Ten months ago, an alert pet food consumer in Canada alerted Science Diet to a calorie error on the label of Hill’s Ideal Balance Slim & Healthy Cat Food. The company has still not corrected the pet food label.
As shared with me: In September, 2014 – an attentive pet food consumer from Canada noticed the 2.9 ounce can of Hill’s Ideal Balance Slim & Healthy Savory Chicken & Tuna Recipe Can Cat Food stated “173 kcal/2.9 oz” on the pet food label. 173 calories per can. But with further investigation, this pet food consumer noticed on the Hill’s website, the exact same food stated “73 kcal/2.9 oz”. Only 73 calories per can. That is a 100 calorie per can difference.
The pet owner shared: “I contacted them and they confirmed that it contains 73 calories. I advised them that it can be dangerous for the cans to say that they contain 173 calories as a person may then underfeed their cat and cats, especially overweight ones which many people would buy this food for, must ingest a proper amount of calories per day as they can get hepatic lipidosis if they don’t which is a potentially fatal liver disease.”
Hill’s told this pet owner “the labels would be corrected immediately.”
The pet owner shared: “It’s now July, 2015 and I checked one today at my local Petsmart and they’re still mislabeled! Unbelievable, it’s almost a year later.”
So I went to Petsmart myself wondering if this was a Canadian problem or if the pet food was mislabeled here in the U.S. as well.
Here is a picture of the calorie statement on the can of Hill’s Ideal Balance Slim & Healthy Savory Chicken & Tuna Recipe Can Cat Food:
The label states “173 kcal/2.9 oz”.
The Hill’s website states just what was confirmed to this pet owner by Hill’s, “73 kcal/2.9 oz”.
I called Hill’s this morning asking which is correct – 173 calories as stated on the label or 73 calories as stated on the website. The customer service representative (Dave) told me 73 calories was the correct calorie content of this cat food. I asked why was the pet food label different? He could not respond to my question, but promised a return call with a response. As of the posting of this article, more than 2 hours have passed with no return call.
I also reported this issue to my State Department of Agriculture and provided them with the same images as above. Let’s hope that Hill’s will take prompt action to correct this problem or regulatory authorities force them to correct the problem.
Thank you! to this pet owner bringing this issue to our attention.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
TruthaboutPetFood.com
Association for Truth in Pet Food
What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 3000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2015 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking for pets made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Woofielover
July 24, 2015 at 11:54 am
There is supposed to be a 6 month grace period for package labeling corrections but I personally know of a manufacturer who labeling did not match the ingredients for more than 2 years. It’s outrageous and proves how little truth in labeling there is. No one is policing it on “their” side because no one (meaning government and manufacturing) cares but us.
judith malone
July 24, 2015 at 12:58 pm
Even given the need for “time” to correct labels, there is plenty of precedent for corrections to be posted on the display shelf itself. Wonder how many cats have sickened or even died because of this?
Yvonne McGehee
July 24, 2015 at 12:49 pm
I have nothing helpful to add, except to say how frustrating this is. And disappointing. Susan, you are doing a great job of laying out clearly, with graphics included, what is wrong, so anyone can understand it. Keep up the wonderful work.
Batzion
July 24, 2015 at 1:24 pm
Sue, the work you are doing on behalf of pets and their people never fails to amaze. Thank you so much.
Mary
July 24, 2015 at 2:40 pm
Susan, I’m not sure what state you’re in, but my understanding is that Texas is one of the states most likely to follow up on this sort of problem. If your state isn’t interested, you may want to try contacting the Texas Dept of Agriculture as well.
Sadia
July 24, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Take it to social media… share this with your friends, on Facebook, Twitter, etc. If enough people complain and make a ruckus online, one would think they might finally notice and make a statement. It’s worked for me before.
Lisa
July 24, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Not much better than Merrick’s LID “single protein” labels, duck pate and turkey pate for cats. Both contain dried egg product (and Merrick confirmed with me in writing and via phone) that it is indeed chicken protein and not duck or turkey egg product. “We pawsitively regret the error!” Meanwhile there are people who will buy those products without looking at the ingredient list, onlybthe front of the labels, whose cats are allergic to both chicken and eggs and Merrick could not care less.
Oh, and I did contact my state AAFCO division about this and they don’t give a rats arse about it either, never heard back from them.
Marijke vd Woude
July 24, 2015 at 6:18 pm
Also the word ‘slim’ in the name suggests that this food is ‘low calorie’; while it is quite high in calories compared to other wet food. That is, compared to average wet food from the supermarket here in Europe. Most popular brands like Whiskas or Felix contain around 75 kcal/100 gram (this Slim & Healthy 88 kcal/100 gram). Similar thing with the prescription canned food from Hill’s; in every supermarket there are many wet foods that contain a lot less carbohydrates than the so-called ‘low carb’ m/d (wet),which contains actually an above average amount of carbs
r/d wet food; supposedly low calorie but in reality average calorie.
I/d wet food (diarrhea); supposedly low fat but actually quite high in fat fat. Not that it matters because it is now known that for cats fat content has no influence on diarrhea, so the formula is based on faulty assumption.
w/d; still marketed for diabetic cats, while it is known that high fibre food for diabetic cats is not nearly so effective as low carb food, that is REAL low carb food, not their m/d food which is not low carb at all!
Despite all this vets all over the world keep prescribing this lower-than-average quality food, it always baffles me. The ‘science’ of Hill’s is the science of marketing. They clearly excell in that department.