How does Big Pet Feed make extra millions? By luring unknowing consumers into spending hundreds of dollars more a year buying higher priced pet food that is basically the same as a lower cost pet food.
Big Pet Food (Big Pet Feed) offers multiple lines of pet foods, often making consumers believe one brand is higher quality than the other. More often than not, all of the different lines of pet food (from the same manufacturer) – the lower cost and the higher cost – are made at the same pet food plant using the exact same feed quality ingredients. Marketing helps steer consumers to the higher priced food (with almost identical ingredients as the lower cost) making millions in added profits for the manufacturer.
Two dog food brands from Purina: Purina One and Purina ProPlan.
When you visit the Purina One website – a simple website greets the consumer making the claim “We were the first brand in grocery and mass retail stores to offer pet food with real meat, poultry, or fish as the #1 ingredient, starting in 1987.”
But when you visit the Purina Pro Plan website, consumers are greeted with a stunning website with video of beautiful, vibrant looking pets. In big bold letters the website claims “Powerful Breakthroughs that can lead to Breakthrough Nutrition.”
Is Pro Plan really a “powerful breakthrough”?
Both of these pet foods sell on the Petsmart website, but sell in slightly different sizes…
Notice that the bags are even shaped different. The Purina One bag is taller and thinner. The Pro Plan bag is wider giving the appearance of being equal in size to the consumer. Pet food manufacturers count on consumers not looking at the fine print of net weight. When we look at the sale price of the two pet foods, the price appears to be similar…
The Pro Plan dog food is only $0.83 more…and it contains “shredded pieces for taste and texture dogs love” (per the Pro Plan website). $0.83 more seems worth it for “breakthrough nutrition” right?
Let’s examine the ingredients of the two pet foods (minus supplements). Ingredients in bold are the included in both foods…
Minus some subtle differences, these two pet foods are VERY similar. Within the first five ingredients (the majority of the pet food by weight) – both have two animal protein ingredients (beef and poultry by-product meal) and both have 3 grains; the difference in grains is Purina One has whole grain corn, Purina Pro Plan has whole grain wheat. The Purina Pro Plan has added soy (2 ingredients) and glycerin – that’s needed to fabricate the “shredded pieces for taste and texture dogs love”. These ‘shredded pieces are NOT shredded meat – they are “shredded blend” or fabricated (pretend) meat pieces.
Now let’s look at the price per pound of these two dog foods…
Both of these pet foods are feed grade, most likely made from the exact same feed grade quality of ingredients from the same supplier. Minus some very subtle difference – these are basically the same dog food in different packages. But the ProPlan dog food is priced $0.69 higher per pound.
Fancy websites and shredded fake meat costs a lot more money.
Using the 8 pound size, if a pet owner purchased two bags a month (24 eight pound bags – 192 pounds of pet food) of Purina One the cost would be $315.84 for one year. With the smaller size ProPlan, the small dog owner would need to purchase 32 six pound bags (192 pounds of pet food) over a year costing $447.68.
A pet owner purchasing Pro Plan would spend $131.84 more per year for almost the exact same dog food.
It is not just dog food. Same two brands from Purina: Purina One and Purina ProPlan, but this time cat food. On the Petsmart website, both products are in same size bags but are priced very different…
For the more than $5.50 price difference, one would assume these two cat foods have very different ingredients…but…
The first four ingredients (majority by weight) of these two pet foods are identical. The difference of price per pound…
Two almost identical cat foods – yet the Pro Plan cat food sells for $0.80 more per pound.
What does that cost a pet owner? Two bags of pet food a month = $133.44 more spent for the ProPlan cat food over one year.
It’s not just Purina and it’s not just Petsmart. Two cat food varieties from Blue Buffalo: Wilderness and Freedom. Chewy.com offers these cat foods in different size bags, prices vary per pound, but the first six ingredients of this pet food (the majority of the food) are identical…
Two varieties of dog food from Blue Buffalo: Life Protection and Earth’s Essentials.
And of course this isn’t just dry pet food. Two varieties of canned cat food from Nutro: Nutro and Nutro Max
Recommended feeding for both Nutro Max and Nutro is about 3 cans per day for a 10 pound cat. A pet owner would spend $339.45 (over a year – 3 cans a day) for the Nutro food versus the Nutro Max.
When you notice a pet food has dozens and dozens of different varieties, watch for the tricks. Closely compare ingredients, and compare price per pound. You could end up saving yourself hundreds of dollars each year.
It’s one thing if the higher priced pet food uses human grade ingredients and the lesser expensive uses feed grade. But the above is not the case, all of the above are feed grade pet foods. More than likely the quality of ingredients in both the lower and higher priced foods are identical – purchased from the very same supplier. Shame, shame Big Pet Feed.
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 4,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2017 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods. Click Here
Have you read Buyer Beware? Click Here
Cooking pet food made easy, Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
Duncan
July 9, 2017 at 8:11 pm
Wow! I didn’t grasp this–and I thought I was a savvy shopper. Thank you!
