It appears it'll still be a prescribed medicine for both humans and animals.

??? puzzled by that response JG, doesn't banned mean it can't be prescribed?

I think it's only being banned as a food additive, not as a medicine.

Oh I see, still don't understand why that should be though. :D

Probably because there maybe a whole world of difference between it being used for medicinal purposes under supervision than consuming it daily over long periods of time when no medical condition exists.

>If the government are banning it due to its toxicity thats all there is to it

Exactly :), if the data is enough to support the need to remove it, it will be.

Hi Christine,

Thank you so much for putting this in a nutshell. I certainly have made my decision - a banned product will never find it's way to me (even though it has for many months, without me knowing!). I am NOT happy with Burns, particularly as they haven't replied to my response to their email about this, when I asked WHY a synthetic vitamin is included in what they advertise as natural food. Hmmm! Their lack of reply doesn't matter really as I've already decided (100%) never to use Burns again (not even the fish treats which Poppy loves so much).

Thanks again to everyone for all your comments on this.

Have a good weekend,

Best wishes,
Poppys Mum & Poppy xxx

Hello all,

I've just found a reply to my post on the Burns forum

http://p207.ezboard.com/fnaturalhealthcareforpetsfrm2

(hope that link will work, if not the forum can be found at the main Burns website).


Best wishes,
Poppys Mum & Poppy xxx

Oh wow, what a result!!! Excellent news, you did so well P/P :D

Pats on the back for you & drinks all round to celebrate, make mine a large 1 thanks, cheers ;) :D:D:D

you`ll have a great w/end now eh :D

Hello Christine and Teri :-)

Thank you both for your replies - and yes it is good news. I really thought they were going to ignore the whole thing so it is very good on their part.

Ha Ha, Christine I think I'll make yours a large 2, not just 1 (2 for you also Teri :-)

I'm really pleased Burns did the right thing - not sure how long it will take to implement it but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Have a very happy weekend - and thanks again to both of you and everyone else too for all your comments on this. It's been such a help to share views.

Best wishes,
Poppys Mum & Poppy xxx

Goodness things have continued apace on the Burns site since yesterday :D
It seems to me that since first asking John Burns should they remove it and getting a snap decision they have since looked in more details at the data.
I suppose from the point of view of those that buy Burns on the "Health Food" ticket this could be quite an issue but I would imagine for all those that choose it because their dog likes it and it suits them their assessment of the situation should be perfectly reasonable.
I was interested in your comments about JWB though this?  I know it was a while ago but having gone to the trouble of emailing them and generally being very interested in these issues is seemed a little strange that you had forgotten again or were you just being disingenuous ;)

Fantastic!   WELL DONE Poppygirl :) :) :)

Well done Burns too for taking a serious look at the issue and acting accordingly - (almost) restores my faith in human nature ;)

Teri

Great job!  :d

Well done Burns too for taking a serious look at the issue and acting accordingly - (almost) restores my faith in human nature

Ditto I thought that was also a very good step for them.

Good on ya poppy for actually standing up and doing something,alot of people may not have like men. in their pets food and would have either switched to another brand or put up with it in the hopes that the government actually knew what they were doing I wonder if you're the only one to contact them with this issue,as they seemed to have decided very quickly to take it out of their food.

>The natural forms also have an unknown bio-availability and therefore specific levels cannot be guaranteed; they are also associated with undesirable substances for example heavy metals, which would be detrimental to the pet. The variability is too inconsistent for us to confidently use natural forms of vitamins and minerals<

I'm not sure what to think about this statement What about all the holistic and natural foods that have been around for years that use all natural preservatives and vitamins and minerals with out any of the problems Burns suggests?? The above statement is on a list of very many things he says that just dont 'gel' :rolleyes:

Wow, well done, wouldnt have expected such a result...provided of course they do actually remove it, and are not just saying it...:( If they do, I smell a big rat, after all a few messages on a board makes them change their minds ...a bit more to all this than meets the eye if you ask me. :rolleyes: if it was safe, they would have put all sort of science stuff up to back their decision, but they didnt....so maybe they know more than they are saying. Wonder how long this rubbish has been in the food? Also what other foods is it in. Does make a mockery of a good healthy holistic food though, putting that stuff in. if its not marked on the list of ingrediants on the bag, how is anyone to know its not there?

Possibly with the government saying it was going to be prohibited anyway it hurried them up???

It also concerns me too what other food it may be in??? & just why?????? Its already been acknowledged a safe limit can`t be assertained

Still think its a result tho for P/G to have brought it to their (& our) attention & them not using it any longer, lets them know peeps really do look whats in dog food & should keep em on their toes :D :D

C/S I doubt they`d say they were removing it on an open forum then go back on their word, do you?

