Bjy Amy Cook- Porter

Procter and Gamble announced on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 that they have signed a contract to buy Natura Pet Products Inc, a privately held pet food company based in Davis CA. 

 Natura’s product line includes

• Innova
• Evo
• Healthwise
• Karma

 While P & G’s product line includes

• IAMs
• Eukanuba

 According to P & G this acquisition will complement their existing holistic and natural (don’t get me started on this word) brand.

 I’m curious if this will have a “karma” repercussions, especially after the posting “error” on Thursday, May 6 that practically took down the stock market.

Here are some comments from our readers

This is what I would classify as a “Natural Pet Food Tragedy”!

Natura had been a true pillar of the industry. For a long time, this company did the research, set the standards and raised the bar for other pet food manufacturers. They were true innovators and their integrity had been second to none in the industry. They had many “firsts” in pet food/nutritional technology.

They were the first to…

Offer an all natural, human grade ingredient pet food.

(INNOVA)

Offer a limited, single carb/single meat protein food line.  (California Natural).

Offer a 95% Certified Organic Pet Food

(Karma)

Offer a Grain Free Pet Food

(EVO)

Those were the biggest breakthroughs, but there were many more. There was no other company that did so much research. There were no other people who cared so much.

I learned so much from them, all the way back to a couple of years before I opened my store. I was Tim Petersen’s (Petersen Pet Provisions, now Petersen Nutrition) very first salesman. At that time, I had the distinct pleasure of riding for a whole week with Ronn Walthers, who was a highest level, national sales manager for Natura. We traveled the Front Range selling and detailing the Natura Lines, which at that time were only INNOVA and California Natural. That week was one of the most profound learning experience sessions in my life. I had done much “homework” going back to my earliest days in the pet industry, but learning and selling the Natura lines gave my knowledge a whole new life. 10 years ago, I opened “Mike’s Natural Pet Market” in Colorado Springs. INNOVA and California Natural were my first flagship lines of pet foods. The learning from Natura never stopped. There was always something new, and it always made sense. They were often imitated by other brands, but never copied.

Until now, Natura has always been a huge part of my business. Yes…sadly, I say…until now. Everyone at Natura always reiterated…no, it was more than that…in truth, they repeatedly drove the point home that they would never, never, ever sell out. They would never be in the superstores because they “truly valued and needed the independent retailer, who would take the time and speak about their products and everything they stood for”.

The news this week of their sale to P&G Pet Care came to me directly from two P&G sales reps who were in my store, trying to sell me IAMS and Eukanuba on Wednesday morning. That revelation was like a sharpened, flaming telephone pole through the heart. Yes, I do take this that personally. As for “how will this affect the industry?”…I know that first off, this is a major blow to every independent pet food store in the nation. Some will lose heart and actually just go out of business. Some will scramble to sell and leave all this behind them. As always, the toughest will survive, and do so by selling alternative brands that are still backed with the integrity of a family or a tight knit community that cares.

My prediction is that Natura will be in the superstores chains within a year, perhaps in the same aisle as their IAMS and Eugeniaba lines. (Remember a year from know, who told you so.) The top people at Natura have told us store owners and their own employees that they have been guaranteed by P&G that the integrity of the Natura lines will be upheld. P&G has supposedly also stated that they are focused on the independent retailers. This is a fairy tale! In the same breath, P&G has stated to the Naturera folks that they look to get much growth in sales in the Natural Pet Foods segment of the industry. This will not occur in independent pet stores. P&G is not wired that way. That is simply not possible. That growth will happen in big box, mass market and superstores like Petco and PetSmart. When was the last time you picked up “Pampers” or “Tide” in an independent grocery or drug store?

The absolute saddest part of this is how it will affect the innocent pets. As P&G did with IAMS and Eukanuba, As Colgate Palmolive did with Science Diet, As Mars did with Nutro, as Nestle did with Purina (and on the list goes), the Natura products that were so very special will be cheapened with inferior ingredients. It will have to happen that way, because that is the only way that they can increase profits for the stockholders.

