My dog loves the Earth Animal No Hide chews. The ingredient list is super simple, so I feel like I should be able to make them at home. Has anybody had any luck trying?
I have never purchased them, but I did take a look at their website when I saw your post.
Seems like they are trying to imply that their chews are simply dried meat.
I have a dehydrator and make beef jerky, as I make it, there are various pieces that don’t come out the way I want them too, a fat strip left behind, or inconsistent cut that makes it dehydrate unevenly, or whatever. I dehydrate them completely and give them to my dog for treats or training snacks. I have done chicken as well, the larger pieces of tough chewy meat will keep him entertained for a while. Not as long as rawhide (which I do not buy) but they last about as as long as the smoked pig ears that I buy from the local butcher.
I took a look at No Hide Chews trying to backward engineer a salmon chew. From the website we are given that the carb is 11%, fat is 5% and from the label the min protein is 55%, with 17% max moisture
The ingredients are Salmon, Vegetable gelatin, brown rice flour, organic eggs, olive oil banana and bromelain. Vegetable gelatin could be one of any number of things: ager or carageeanan or some other source. in general these are high carbohydrate sources. Ager is reported as 82% carbo, 6% protein and 3% fat. From the USDA nutrient database brown rice flour nutrient content, rounded off, is 12% water, 7.2 % protein, 2.8% fat, 76.5% carb and 4.6% fiber.
The company told us the carb content of the Salmon chew is 11%( the carb content of the pork chew is reported as only 2%) So~8.7 grams of my chew is carbohydrate split between vegetable gelatin and rice as the main carbohydrate sources with there being more agar then rice. If we assume 6 grams vegetable gelatin at 80% carbohydrate that gives us 4.8 grams carbohydrate and the remaining ~ 4 grams carbohydrate would have to come from rice ~ 5 grams of rice flour or about 1 and 1/2 teaspoons. ( the 4 inch pork chew would only have about 1/2 tsp rice flour in it.)
The fat content is reported to be 5%, 4 grams in my chew. Salmon is considered a fatty fish. From the USDA nutrient database dried chum salmon is ( rounded to the nearest percent) 62% protein 14% fat and 22% water. Dried Egg is 48% protein and 43% fat. and oil would be 100% fat. So as not to exceed the reported fat content I can’t use a lot of Salmon, 25 grams dried salmon yields 3.5 grams fat unless it is some type of defatted Salmon and I can’t use much egg or oil either or the fat content is exceeded.
Protein min of 55%, 43 min grams protein in the chew This has to come primarily from salmon, but it would have to be some type of special defatted salmon. Salmon is very deeply colored and the chew is white. Hmm… that doesn’t work does it. Maybe they bleach the salmon.. but the website states no bleaching process had been done. Salmon is pink/red and egg is yellow so you’d expect the chew to be pinkish orange maybe. That color matches the coating on the chew but not the chew.
Well that’s weird isn’t it?? The chews is white…yet except for the rice flour of which there is very little in our chew recipe the ingredients are colored. How can the chew be white when the ingredients to make it are all colored? This isn’t making sense.
I boiled my chew pieces for about an hour. The chew was made of 5 oddly shaped and sized pieces and one rectangular “cover” piece. Oddly though this didn’t change it too much. The sheets shrunk and curled but didn’t fall apart and you couldn’t tear it break it up at all. You’d think salmon rice and vegetable gelatin would fall apart.
I can’t replicate making a “no hide” chew. I can’t make a white chew out of colored ingredients nor can I match the nutrient content the company reports as being in the product if I stick to the ingredients and the USDA nutrient database.
I called and e mailed the company to ask them about the product. When I asked how the product can be so white I was given a different number to call for someone named Chris. I’ve called Chris multiple times but haven’t reached him. I never got a response to my email and it has been about a week since I sent it.
Personally I think there is an “ingredient” missing from the ingredient list and I think it makes up the vast proportion of the product. I found a lab willing to test the product. I will send them a new sealed package of No Hide chews and see if they find anything.
I get emails from Truthaboutpetfood.com Their email from 7/27, 2017 stated that a PHD leather chemist said that” No-hide chew is absolutely rawhide split material”.
A dog has died from the treat stuck in the dog’s throat.
I used to buy No-hide chews. Not anymore.
I did see that along with the company rebuttal. There is no doubt in my mind that this chew is not solely made of the ingredients the company is reporting. Really no sense arguing over DNA analysis and digestibility testing, from a very simple practical standpoint you can’t make a chew with the profile and ingredients they are claiming to use and end up with a white chew.
