Skip to main content

Eukanuba + Longevity = No from FTC

Related News


  1. Jude

    Fantastic step! We all need to send comments similar to Susan’s to the FTC.

  2. Sherrie Ashenbremer

    I agree

  3. William

    This type of prolonged longevity and enhanced intelligence marketing by the Iams company has been going on for more than a decade. I’m happy to see someone is putting a stop to these ads.

  4. Ellie

    One small victory! Hopefully more will follow. The food industry ( both human and pet) is such a rich lobby that it is a power structure that stands against all opposition. Media is supported by the large corporations that own many pet food companies and will not expose their deadly practices.
    Susan is a very strong soldier that needs more support.

  5. Jane

    I’m shocked!!
    (No, I’m not)…but encouraged that the FDA is finally doing a small part of their job.

  6. Jane

    Okay, I left a comment: I included your entire comment with your signature, at the end of mine:
    I agree with everything written in the comment below. This type of “prolonged longevity and enhanced intelligence” marketing by the Iams company has been going on for more than a decade, without a peep from the FDA who we PAY to protect us from these crimes. I am encouraged that the FDA is finally doing a small part of their job. Since you are not doing what our taxes pay you to do, I no longer buy commercial dog food (I make my own), and frankly do not depend on the FDA for any truth, accuracy or safety. This is shameful.
    I was assigned a tracking # 15, so we need more comments, folks!

  7. Tracey

    Left comment. #16. Common everyone, comment!

  8. Jane

    Duh: I left a follow-up comment:
    Sorry for my error in tracking number of 00015.
    I forgot I was writing to the FTC and not the useless FDA.
    THANK YOU for finally stopping this crime; we’d all be grateful if you went after all the others…like labeling feed as pet “food” and all the other misleading advertising that is rampant in the pet food industry.

  9. Pat Lee


  10. Pat Lee

    SORRY I FORGOT TO ADD MY tracking number of 00022

  11. Marsha

    I sent one as well. I wrote that the misleading pictures on packages needs to be stopped. There are those who can not read well and go by pictures
    Which are very misleading. I know persons that are not able to read well, and I do my best to teach them and give them good advice.
    I did use some of yours but changed it to make it mine. .

  12. Lise

    Also left a comment and was tracking number 25. Thanks again Susan for all your efforts. I believe one small step is better than none.

  13. Pacific Sun

    I guess I’m being overly emotional again. But how sad and unfair to target consumers who hope their dogs will live longer based on a simple purchase. Who wouldn’t want their companion to be with them (and healthier) for as long as possible! Again, such deceit speaks to the complete absence of conscience in an industry that’s not even hard up for profit.

    On the flip side, if Mars has the gall to claim their targeted diet extends lifespan (what .. no whole food supplementation) then does this conversely mean that a dog is expected to die at term from a non-targeted diet of questionable ingredients? Or does it just all average out. In other words, because the diet is promising “longer” life, as opposed to a crappy diet possibly shortening one, then will the dog just live to expected term anyway? And about the 30% (quite an ambitious number) was that meant to be an easy number for consumers to digest. Or are they truly assuming someone would believe that 30% of 10 years means living a whole 3 years longer? That’s a long time!! Did they even care about the quality of those years.

    I am consoled (or maybe unsettled) by the idea that a company is actually doing testing on the effect of their diet. But how in the world do you measure a 30% percent increase in anything, much less life span. Did they feed the same food to the same litter for exactly 10 years, and then watched what happened. Meaning did 3 in a litter of 10 just live “longer” than the others? Or did some puppies in the litter live 3 years longer than the expected 10 years. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    If they did do a study, then their claim couldn’t be contested, except that it is. Does it mean they just made up the test which never happened. Or that they tested, and lied about the results? Again big DIFFERENCE. So what else is the company making up, or lying about (even worse)!

    The FTC should hand the case over to the FDA to look into all their claims. To verify the company’s records period.

    Except they won’t of course. After all we’re talking about MARS

  14. Regina

    Maybe we should be taking more concerns to the FTC, since FDA and AAFCO don’t want to hear what we have to say!

    I’ve seen the new “Spot Farms” powdered food that you’re supposed to add water to to make your pet’s food. It looks like powder, but the “finished product” representation on the package certainly does not look like it is just that powder with water added to it, it shows texture and colors . . . well, it’s just questionable to me.
    PLUS, they make the claim of “Human Grade” on all of their products. I’m wondering if they went through the same legal battles Honest Kitchen did to be able to say “Human Grade”.

    Since they are owned by Purdue, the big chicken producer, I’m really hesitant to believe that it is all “Human Grade”

    Susan, can you look into this? If the FTC is going to be cracking down on false or misleading advertising, this looks like a good one to check into.

Leave a Reply