Mary Dearmin
July 9, 2017 at 8:16 pm
Did you take into account the GA percentage differences in all of these? What about other ingredients that do cost more like ancient grains vs others? There is a big 5-10% difference between Freedom and Wilderness.
Susan Thixton
July 9, 2017 at 9:01 pm
I looked at ingredients that make up the majority of the food.
LoriL
July 9, 2017 at 10:04 pm
“Ancient grains”? Oh dear. It’s all marketing Mary. None of it is good for your pet.
Batzion
July 9, 2017 at 10:31 pm
Mary, please read this article by Dr. Karen Becker re ancient grains and other nasties in pet food: http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2017/05/29/falsely-named-natural-pet-food.aspx
Mike P
December 28, 2019 at 11:30 am
I agree, recent information seems to indicate that grain-free and exotic feed are not healthy for pets because they are typically deficient in some key nutrients. Here is recent article from NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/it-s-not-going-away-vets-still-seeing-cases-dog-n1107791
Batzion
July 9, 2017 at 8:50 pm
Playing with the minds of pet owners goes back a long way. “How an Organic Chemist Invented the Bone-Shaped Dog Treat:” http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/why-dog-treats-biscuits-bone-shape?utm_source=Atlas+Obscura+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=39c1763687-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f36db9c480-39c1763687-65783769&ct=t(Newsletter_7_4_2017)&mc_cid=39c1763687&mc_eid=23427c7877
JaneeS
July 9, 2017 at 10:46 pm
Susan has pointed out the trick of Higher protein kibbles as well. Many consumers are now aware that pets do better with higher protein, so they think that a higher protein percentage on the label is worth the added cost, right? The big secret, and the problem is that the protein is not from meat! It is from pea protein, whey protein, maybe even corn gluten meal or soy ingredients. Even though some vegetable proteins can be healthy in smaller amounts, they are not nearly as bioavailable to animals as meat. Vegetable proteins don’t have all the amino acids needed by dogs and cats, are harder to digest, and are often ingredients that pets are allergic to. It’s a cheap way to boost protein numbers on the label, but how much nutrition does your furry family member get from that? Big Pet Feed: It’s all about money.
landsharkinnc
July 10, 2017 at 7:00 am
wonder if they changed the source of BEEF / Chicken between the two products as one says BEEF ( is good source of glucosamine (not so much the muscle meat itself ) and in the other bag, they say that CHICKEN is — which if the meal if primarily made from feet/bone, would be a more correct statement. In either case, I wouldn’t feed this to a DOG!
First 2-3 ingredients should be a named meat, following 2-3 should be DIFFERENT carbs — in the case of the one bag, two of the first five are Corn – not that I’m against ‘grain’ but there is still more grain than meat in either of these.
https://www.marvelousproducts.com/is-glucosamine-for-dogs-natural.html
Pingback: How does Big Pet Feed make extra millions?
Andrea
July 10, 2017 at 11:54 am
I have a question. When you say the first few ingredients (by weight), that is before the food is processed, correct? So, chicken may be the first ingredient but after cooked (and much of the water weight removed), it is actually not the #1 ingredient for the final product, correct?
Susan Thixton
July 10, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Ingredients are listed in pre-cooking weight – yes.
Andrea
July 10, 2017 at 12:20 pm
I love your site and knew you would be the expert to answer this. Thanks!
Sandy Blackburn
July 10, 2017 at 12:41 pm
Compare science diet $$$$ to the same ingredients in another brand, lets say purina…thats eye opening!
Ian
July 10, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Great article, Susan, another example of how Big Pet Food is the amazing and horrible story of converting junk ingredients, using sophisticated marketing, into huge profits. Thanks for always shining a light.
Reader
July 10, 2017 at 9:58 pm
Now I do get the point of the article. I don’t defend any of the products, or any like them. No matter the ingredients, when they are inferior/toxic, which just undermines any intended benefits of the formula. But let’s assume there really is product integrity. My understanding is beef or chicken “meal” is preferable to just “beef” or “chicken” meat. (Pretty sure that’s been discussed here before). The value of appropriate “meal” is supposed be a well-rounded combination of carcass parts (but not unfit parts). This is why feeding a RAW diet is valuable. Including natural calcium, organ meat, etc.. (See Susan’s List for reputable brands). One assumption about feeding kibble is usually missed however. Meaning it “should” be fed with a wet food to dogs. Most dogs need the added moisture.
The marketing difference between Purina One and Pro Plan is because one product is aimed at regular owners. Notice the words “Smart Blend.” Well wouldn’t you feel pretty dumb if you weren’t choosing a “smart” formulated dog food? (That marketing term is no accident). On the other hand, Pro Plan used to be (and may still be) a Breeders/Exhibitors choice dog food. Notice the image on the package (a purebred). And breeders/exhibitors almost always feed a combination of wet and kibble. It just makes for a substantial dog (muscle, weight, coat) and so on.