Of interest though is that the nutrient profile of No Hide is very similar to that of other chews made of hide: very high protein, very low fat and about 15% moisture. From import data the company that makes these, Pony Express foods has been importing tens of thousands of pounds of chews from China each month. The company said they are selling those at a farmers market. Must be some Farmers market to need ~5000 lbs of chews a week.
aimee I think you missed your calling as an investigative reporter!! 😉
Hi a c
Regardless of what Earth animal chews are made of the incident with the dog dying is 100% owner error. This women bought a 4 in chew for a 125 lb French Mastiff, took a 90 minute conference call and had her back turned away from him. The chew got lodged in his throat and never made it to his stomach, so raw hide or not doesn’t matter.
Susan Thixon once again took a horrible story and ran with it blaming the company instead of the irresponsible owner trying to save money buying a treat far too small for their dog.
However, if I pay over $1 for each piece of No Hide chews, I expect there is no rawhide. Otheise, I can pay $10 or less for 50 rawhides.
Company has been dishonest and misleading the consumers.
I understand why people lay blame at the owners feet but I’m reluctant to. It was a small size chew but a 11 inch chew could have resulted in the same problem. The dog given a larger chew could have sheared off a shorter portion and swallowed. That is Brooke handles linear chews which is why they are not an option for her.
I also agree that Thixton has a history of not letting facts get in the way of a good story and jumps to conclusions.
Does it matter if the chew was hide? I think it plays a role here. I could see someone assuming that a chew made of those ingredients would break apart from jaw pressure from such a large dog, more like giving your dog a large biscuit whereas that assumption likely wouldn’t be made with hide.
I paid 5.99 for 4 inch piece of No Hide and 1.18 for a similar sized rawhide. So yes people are paying a premium for this product.
As I’m sure you know, there is not a single chew on the market safe enough to give to a dog and walk away. Also the individual chewing habits of the dog plays a major role. Normally I would be inclined to agree with you, but this time I have to say I don’t. It was irresponsible for this women to buy an undersized chew for a dog of that size, not to mention it being a brachycephalic breed as well, and then turn her back to him while taking a 90 minute conference call. We can’t say what would have happened had she purchased the 7in or the 11in chew and watched her dog while he chewed it because that is not what happened. Would he still be alive? Maybe, maybe not as you suggested. But common sense would tell me not to give a small chew like that to either of my dogs, so either she had no common sense or was trying to save money or both.
Is there some fault on the company here? Yes, maybe. But simply saying the owner has no blame in this is simply promoting more events like this to occur.
I understand your point from a dog owner education standpoint but personally I just can’t bring myself to blame her.. it was a tragic event.
As for the company… something isn’t right here. Size aside if the chew that led to that dogs death tests out as rawhide ( I thought i read the actual chew was being tested) I think she has a valid court case.
thank you guys so much for posting about these chews. I thought it was too good to be true. OMG I am a mess my dog ate one this a.m. we never ever feed rawhide. I paid $8.50 for a 4 inch one. I bought 8 of them thinking they were great. I thought it seemed weird too that they were so hard if they used only gelatin, etc. Is there anything we/I can do re: the company. How can they get away with this 🙁 thanks
I started at the stores where the product is sold and asked for them to help me investigate. Sadly I haven’t had any luck but i think this is a place to start. Earth Animal guarantees 100% satisfaction so if you are not satisfied start there and get your money back for all the chews you purchased.
My hope is to find experts that will be able to tell me one way or another what this is. If the product turns out to be other than claimed then I will go to the state feed control official and FDA with that information and keep pressure on the stores that sell them.
I received the lab report on the Salmon No Hide chews. This was done at a veterinary diagnostic lab by a forensic pathologist. The sample was submitted by my dog’s veterinarian. The lab rehydrated the chew in deionized water. The pink coating is described as gelatinous and friable which floated within the water. The chew itself described as tough and not able to be manually torn or pulled apart. The white/tan chew material was processed separately from the pink coating material
The coating material is described as having no distinct organization and an accumulation of eosinophilic strands. “The strands of material occasionally have multiple nuclei along the periphery and rarely cross striations are observed ( consistent with skeletal muscle) The myocytes [muscle cells] vary in diameter…….There are numerous aggregates that are clear ………….and brown crystalline structures within the material”
Comments: “The filling material appears to be a mixture of animal product (identification of skeletal muscle) mixed with a filler product( plant based material?)”
