Why don't you post your source of information?
Raid: Solid Gold Pet Foods - Sept., 1989

Address: 1483 N. Cuyamaca, El Cajon, CA 92020

Phone: (619) 465-9507 - Sissy Harrington McGill, Owner

Reason: FDA had been harassing McGill over labels on her holistic pet food products. In March 1990, an FDA agent seized products from her store without a search warrant and shut down her store. On July 12, 1990, after being indicted, she chose a jury trial. Upon appearing for her trial, she was clapped into leg irons, put into a Maximum Security Federal Prison for 179 days, and fined $10,000. While incarcerated she suffered a near fatal stroke.

Outcome: McGill sued the Department of Justice and won a victory on Feb. 20, 1992. She expects to file a $25,000,000 lawsuit against the FDA.

http://www.myopia.org/fdaraids.htm

QQ - Unfortunately, I don't know how to link. Secondly, I did the research yesterday afternoon and have an 1 inch thick folder of printed information NOT BLOG regarding Solid Gold and the Sissy Harrington McGill.

Expecting to file a $250,000,000 lawsuit does not mean she is entitled to damages in that amount. Anyone can claim, to prove damages in that amount is quite another matter.

Take from what I posted as you like. If you wish to surf sites which agree with Ms. Harrington-McGill's misdeeds, then so be it. There are plenty of blog spins supporting this woman.

I wanted to let the Solid Gold users know that there are apparently some really disturbing facts to investigate on their own, and act accordingly in their own best interest.

Well you know it's just that that's quite a claim you're making. You don't have to link to anything just highlight the web addresses and paste them here or at the very least the name of the publication or website, title, and the date.

I'd like to know more but evidently my googling skills are not that good. I'm not coming up with any more results than what I just posted.

Actually QQ I am not making any claims, just relaying what I have searched on a tip from someone who attended the most recent tradeshow of dog food purveyors.

I searched this in my office through a legal research program(Lexis). This program allows the search of cases both at the state and federal level.

I see the site you quoted from on my google search, that is regarding her first indictment in 1990. The second indictment is more recent. Unfortunately, if you do not have access to a legal search engine, it is going to be difficult at best to find the actual pleadings.

I was just trying to give a head's up to those who use Solid Gold to look into the information. Obviously, everyone here on the forum has a computer and can research at a minimum through Google.

If you want to believe Ms. Harrington McGill is a wonderful, standup person whom you want to manufacture your pet's food, I say go for it.

Personally, I want MORE regulation, inspection of processing facilities, lab analysis of foods to be sure they are putting in the food what appears on the label and restriction of the manufacture of pet food. What's on the label should definitely be in the food at the very least.

Doesn't her view on LESS regulation and restriction make you the least bit nervous? I would think that at this point we have learned that there is very little in the way of regulation on big name foods manufactured for pets. What would be her motive for LESS restrictions and regulations. Just that statement doesn't sit well with me and I personally wouldn't buy a cookie from the woman or her company.

BTW, I did find sites referencing the Harrington-McGill mission to regulate LESS by google's search engine. I don't have time to highlight and paste here. Heck, I cannot even figure out how to make a word bold or in a different font. I am just not that interested in those things.

I realize you want proof. Each person will have to research with the tools they have if they so chose. Heck, my MIL uses the Solid Gold products (ALL including nutritional supplements), and has managed to find the information on her computer at home? I am not trying to malicious toward Ms. Harrington-McGill, but rather, my main concern is what our dogs and cats are eating. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

I was trying to be helpful, nothing more.

I appreciate the information labmamma. I think everyone is searching for new alternatives. I don't think these forums need a bibliography for every post.

Labmomma, it's not about ruffling feathers it's about having your facts straight. Making false statements about a person is slander.

You rant about Sissy Harrington-McGill's mission. Well what about the mission of the FDA that indicted her? Those who have wised up to the true nature of the FDA call them the Fascist Drug Advocates. I believe that being indicted by the FDA has as much validity as being indicted by the Gestapo in Nazi Europe.

"The FDA clearly has become the attack-dog tool of the AMA and pharmacy industry, and many FDA field agents are on record as stating that the agency is out to "destroy the health food and nutritional supplements industries"."

