Or is this pet food brand ‘the fastest growing brand in the US’ because of celebrity endorsement with further marketing of ‘real’ pet food ingredients?
Bingo.
From one of the comments:
And ask, if you can’t buy human grade chicken for the price of a bag of PF, then what makes you think they’re using anything but condemned chicken in the bag?
Excellent point, and one I wish I'd thought of back when I was feeding the junky pet foods.
From another comment:
The problem is, most every reasonable consumer must really KNOW that the pictures do not represent what is in the bag.
But they don't. I know I didn't. I believed that what the bag showed was what was in it, because I also believed that if it wasn't, then it would be considered false advertising and that would be illegal. I thought the FDA and AAFCO wouldn't allow packaging to show something that wasn't an accurate reflection of the ingredients. And I'm sure most uneducated pet parents think the same way. From Susan's reply to the above:
Last weekend I gave two talks to pet food consumers. The first one was mostly unknowing consumers, the second was mostly educated consumers. Of both groups – before I talked – I asked them what do these types of pictures of meat mean to them when on a pet food label – what is that image saying to you? Of the unknowing consumers – almost every person said they believed picture meant that is what is in the pet food – that’s what the picture meant. Of the educated consumers, most knew it was deception, but all felt like it SHOULD mean that is what is in the product. I’ve found that most all consumers don’t realize there are two types of ingredients (food or feed) and they believe the marketing OR they believe the marketing should be truthful (even when they recognize it is not).