For the chew itself: “The material appears to be composed of streams of eosinophilic material( no observable nuclei) with relatively distinct margins. This material is birefringent using polarized light.” I didn’t know what that last sentence meant and looked it up. I found that it is a measure of symmetry and is a reported characteristic of collagen.
Comments: “The majority of the rolled product appears to be composed of collagen like material”
I found this interesting not only for what it says but for what it doesn’t say. The company describes the chew as being high muscle content ” meat is an essential part of the “dough” portion of the No-Hide” and ” The wild caught salmon has been carefully hand-rolled, cooked, and uniquely dried for a one of a kind chew your dog will love!” yet no muscle tissue was found on microscopic examination of the chew, only in the coating. Additionally, the chew had been described as being made of rice vegetable gelatin, oil and eggs with the protein added but no description of plant based products intermixed with animal based in the chew description ..only in the coating description. The chew is uniformly composed of collagen-like material.
Rawhide is the dermis of the skin which is a mat of collagen fibers. The pathology of this No Hide chew is consistent with dermis.
So what next.. I’ve already got hundreds invested into this and I’m going to take it farther. I’ll send out a labeled rawhide chew and have it processed as the No Hide was so a direct comparison can be made. Then depending on cost have specialized stains run.
Right now to my eye this forensic pathology report is consistent with this product being rawhide.
This is incredible. Can’t wait to see what you find out, Aimee
I am seeing a T.V. show or podcast in your future…P.F.I. Aimee! (P.F.I. = Pet Food Investigator) 😉
The pathologist e mailed me this am. He’s reaching out to others so together can come up with plan to definitively identify. At his point we can only say what the science tells us “collagen like” You can’t state collagen based on microscopy alone.
Hopefully have a plan in a few days.. I’m wondering what all this will cost “gulp” but I want solid data to turn over to the feed officials..
A new twist on the C.S.I. franchises!! Looking forward to updates.
Thank you for the investigation. I have stop giving No Hide Chews for sometime. I am now giving Smart Bones, the healthy alternative to rawhides. The package also said it’s rawhide free. It’s made in Vietnam. It gets good reviews from a few places. Have you heard anything about this one?
I’ve seen Smart Bones in stores. Other then I can say they do look manufactured from a dough vs a natural product like hide I don’t know anything about them
I thought I’d provide an update of sorts. The estimated cost for a full analysis at a lab that identifies unknowns was ~2000.00 They would tell me all ingredients identified and in what proportions they are in. It was a bit more than I felt comfortable spending: ) I elected to instead have a known rawhide processed at the lab where I had the “No Hide” processed.
Chris Moore never returned my calls but I did have an interesting conversation with Tom O’Hare Vice President of Operations for Earth Animal. He told me that the chews used to be meat based but the company found that they could not make a durable chew that way so the meat was removed from the product about two years ago. He said currently the only meat in the product is in the outer coating of the chew. This is consistent with the findings of the diagnostic report I referenced above. I asked why, if there has been no meat in the white chew roll for 2 years, did Earth Animal in response to Dr Kallenberger’s report on the Truth About Pet Food site state ” One report discusses seeing microscopic blood vessel passages and flesh fibers……. we are not surprised at these observations as meat is an essential part of the “dough” portion of the No-Hide. ” Additionally, I asked why on many pages of the EA site does it describe the chew as being made of meat? “The chicken has been carefully rolled, cooked, and uniquely dried for a one of a kind chew your dog will love!” In response to these questions Mr. O’Hare said that information should never have been on the site and in the future E.A. will only be providing an ingredient list. I next asked how the company could meet the Guaranteed Analysis of the Salmon chew, reported at 55% min protein, when the primary protein source, Salmon, is only in the outer coating. He responded by saying brown rice flour is high in protein. I informed him that according to the USDA Nutrient database the protein content in brown rice flour is 7%. Next he said the protein comes from the gelatin. I responded that could be true of the other flavors but the Salmon chew uses agar which has a reported protein content of ~6 % Finally, he said the protein comes from the colored coating on the chew. I said I removed all the coating from my chew and it was only about 7% of the product weight. Even if the outer coating was 100% protein it wouldn’t account for the reported protein content of the chew. I also inquired as to how the carbohydrate level in the chews could be so low (2%-11%) when the chew is made of a high carbohydrate ingredient? He said the analysis is done by a third party and that is what it came out to be. I said the analysis doesn’t make sense. The carbohydrate content would only allow for a few teaspoons of flour in a small chew, not nearly enough to make a chew.