At the end of the day, I can’t help but wonder…How much money is integrity worth?

How many million dollars does it take to find true happiness?

What was your magic number, John, Ann, Peter and the rest of you?     
Mike

Money talks.  Don’t they already own Iams?  Mars candy company recently bought Royal Canin and they already own some very prestigious dog specialty foods.  Hills owns Science Diet, so who owns Pedigree?

Regarding how it will affect the industry, the money spent will end up in different bank accounts.  And the specialty shops will find their precious foods in the isles of Wal-Mart.  What else is new?  Regarding how it will affect the food, that’s a different story possibly.  “They” say wait three years for the takeover to get to the back burner and then they’ll play with the formula.  Of course, that’s just hearsay.

Bob Warren

Our readers know how I feel about vaccines.  These are not the vaccines that Benjamin Franklin advocated more than two hundred years ago.  These are not the vaccines that were created in the 50s and 60s.  These are chemical cocktails that challenge our children’s health and immune system.  They also challenge the health of adults as well.
The choice is yours, as parents whether to inoculate your children and at what age.  My only request is that you look at all of the data.  And, not blindly agree to vaccines because your pediatrician says it’s okay.  That’s what my pediatrician said when asked about trace amounts of mercury and aluminum in the booster shots.  If it was okay, then why six month later did his practice switch to vaccines with fewer trace  chemicals?
The only way your pediatrican will change is if you first educate yourself and then educate them by refusing to spending your money on poor quality drugs  – not just vaccines.
If you are looking for information, I highly recommend the column below written by Kurt Perkins DC on February 3, 2010.  We are reprinting it in its entirety with Dr Perkins permission.  This is the first non-fear based article on MMR vaccines.  This is his response to an article/attack in the British Medical Journal in January on Dr Andrew Wakefield.
MMR Perspective