Mmmmmmmmm, you have a good point there Christine, I would think stating it in public then not removing it, would be a stupid thing to do......

Its a damn good result, and well done to P/G for finding it,:) and chasing it up. Now lets all contact our 'bagged' food pet food suppliers, see what they have to say! Its about time these pet food people were kept on their toes, thinking they can get away with putting rubbish in our dogs mixtures and getting away with it. I wonder just how legal the advertising of Burns food as being 'holistic' and totally natural is, when they put in a synthetic product? Organic food has to be certified as such, so just wonder where they would stand if someone who had the money to be able to afford it, took them to court for misrepresention. Same for all the other foods that state they are 'totally natural' if it turns out they have it. Makes you wonder how many other potentially unsafe things are pushed into our dogs food.

Hello all,

I have some bad news :-(

Burns posted a message to their health forum yesterday, completely doing a u turn on this matter! They are refusing to discuss it further and in fact have threatened legal action if people continue to post on their forum about it! Great eh?I personally have replied and stated that it isn't scaremongering - just very concerned customers who want the truth and want the right thing to be done but it seems they are washing their hands of it now, which is so disappointing.

http://p207.ezboard.com/fnaturalhealthcareforpetsfrm2

I see you have just received an email from JWB remarkably similar to the one you received 18 months ago :D

Hello Isabel,

I had no recollection of that whatsoever (it's confused the issue a bit in this thread as this is being discussed on the Burns forum). Poppy is now on JW Light but someone on the Burns forum raised the point about animal testing so I followed it up (obviously).

I did feed JWB for a short while more than a year ago but returned to Burns (I believe due to her having an itchy back which I could never find the reason for).

I have serious reservations about any company that tests on animals but from what I can find out (ie the statement) it seems it is just 'taste tests' at home, not laboratory.

To be honest I am seriously considering dumping all dry food as I've really had it with these companies and their hidden agendas.

My head hurts :-( :rolleyes:
Best wishes,
Poppys Mum & Poppy xxx

Don't worry too much, in 18 months it may be a distant memory ;)

Bit sarky isabel, to someone with obvious genuine concerns :(

I wonder if a synthetic vitamin is actually considered 'natural' and 'holistic' when added to an organic, natural holistic food?....... Also, if the Govn or scientific bodies can't find a safe upper limit for ingestion, how have Burns found one?

If you refer to the Burns site I think their representative has given a very good explanation as to the sense of proportion to this although I agree it is a dodgy area when you are marketing a product as 'natural' and 'holistic' :)

Sense of proportion loses itself a bit when they start shouting legal action tho, especially when they quote safe limits when none have yet been established....wonder where they got their figures from?

They have given a reference for their quote, Fernandez et al. 1984

mmmm, so how long HAVE they been using this then, me wonders  ;) Oh so natural food, not really......

Well if they have been using it 20 years it certainly hasn't led to the dire problems predicted :D

Falsy advertising a product as holistic for 20 years dosnt give me much faith in them as a company. Whos to know if it has caused problems, even if only to a lesser degree, when its not known what it contains? To be honest, what annoys me is that there is a synthatic product in what is advertised as being a food above all others. This being an untested product, with no known safe levels (as stated by our govn) and side effects and which they did state they would remove. I think they have been caught with their trousers down on this one, and are waffling now trying to get out of it.

Woa, I think you are getting a bit muddled :)  I did not realise you were seriously suggesting that because they referred to a study from twenty years ago, which was not even regarding oral intake, that you considered that gives any indication as to the length of time it has been used I don't even know how long Burns has been making foods.
Not that it seems relevant to me anyway :) I don't really see the point in discussing again the need for proportion in these matter when the Burns rep has put it perfectly well in her own post.  Whilst I agree that she is on dodgy ground considering the marketing angle they take I don't doubt the safety of their product.

Had Burns been consistant with their replies from the begining I may have had more confidence. The rep can't seem to make her mind up, so I have no confidence in anything put out. if it was felt safe to use this Vit, and they were confident in what they were doing, they should have been more open from the start, not waffled, including saying they would remove it. Then to threaten legal action..well! trousers down, knee jerk reaction when they realised people wouldnt be buying their rubbish, not when they were paying for a 'totally natural' food that has un natural contents.

Poppysmum, you did well to outline this in the begining, its shown Burns in their true colours, seems they may not be all they seem. Its infuriating when something which is advertised as being totally natural turns out to be far from it, this Vit may be found in lower grade food but it should not be found in a food that is supposed to be so perfect. Its reputation is built on that fact, thats why people buy it, not to be duped into paying for an ingrediant they wouldnt willingly feed their dogs. That may well be unsafe. Good on ya girl :D :D

Hmmm I`m just wondering re why its not included in the contents, could that be because its included in ingredients that come from outside Burns, so they then can claim they don`t put it in

You see I just don`t understand why its in there in the first place & why its not stated the food contains it? And why did the government allow it in our food when not enough is known about?