The conversation ended but the interesting thing is he called back about 5 min later and his whole affect was different. He said he’d been thinking about my questions and that he can’t explain the discrepancies as he doesn’t have the background to do so. He promised to get me the answers saying that he would get in touch with Dr Yamka, Dr Goldstein, and a PhD that is on staff and get back to me.
After nearly a month had passed and he never recontacted me I e mailed him, he said I should contact Chris Moore. This is person I originally tried to contact. I contacted Chris by e mail and he asked that I call him right after Christmas, which I did, he didn’t answer. Initially, Chris respond to e mail, but he wouldn’t answer any questions nor tell me what would be good times to call him. He only wanted my cell phone number. He said he had a lot of questions for me. I said feel free to ask them but he replied that wanted to ask them by phone. Oddly, it seemed he only wanted to communicate by cell phone and only if he initiated the call. I told him I’d give him a cell number if I had one but I didn’t have a cell phone at that time. After that he broke off all communication with me and no longer responded to further e mails. I e mailed Tom and asked that he give me a different contact, that request and all other e mails to Tom or Chris have gone unanswered. All very odd.
The other day something occurred to me. When Purina reported that Blue Buffalo contained by product meal Blue Buffalo quickly filed a lawsuit against Purina. In the end of course they lost. But I thought it odd that Earth Animal as far as I know hasn’t made any such move.
I’ll post the analysis when I receive it.
Thank you for the update and thank you for been persistent. It all sounds like there are something they are hiding that they don’t want to be in writing.
Keep us posted.
Like you surmised it also occurred to me that maybe the company doesn’t want to put anything in writing. If it isn’t in writing you can always say you didn’t say it : )
Looking at what is in writing, looks like there are problems there as well. I think all of these need to be on the label since the company is marketing this product as easily digestible: the word snack or treat on the front label , calorie content /unit and a nutritional adequacy statement.
This company is full of Wow moments…..
The lab report for the analysis of a known rawhide chew and comparison to the Earth Animal product that claims not to contain rawhide was received today.
This is the description of the known rawhide : “The material appears to be composed of streams of eosinophilic material (no observable nuclei) with scattered regions of relatively distinct margins. The material is birefringent using polarized light. The diameter of this material varies (random sampling of measurements 27 um, 28 um, 30 um, and 33 um). Interspersed within the material are multiple clear spaces (artifact of processing vs. empty space within material).”
Comment “The product examined is from a known rawhide product. The rolled product appears to be composed of collagen-like material.” ( For direct comparison this was the comment from the analysis of the Earth Animal product ““The majority of the rolled product appears to be composed of collagen like material”)
The two products were then compared:
“The histomorphology of this product serves as a control product to allow for comparison of this product to the product examined in case #17-217 (No-Hide Salmon Chews, Earth Animal). Based on histomorphology, the composition of the rolled product in both cases is extremely similar when viewed microscopically with a majority of the product examined in
#17-217 being composed of eosinophilic material similar to that of the product examined in #17-279…. Based on my evaluation of both products, I suspect that the product from #17-217 is composed of material similar to that of #17-279”
Both reports will be sent to regulatory I hope they do the right thing. In the mean time I think a grass roots effort to spread the word is in order.
What or who is regulatory?
By regulatory I mean I will be sending to the FDA and to my state feed control official. I’m going to try and find out if I can send to other state feed control officials or only my own state.
Got it. Good luck! Thank you for your dedication to our furries!
thanks for information. The best place to find dog food and treat articles are from The Whole dog journal / They are not compensated like this site from chewy.com and their articles are very reliable/no sign of weighted articles no signs of collusion
Recently what came to mind is if there are problems in one area of a company there may be problems in other areas as well. I went to several stores that sells No Hide Products. I took my kitchen scale with me and started weighing the No Hide products. In nearly all cases the product did not meet label weight.
The longest chews are labeled as 9 ounces (255 grams) but a few were are labeled as 4.9 ounces ( 255 grams) Obviously 255 grams can not be both 4.9 ounces and 9 ounces, 4.9 ounces is ~139 grams. The chew weights varied. The lowest weighted chew was 109 grams and the highest 155 grams. None met label claim of 255 grams.
Other sizes had problems as well. For the middle sized chew, labeled 85 grams, weights varied from 61-74 grams. The smallest size reported at 51 grams varied from 38 grams to 71 grams.
