This one has me scratching my head more than a week after first reading it.
Here’s a direct quote from a pet food manufacturer explaining why they are reformulating their products:
“Some consumers were making product choices primarily based on set criteria for ingredients rather than the overall promise of superior nutrition backed by clinical research.”
This just seems… odd… on so many levels. On the one hand, knowing what we know about their current formulas, it’s difficult to accept that there’s “superior nutrition” in the current bags. And if there is, why in the world would the perception of public opinion carry more weight than the science of nutrition?
Should we not be looking at pet food with some set criteria for quality? Does this mean we’ve finally evolved to the point that we’re no longer willing to unquestionably accept manufacturer’s marketing claims at face value? That would appear to be a good thing.
Here’s hoping the new formulations are true improvements using better quality ingredients, rather than a marketing attempt to appease public opinion.
Care to venture a guess which company this is?