If it was toxic last year when it was banned, why isn`t it toxic now & its still in food

It just doesn`t make sense to me

Burns don't actually make the food, they outsource to another company, C.  I can't remember the name of it now.  Burns just provide the recipe apparently.

Oh right I didn`t know that S   So would that have something to do with it then?

No idea C.  The question it raised for me at the time was that Burns didn't actually make the food so really had no input in where the ingredients came from.  I'm sure it was Gro-well feeds they used.  That was last year when I enquired.

Yes I can see that S, would me as well You know I had no idea they didn`t make it themselves, puts a whole new light on things..........

False advertising IMO.   Wasn't Burns picked up for something like this before? 

They have rather snookered themselves haven't they :D between pointing out the reality of the concern and the desire to market themselves as a different class to those who use similarly safe but unpopular ingredients and methods of preservation.

I thought it was a bit of false advertising too, maybe theyshould be told about that on their site, if they are going to get all 'legal' about it ;)

I wonder if a synthetic vitamin is actually considered 'natural' and 'holistic' when added to an organic, natural holistic food?.......

Ian Billinghurst doesn't think so - he seems to be of the opinion that synthetic additivies to pet foods, be it vitamins or minerals generally do more harm than good!

Maria

What exactly do 'natural' and 'holistic' mean in your view?

Hello again, a couple of updates here.

I've now received a very reasonable email from Burns as follows:

"Thank you for your enquiry.

John Burns is aware of your concerns and is currently investigating the use and benefits of Vitamin K3. As soon as I have further information on this subject I will contact you again".

Feeling better towards Burns again now (slightly).

By the way, Isabel, in case you thought I was reproducing the JW Statement from 18 mths ago (which I had clean forgotten about), this is the email I received today, attaching the statement, after I enquired about animal testing (the reason I enquired was due to someone on the Burns Forum criticising JW after I said about changing over to their food, which I have done). Anyway here is their response to my query just so that you know I'm not referrring back to old information that I was aware of. I may have been 18 mths ago but at 61yrs old I cant be blamed for being forgetful :-)
The attachment mentioned in the email below was the JW Statement which I copied to the Burns forum in reply to the person who posted about it.

Best wishes,
Poppys Mum & Poppy xxx

----- Original Message -----
From: Donna Marie March
To: Val
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Wellbeloved Contact form

Hi Val

I have enclosed an attachment which  hope can answer all your questions on the subject.
 
Regards

Donna-Marie March VN
Technical Helpline advisor

Hi Val, thanks for the update :)

Tell me tho, does that mean they`re not removing it now

I think you`ll find there`s no legislation governing these supps in food & thats what the report is about, gearing up for new legislation coming in next yr.

I still take it that its going to be prohibited, that hasn`t been ammended so must still stand.

Hi Christine,

Honestly, I just don't know what they're up to - it really is very confusing. It certainly does sound as if they aren't removing it & are looking for something positive to put forward so that they wont have to remove it.

Trouble is, although I want Burns to come through this and be the good company I thought they were, I don't think I have any faith in them now, whether they remove it or not. I just cannot understand why a synthetic vitamin is in there in the first place - and furthermore why it isn't included on the package.

The confusion continues

Best wishes,
Poppys Mum & Poppy xxx

It is confusing Val - but thanks for trying to investigate and posting your correspondence on the forum :)

regards, Teri

Hi
I notice that JOhn Burns has posted a response to all this hullaballoo
http://p207.ezboard.com/fnaturalhealthcareforpetsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=181.topic
Seems pretty good to me!

Hello TansDad & all,

Yes, it's excellent news. I also received it by personal email.

It just proves that we can get results - and Burns have my total respect again, although obviously I would have preferred them not to include Vit K3 in the first place:rolleyes:
Still, this is great news and has restored my faith in Burns. Just need to find out now when the new batch of food will be on sale.

Best wishes,
Poppys Mum & Poppy:-)

Good to know he has taken public opinion on board, and will be removing it. From the other reply on their forum, seems August is the time. If its not necessary, I wonder why it was added in the first place, saying the majority of other dog foods contain it is not really a good enough reason for their food to contain it, especially when its advertised as a superior food in the first place.

>some question as to whether Vitamin K needs to be included in the diet at all. Having looked at this again it appears that the normal healthy dog is able to synthesise its own vitamin K<

Sheesh!..he employs these fancy Nutritionists only to conclude what I put in my first post on this topic!! :D
Gis a job Burnsy!!! ;)