Patricia…
Keep in mind, the Internet is awash with rumors, marketing hype and obsolete reports. And there’s already plenty of misinformation and bad science being shared in this thread.
The illogical suggestion that ignoring a fact-based analysis and “going with your gut” when choosing dog food (recommended by Susan) makes no sense.
In fact, it was misguided tips like the one in this thread that ultimately compelled me (10 years ago) to create this website, in the first place.
When buying food for your pet (or any other member of your family), your decision must be based on facts. Not on gossip and dubious sources.
First of all, the ash content you are quoting in your comment is considerably out of date. It was first posted in a comment on a single forum 4 years ago.
The ash content of any pet or human food varies from batch to batch. And like many other pet food manufacturers most, Stella and Chewy’s has changed its recipes and proportions (of each ingredient) a number of times since the date those figures were originally posted.
Which means the ash reports you are sharing here are probably not even close to being the same today (2018).
Guaranteed Analysis does not include ash content. In fact, the FDA does not even require pet or human food manufacturers to include the ash data of their products anywhere on their labels.
Only when a company opts to voluntarily conduct a specific laboratory nutrient test known as a “proximate analysis” is ash content even included in its report.
Next, don’t be so concerned about alfalfa. It’s not a toxic ingredient. It is only marked as controversial in our reviews because like all plant-based ingredients, it is not considered a substitute for animal protein (meat). And besides, alfalfa is not a primary ingredient in ANY of Stella and Chewy’s current recipes.
Next, our ratings and selections have always been based on verifiable facts and government regulated label data. Not on frivolous or unproven claims.
At the moment, Stella and Chewy’s continues to meet each of our guidelines for being considered a superior brand. If things change, we’ll be sure to remove the brand from our lists.
Lastly, contamination claims mentioned by Susan are based on tests results published by a controversial enterprise and considered dubious by many experts.
I have repeatedly asked Susan and others to stop needlessly frightening readers of this website by sharing these questionable and unverified results anywhere in our forums.
The so-called “study” on which these controversial conclusions are based appears to have been performed by the same company that published the misleading report on baby food back in 2017.
Here’s another article about the baby food tests published by an established pediatric physician.
Here’s another revealing article that may also see why this information should not be trusted .
And yet one more.
Before you fall victim to all the noise and misinformation that pervades the Internet and deprive your dog of some of the very best and safest foods available, stay focused on the facts.
Until we know with certainty if a particular dog food has been tested and recalled, it would be irresponsible and unfair for us to consider unverified claims when writing our reviews.
.