The packaged twists labeled at 85 grams were pretty uniformly between 64-66 grams and considering there wasn’t a way to weigh the packaging the true weight of the contents would be lower than this.
Before going to the stores I put brand new batteries on the scale and I weighed out some standard measures and found the scale to be accurate. I also weighed out various other items in the pet stores all which were at label claim.
From this small sample at three different stores it appears that the company has serious quality control problems. It would be interesting to me if others do or do not find similar weight issues in their areas and report that information here.
I missed your prior up-date, very interesting aimee! I am curious how the pet stores felt about your info.
The managers of chain stores said while they agree there is a problem they have no input into what corporate tells them they have to sell and therefore there is nothing they can do. The managers though are not willing to inquire to corporate office. Instead they advised me to do so. Their body language was interesting. I interpreted it as they were fearful of their corporate owners.
The independent store employees were interested in the information and were very concerned. The owner of the store, who has said rawhide will never be in any of her stores and heavily markets this product, has so far said she believes in the product. I see it as she is emotionally invested in the company and can’t see things objectively.
The corporate owner of one of the chains said she can’t comment on a scientific report as she doesn’t have a science background. I sent her the findings of the first report and she doesn’t want me to forward her any other reports saying she will act only if regulatory makes her.
The other corporate owner never acknowledged my contacts with him.
So I’m seeing this pattern of those that are in a position of profiting off of the sale of the product as being unwilling or unable to objectively understand what the reports found. And those without money ties to the product are open to seeing it for what it is. Very frustrating, especially as these stores advertise how they carefully select for and only sell the best products that meet their high standards. All marketing hype!
This is what got me looking at weights. People can play the “science”card.. Oh I don’t understand the report it is too complicated for me… but hard to claim ignorance when the product label says 255 grams and it only weighs 107
I suspected you would reply with those answers.
That is an eye opening response from the pet store chain owner that she will only act if regulatory makes her. Hiding your head in the sand and claiming it’s too scientific or complicated is a cop out for anyone IMO. At the very least I would be interested in looking into the information you provided as a business owner to determine if it warranted further investigation on my part.
“…especially as these stores advertise how they carefully select for and only sell the best products that meet their high standards.” Sounds like the same marketing hype some pet food companies use! 🙁
I have several 11”, 8”, and 4” no hide at home and they all weighted out to exactly what the label says…and all of the ones on the shelf at my store weigh out to what’s stated on the label…
And they’re listed at different weights per size, not all the same “255 grams”
Interesting that yours all weighed out correctly. What general part of the country are you in?
I’m not sure what you mean by “they are listed at different weights size, not all the same “255” grams” Do you mean that for a particular size you found multiple label weights?
For simplicity I’m going to call them small, medium and large. The small ones by me were either labeled “4 inches” or 1.8 ounces (51 grams) the medium ones were either labeled “7 inches” or 3 ounces (85 grams) and the large were labeled either 11 inches, 4.9 ounces (255grms) or 9 ounces (255) grams
Are your large ones that weighed 255 grams ~ 11 inches or are they longer. If they are ~11 inches are they wider than the 7 inch and 4 inch ones?
The other thing I noticed is that there are multiple styles of roll. On the end of some are “caps” for lack of a better word to describe then and others are the cut end scroll of the rolled material.
I was thinking about this further. The small (4 inch) chew is reported as 1.8 ounces (51 grams) and the medium (7 inch) chew as 3 ounces (85 grams). It would make sense than that the large (11 inch ) would be equivalent to one 4 inch and one 7 inch which in ounces would be 1.8 +3 = 4.8 ounces or in grams 85 + 51 = 136 grams.
Looking at the company website they report the calories for the 4 inch beef chew as 150 kcal and for the 7 inch chew as 263. The 11 inch chew is reported as 413 kcals, which is the sum of the 4 inch and the 7 inch reported calories (150 + 263)
For the Chicken the 4 inch is 152 kcals and the 7 inch is 266 kcals for a total for the 11 inch of 418. For the Salmon flavor adding the calories from the 4 and 7 inch is one kcal away from the 11 inch and for the pork flavor 2 kcals away.
For the kcals to be as reported the large chew would have to be around 4.8 ounces and 136 grams, the sum of teh 4 inch and the 7 inch weights The one version of the label reported 4.9 ounces which would be 139 grams but then Earth Animal incorrectly listed 4.9 ounces as 255 grams.
