Iams

[Booktigger]

This was posted on Pet Rescue.
PET FOOD MANUFACTURER FINED FOR MAKING UNAUTHORISED CLAIMS

Burns Pet Nutrition Ltd and company secretary Mr John Burns have each been found guilty of two offences under Regulation 3 of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994.

The charges concerned two pet feeds for which claims for medicinal effects were made. Any product for administration to animals and which makes claims for medicinal effects is considered, under European Law, to be a veterinary medicine. All veterinary medicines placed on the market in the UK are required to be authorised by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

The case was brought after the company failed to comply with advice given by the VMD on the appropriate marketing of the feeds.

After a three-day trial at Llanelli Magistrate's Court, both defendants were found to be guilty of all charges. Burns Pet Nutrition Ltd was fined a total of £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,181. Mr Burns was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,181.

[Donna]

Originally Posted by Booktigger

This was posted on Pet Rescue.
PET FOOD MANUFACTURER FINED FOR MAKING UNAUTHORISED CLAIMS

Burns Pet Nutrition Ltd and company secretary Mr John Burns have each been found guilty of two offences under Regulation 3 of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994.

The charges concerned two pet feeds for which claims for medicinal effects were made. Any product for administration to animals and which makes claims for medicinal effects is considered, under European Law, to be a veterinary medicine. All veterinary medicines placed on the market in the UK are required to be authorised by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

The case was brought after the company failed to comply with advice given by the VMD on the appropriate marketing of the feeds.

After a three-day trial at Llanelli Magistrate's Court, both defendants were found to be guilty of all charges. Burns Pet Nutrition Ltd was fined a total of £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,181. Mr Burns was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,181.

I am not worried that Burns claimed the food had medicinal qualities JUST THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN BITS OF DEAD CATS AND DOGS to be honest!!! And no animal was harmed in the making of the product - which this product does not.

[dinahsmum]

mmmm
I think the Burns prosecution was brought about by the large manufacturers. They were caught on the same sort of legislation/regulations that may stop 'Health Food' shops selling vitamins & supplements etc. You can't say so & so is good for you, unless you can come up with documented scientific evidence for same. Hence the awful things I believe you see in those websites (don't look, I am a wimp).
I'd rather buy Burns, knowing pretty well what is in it, what is not in it and that 'no pet animals were harmed in the production of this petfood'.
I am hoping to feed any new arrivals on raw.

[Kim]

Definitely agree DM. I think the ingredients in Burns is excellent and the food is produced ethically. That's what matters to me. Caleb (our new dog) is fed mainly raw (and some home cooked meals) he is looking great on it. The cats were not impressed when I offered them raw, however we did re-home an elderly feral once and she was like a cat possessed for raw food!!