thus it is imperative to monitor dogs at all times meaning EYES on them and their mouths AS they chew. And before giving them anything to chew on first ponder a bit about any potential hazards w/the material, the contents, the ingredients, the texture, etc to wonder a bit, if it in any way could be a hazard or could become a hazard, and then imperative to also watch as they use whatever it is and keep watching every time.

For example I gave my dog some toys earlier this year. I know his behaviors w/toys and am comfortable letting him play w/certain toys BUT this time he found a new way to “love” on his toys, he began gnawing off the felt decorations of a dinosaur plush toy. Because I was watching him, I could see that this was going to pose a choking risk and so I took that toy away and cut off the felt decorations of that and the rest of his toys because this became a NEW hazard for him, a new “behavior” for him and it was upon me to recognize this and act accordingly. I now when purchasing toys in the future will keep this in mind and either not purchase toys that have those extra parts or be willing to snip them off before giving him those kinds of toys.

I care about animals so much , so I wanted to be responsible by adding these notes to hopefully help clear up my earlier comments.

[aimee]

Hi j D,

Wow! Such interesting information! I have no real knowledge of the legal system, so I found this post very enlightening. Would sending copies of emails to the law firms involved in this issue be perhaps the best thing to do?

Bugs. Apparently, a big problem with these “body part” chew bars and such. Apparently, common recommendations to retailers are to freeze all stock, use galvanized steel, and add things such as bay leaves, diatomaceous earth, essential oil sprays and pheromone moth traps into and around displays. The interesting thing is some retailers are reporting decreased sales if the products are packaged … so some remove the manufacturer’s packaging.

Also, I couldn’t agree more regarding the need for direct “eyes on the dog supervision” whenever dogs are chewing certain types of materials. With rawhide I used flat flexible sheets larger than the dog’s head and I’ve even pre-softened a bit with water to prevent gum injury.

Sadly, like you, “My trust in companies and stores has depleted more and more in recent years” It is disheartening. I think there are some good people out there in retail, but I don’t think many have the skill set needed to objectively evaluate information and some seem to become quite defensive when someone else does the leg work and finds things they apparently do not want to see or know.

[Author]

Posts