So it appears that the company never intended to make a 255 grams chew and that that number is a goof up. It is interesting then that you are finding chews that weigh that much.
Yamka reported in his report that “Once the rolls were cooled, they were cut into appropriate sizes” If the rolls started out as 255 grams then your 4 inch and 7 inch should have weighed a lot more then label weight so that that the total weight for a 4 inch and a 7 inch would total the weight of an 11 inch. What you are finding seems odd It makes me wonder if these chews are being sourced from more than one place and your 11 inch chews are from someplace different than you 4 and 7 inch chews.
Why didn’t I think of this before? My friend is a taxidermist. I asked him if I could tan a rawhide. He said I should be able to do it and advised hydrating it in a non iodized salt bath. He told me to let it dry out a bit until just damp then apply tanning solution to both sides of the hide and wrap in plastic wrap for 24 hours to soak in, then let it dry. I used Deer Hunters Tanning Oil from a local sporting goods store and I also tried my hand at egg yolk tanning,
I purchased a known rawhide and successfully tanned it! It looks like a light tan piece of suede. It really is quite pretty. Next I bought an Earth Animal cough cough “No Hide” chew. I hydrated that and then tanned it. It tanned up beautifully! Main thing when tanning is that as the hide is drying you have to continually pull the hide. This is so it stays supple. I showed the results to the taxidermist he was amazed how well it came out!
For the egg yolk tanning I found videos on how to do this on you tube. I tanned a piece of the Earth Animal chew this way as well. It took longer to dry but again came out pretty well. No reason anyone couldn’t do this. I’d recommend using one of the thinner thickness chews for tanning.
You have discovered a new talent!! 😉
I think you should make a coin purse from the “No Hide” chew and send it to Earth Animal as a present.
My computer hiccupped and made a double post. 🙂
- This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Bobby dog.
I have to say I did consider making a coin purse! Reminded me of being back in Camp Fire!
Maybe after I show it the store owner who sold me the chew. Do you think it will convince him that it isn’t what the label claims? When I bought it I told him I was going to tan it. He marked it so he can identify it when I bring it back. i covered the mark with a couple of coats of clear nail polish before starting the tanning process. It preserved his mark.
Ha ha that’s what I was thinking of when I wrote my reply those good ole days of craft projects in school. I was a master sculptor of ashtrays (even though no one in my family smoked) and pencil holders!!
If nothing else it would be shameful if he didn’t question the company himself when you present him with your project!
If I were in his shoes I would probably want to conduct the tanning process on the two products myself and pursue my own investigation from there. Heck, I could use a new coin purse… 😉
I have enough tanned “No Hide” to make you a coin purse… Do you have a spare pencil holder? I could use one of those : ) I’ll post back in the response of the store owner.
I am so angry reading this post! I never buy rawhide chews for our 6yo golden doodle, matter of fact I rarely get him anything like this but OF COURSE, today I was at a high end pet store, (one of the better ones in our area) and they had a full display of these things. I am so SICK of crooked companies that do **** like this and am concerned that I gave this to my buddy today when I have no idea what the hell is in it!
Hi Kate C
Earth Animal guarantees 100% satisfaction with the product. Since you are not satisfied then go back to the store where you purchased the product and ask for a return of your money. They in turn will have to collect back from Earth Animal.
My understanding from my state feed control official is that Earth Animal has revised the labeling. That may be all the state can have the company do as they do not have the ability to test the product and can not use the report I had done as they didn’t hold chain of custody.
It is a very frustrating situation.
I started giving my dog Smart Bones as a healthy alternative to raw hide but have stopped since I found out the ingredients are sourced from Mexico, China, and Vietnam. Even though they are inspected in the US, I don’t feel comfortable any more. My dog loved chewing them
so I am searching for a “made in the USA” chew treat. I do like the Get Naked brand.
It’s very frustrating. It seems like everything that we gave to our pets are just one step away from being recall. We never know what will be recall tomorrow. What’s really safe to give?
Well that didn’t go so well…I brought my beautifully tanned “No Hide” back to the store and as soon as I showed it to the manager was ordered to leave the store. Yup thrown out.
Recently learned of someone who did the same as I did with similar results.
I do not understand the hold that this company has on retailers.
Geez Aimee! They threw you out?
Yup! Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that would have happened. The owner was livid! How dare I put tanning oil on a No Hide…. I think there was just such a strong belief and trust in the company that when shown something incompatible with that belief something had to go and that something was me LOL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.