By Kurt Perkins
http://drkurtrant.blogspot.com/2010/02/mmr-perspective.html
www.mychirorocks.com
All over the news there have been stories how Lancet, the British medical journal, has discredited and voided out the research done by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.  In the Lancet article, Wakefield made a mere SUGGESTION that there MAY be a connection between autism and the MMR vaccine, BUT further studies had to be performed, this was back in the late ‘90s.  That was it, and this was career suicide for him ever since.  To do further studies, he had to do his OWN research.  This is where the supposed ‘conflict of interest’ has come in the news.  A group paid him to do research.  In case you don’t know, it costs money to do research, so he got paid to work.  Read on as we discuss the conflict of interest perspective from the leading pro-vaccine front man.
I’ve waited a week to comment on this issue because I was waiting to see if Dr. Paul Offit was going to make an appearance and he, in fact, did this morning on CBS’s morning program (2/3/10).  I waited because Dr. Offit is the vaccine industries highest paid unofficial spokes person.  Dr. Profit Offit has earned close to $10 million in royalties from the Rotateq vaccine and stands to earn $13-$35 million over the life of the vaccine patents, the one he invented, as well as voted into the child’s mandatory vaccine schedule.
This is the same man that said a baby could tolerate 100,000 vaccines safely.  He also took home $29 million from the sale of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) as part of a $182 million sale of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine to Royal Pharma.  The amount could be as high as $42 million, based on an analysis of current CHOP administrative policies.
Perspective on conflict of interest is always necessary, especially from a group such as the vaccine industry that has billions and billions of dollars to bury any contrary thought or notion that challenges their cash cow dogma.  Ask this question.  If everyone stopped getting the MMR vaccine, would Dr. Wakefield make any money from those decisions?  On the contrary, how much money would the vaccine industry lose if everyone stopped getting MMR?  The CDC states there were just over 4 million births in 2009.  That would be a huge loss to the vaccine industry if the MMRs were stopped.  Can you image a guaranteed 4 million new customers every year that would buy your product more than once?  Of course, the vaccine industry is going to nullify any accusation that vaccines cause harm.
Prior to the MMR vaccine being given at 12-15 months of age, a child could receive up to 25 doses of vaccines.  You can find the vaccine schedule on the CDC’s webpage.  What poisonous ingredients do those vaccines contain?  How would you like a healthy dose of mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG, and anti-freeze.  Don’t believe me?  Check out the CDC’s page
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf
I’m going to propose that even if a child did not receive the MMR vaccine, autism rates would still sky rocket just like they have the past 20-30 years.  I also propose that mercury is not the only culprit.  Do some research and look at the symptoms of heavy metal toxicity, such as aluminum.  A lot of it sounds like autism type disorders to me.  When vaccines are developed, they are not tested if they cause problems, just if they supposedly can prevent a minor illness most often seen in a culture where sanitation, hygiene, and lack of nutrition are problems.  Not the case in the USA.
My final piece of perspective MMR PERSPECTIVE to challenge you is from the wellness paradigm.  In wellness, dis-ease happens from 2 manners, deficiency, or toxicity.  The human body is an eco-system.  We are animated earth.  There is nothing in the human body that is not Earth, unless man puts it in like mercury, formaldehyde, anti-freeze, or monkey kidney tissue.  For humans to thrive, we must eat, move, and think in a manner that is required for proper genetic expression.  Our cells desire to maintain balance and only become imbalanced when overtaken by deficiency or toxicity.  This is the basis of physiology, not a controversial topic at all.  In the case of vaccines, adding chemicals to the body to prevent minor illness has had a massive trade in overall health.  ‘Science’ will hang onto the notion that mercury does not cause autism, yet they are asking the wrong questions.
The correct question should be, ‘by adding chemicals and viruses to the human eco-system in a way that nature would never allow, will the eco-system flourish or get sick?’  If you look around, the answer is we get sick.  Just in kids, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune disorders, asthma, allergies, and AUTISM are at all time highs and getting worse.  But science will look at the fact that fewer kids get chicken pox or fewer cases of diarrhea and call that success.  It’s absurd and idiotic to say that’s a success when you see the trade off end result.  Are vaccines the only culprit?  Absolutely not, but from a human physiology/eco-system paradigm, vaccines will never move a cell towards balance which promotes growth and repair.  If you want more info regarding vaccines, there are many books.  I always recommend ‘The Sanctity of the Human Blood’ by Dr. Tim O’Shea.  Don’t worry, I get ZERO kick backs for recommending his book.  Another book, not so much a vaccine book but diving into the world of toxicity is called ‘Excitotoxins’ by Dr. Russell Blaylock.  A third book that is great is called, ‘The Virus and the Vaccine’ by Bookchin and Schumacher.  Again, I have no financial ties to these books, so it doesn’t matter to me if you read them or not.  What matters to me is that you get informed from sources that are not tied to the vaccine industry but are well referenced.
Remember that health is a choice, a whole choice and nothing but a choice.  BUT, those choices can only be made accurately if you ask the right questions.
Dr Perkin can be reached at 719.598.6955 or www.mychirorocks.com

By Amy Cook Porter

Okay, I can never resist writing about the obvious, especially if the information comes from a legitimate source and who better to comment on than the the FDA’s weekly press synopsis.

Fresh on their website:

Effects of Switching from Whole to Low-Fat/Fat-Free Milk in Public Schools – New York City, 2004-2009www.cdc.gov/media/mmwrnews/2010/n100128.htm#2
Press Contact: Jessica L. Scaperotti
Press Secretary New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
(212) 788-5290
These results suggest that substitution of low-fat and fat-free milk for whole milk in schools can substantively reduce student consumption of calories and fat. Changes to the New York City Department of Education’s milk policy greatly reduced the amount of calories and fat available to public school students. Due to the system-wide switch from whole to low-fat/fat-free milk in 2005, a milk-drinking student is exposed to 33 fewer calories and 3.4 fewer grams of fat per school day, or almost 6,000 fewer calories and over 600 fewer grams of fat annually. Annual savings are larger for students who drink white milk (7,000 fewer calories and over 900 fewer grams of fat) and school purchases of milk per student actually increased 1.3 percent after the switch. Given the prevalence of childhood obesity, school milk policy changes are a viable way to reduce calorie/fat exposure without decreasing consumption of important vitamins and minerals.
Anyone who follows a holistic approach notices two problems with the press release.