Wilderness is trying to appeal to the “prey” model diet interests. Which of course kibble will never meet anyway. And gad knows whatever “Life Protection and Earth’s Essentials” are supposed to be. That kind of language really ought to be outlawed.
Tom
July 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
Purina is huge and marketing takes precedent over food..and nutrition.
People are so taken in by marketing and phony claims Blue is the perfect example..that those in Pet Food research and science..innovators struggle to compete.
Pacific Sun
July 16, 2017 at 9:24 pm
Purina (Checkerboard Square) used to be one of those researchers and innovators! But sold out big time during the previous decades! To become one of the worst manufacturers out there. Average consumers never question PF. One of the few products they take for granted. Partly because it’s hard to imagine how bad the food can be, and partly because they live in denial.
Be sure to sign (and share!) the petition to require manufacturers to label products as feed or food. The petition is hosted on the Care2 website, here is the direct link: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/924/546/122/tell-aafco-consumers-support-%E2%80%98food%E2%80%99-or-%E2%80%98feed%E2%80%99-disclosure/
Not only will it soon be one trick manufacturers can no longer play, the petition is only 113 away from the goal. Let’s put it over the top during the next 24 hours!!!
Ms. B Dawson
August 11, 2017 at 10:37 am
I wasn’t certain what thread to post this under and finally settled here…
An article entitled “‘Made in USA’ no longer enough for pet food?” was posted yesterday from The World Pet Association (an advocacy group for the pet food industry). I am livid at the journalism and here’s why:
The article, written by Lindsay Beaton (managing editor of Petfood Industry magazine), starts off well enough by documenting the trend in premium foods to label point of origin for ingredients, primarily meat sources. Examples given included Ziwi Peak’s “New Zealand mackerel and lamb” and Grizzly’s Superfoods’ Alaskan wild caught salmon. These are solid claims that tell consumers where the meat in their pet food is coming from and that’s helpful.
The article then devolves into the following statement:
..”Are you from Nantucket? Blue Buffalo has a new formula for your dog called “Nantucket Feast,” made with cod, shrimp, Yukon gold potatoes and cranberries. In that same new line are Colorado Roast and Texas BBQ formulas.”….
“Nantucket Feast” and “Colorado Roast” are names given to formulas that, in the ingredient panel, make no claims that the seafood is from Nantucket or the beef is roasted from Colorado cattle. It is a marketing claim that this article conflates with actual point of origin meat sources. Two thirds of the article is dedicated to these “regional formulations”, with the companies who declared factual point of origin enjoying only one third.
The industry obviously believes that “reasonable consumers” DO swallow slick marketing hook, line and sinker. The final paragraph in the article says it all:
..”The regional callouts will have pet owners from those areas taking a second look, appreciating the attention to detail in the ingredients and the idea that someone at a pet food company thought their home was worth celebrating in pet food form.”..
Apparently the pet food industry thinks that celebrating your hometown is waaaay more important to consumers than being honest and disclosing where the ingredients came from. This is outrageous and illustrates how the industry believes that colorful marketing is better than boring facts and that what’s on the label drives sales. The judge who dismissed Wysong’s lawsuit needs to read this article!
The article can be read here: http://www.petfoodindustry.com/blogs/9-trending-pet-food/post/6590-made-in-usa-no-longer-enough-for-pet-food
Pacific Sun
August 11, 2017 at 2:40 pm
I like your comments! They always make me think! And they’re newsy. I think the PFI publication is being very honest. About the value of deception! At least they recognize it. And value it!! That “regional” stuff claim has always made me suspicious of Orijen in terms of how they “market” their brand. Give me a break. Are we really to believe these companies find a single source (and wherever “Nantucket” is) and then expect to believe they get their entire required volume from that source? Or do they sprinkle the essence of a Nantucket caught fish over the whole batch?? More likely. Or for us to believe all the cattle they need, is roaming only on Colorado property? I just talked with a local renderer yesterday (who gave a seminar at our supply store about an organic PF) and he said big companies source from all over, just as long as they can meet their quota. And the companies under discussion here, have a huge volume of ingredient requirements!
I think another word for the “reasonable consumers” these companies are imagining us to be, would be instead “gullible consumers” and I’m surprised those words haven’t never made it to print yet. But should.
I’m guessing the judge who dismissed Wysong, doesn’t even own a pet!!
Nicole
October 28, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Thank you for this informative fact based article that answered my suspicions that we were paying more for a pet food than we needed to. We started Pro Plan because that is what our breeder started our dog off with. After loosing my job I was struggling to pay for this food. I switched to purina one not seeing a difference in ingredients, and my dog loves the turkey venison. I have done a ton of research trying to confirm my suspicions and all the articles I come across have been opinion base. I really appreciate you taking the time to break down the facts.