1. Children over the age don’t need milk, especially at the middle of the day.
2. Why don’t we give our kids milk in the middle of the day, it’s the sugar in milk that elevates their blood sugar and is associated with the calories, not the fat.

Anyone following me over the years has heard my rant as to why water is the best drink for kids at lunch time.  Fruit drinks, flavored waters and teas, and milk all have sugars.  Sugar gives our kids short term energy boosts.  Two hours later, they are tired and dragging.  So what do they want to do?  Eat a high calorie snack to recreate the sugar buzz.  Only this time, it takes more sugar or calories to create the sugar high.

As to the fat issue, reducing fats is dangerous.  Our kids’ bodies are growing as they approach puberty.  Thei bodies needs fats to make hormones.  These need to be good quality fats: fats from range fed cows; organic yogurts and butter, and my favorites – nuts, avocados and coconuts.  Here’s an easy to remember rule for choosing oils: use only oils made from nuts and plants with seeds.  Don’t use vegetable oils.

And my message to the Department of Education, take a refresher biology class.  The solution to the obesity problem is not found in milk.  It’s found in a well rounded diet that includes more fresh fruits and vegetables, less grains, less dairy and more exercise.  It does not come from watering down dairy products.

By Amy Cook-Porter

While we have never been a big proponent of this registration (you can control prostitution by registering massage therapists) we do want to encourage ALL massage therapists to register, now that the bill has passed.
Because of the volume of registration and problems with fingerprinting (who knew that older massage therapists had worn away their fingerprints) there is an extension.
Here’s the information.

RULE 10: EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2009 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2009

Emergency Rule 10 provides that all individuals who submit their application, fee, and fingerprint card prior to April 1, 2009 will be eligible to receive a “Provisional Massage Therapist Registration.”
What is a provisional registration?
The provisional registration will allow individuals to practice massage therapy or represent themselves as being able to practice massage therapy in this state through June 30, 2009.  Provisionally registered massage therapists are subject to  all provisions of C.R.S. 12-35.5-101 (“the Act”).

Who is eligible?
All individuals who have submitted their application and fee to the Division of Registrations, have met the educational or training standards established in statute, and have submitted a fingerprint card to CBI – all prior to April 1, 2009, and who have not yet been issued a massage therapist registration.  The Division must have received the application and fee no later than March 31, 2009.
Provisional registrations will be effective April 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009.  After June 30, 2009, individuals with a provisional registration must be registered as a massage therapist pursuant to the Act to continue practicing massage therapy.
 
Who is not eligible?
Individuals who apply for a massage therapist registration on or after April 1, 2009 are not eligible to receive a provisional registration and will not be permitted to practice massage therapy in this state until they receive their registration pursuant to the Act.
Individuals who are already registered by April 1, 2009, as a massage therapist with the State of Colorado are not affected by Emergency Rule 10 and will not be assigned a provisional registration.

How can registration status be verified?
Use DORA’s “Automated Licensure Information System Online” (ALISON).  You can verify any individual’s registration status using this system.
Provisional registration status will be assigned to all qualified individuals on March 31, 2009 and these registrations will not be mailed. 
Check ALISON to verify provisional registration on or after April 1st.  Please do not call DORA to verify registration status.
Visit our website for other information and answers to frequently asked questions.

Colorado Dept. of Regulatory Agencies
Division of Registrations
Health Services Section
1560 Broadway, Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
www.dora.state.co.us