"3)1990; El Cajon, California: The FDA attempts to railroad Sissy Harrington-McGill, 57-year old owner of a pet food store, for violation of a proposed "Health Claims Law" because her literature stated vitamins would help keep pets healthy. Her store was raided and ransacked without a search warrant. When her day in court arrived, Harrington-McGill requested a jury trial -- the judge refused her request, dictating that he alone would judge the case. She was tried and convicted of violation of the Health Claims Law, even though it had not yet been passed by the US Congress at the time the FDA raided her, or at the time of her trial or conviction. Ms. Harrington-McGill repeatedly informed the federal judge of this fact, but he ignored her complaint. For this first-time misdemeanor "violation" of a non-existing law, she was sentenced to 179 days in prison, with a fine of $10,000. She was led away in chains and served 114 days in prison before being released after the U.S. Congress refused to pass the "Health Claims Law". Lawsuits against the FDA have been filed."

You will read about more outrageous raids carried out by the FDA in their typical Gestapo style, wearing flak jackets and brandishing heavy duty firearms, on the link below. These raids were exclusively against natural health organizations. Whereas drugs like Vioxx were approved and stayed on the market until the pile of body bags exceeded over 100 000 bodies. Those who still believe the FDA is there to protect the consumer are rather naive.

Here is a link that might be useful: FDA versus Freedom of Choice in Medicine

Call me naive then. Please post the true facts, no blog inflammatory internet blog information. I have my facts straight about the indictment make no mistake about it. I am not on a rant, I was merely providing information that some pet owners may want to investigate if they are feeding Solid Gold. I think that in the future I will keep that information to myself rather than share here on the forum since all I have gotten for good intention is grief from most of you. I don't need grief.

FYI - To slander someone, you need to make a false allegation. Are you telling me that I made a false allegation? ojoy, perhaps you could point to the information that is false. At that time, I will retract it. I don't think you are going to be able to do any more than you are currently doing, clouding the real issue with all this blah, blah, blah about the FDA, or as you put it the "Fascist Drug Advocates". Geez, is that a slanderous statement regarding the FDA as well? Are your allegations regarding the FDA the truth or as you put it "Those who have wised up to the true nature of the FDA". Obviously from your post, I can tell that you and I will never agree on anything except perhaps the time of day.

Your information and facts are from websites/blogs supporting Ms. Harrington-McGill, not from actual governmental agencies or reputable sites. The sites you recite from are blogs.

Relax. I was sharing some information. I thought this was a forumm of information sharing. My mistake. I am stating that I don't want less regulation and restriction on the manufacture of pet food I want more. If you can't stomach it, or think it was malicious it was not. It was intended for those who use Solid Gold Foods and Supplements.

Ms. Harrington-McGill's attitude regarding LESS regulation and restriction is enough of a negative for me. I speaks to her feeling regarding what standard she adheres to in manuacturing her food. Can you refute that she wasn't indicted for false labeling of her food? I don't think so. Actually your staunch support of Ms. Harrington-McGill also tells me alot about your standards.

According to Hans Kugler, Ph.D., "Just in case the FDA bias isnÂt clear enough, weÂll repeat a quote from the FDA itself. The FDA says its job is `to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive for drug development. (The FDA Dietary Supplements Task Force Final Report, May 1993, p. 2 and 71.)"

Actually, labmomma, you seem to the one blah, blahing. The onus is on you to PROVE your case. As a friend of mine says that when you make such a statement against someone you have to provide exact details, such as date, place etc. Using words like 'recent' doesn't cut it. You claim you have the facts. Well how about providing the website address/es. If you don't know how to make the click able link, simply copy the web site address and paste it in the body of your posting.

This is an excerpt from the link below, i.e. "The FDA did get her to add a line -- "Our products are not designed to diagnose, cure or prevent any disease" -- on her packaging and advertising, but they could not shut her down." The FDA does seem to be on a witch hunt against anyone daring to state that their supplements etc. prevent, cure or treat a disease. They claim that only drugs cure diseases.

We don't know you so it is nothing personal. So this is not about giving you grief. How trying to put yourself in Sissy Harrington-McGill's shoes? How would you like it if someone said that you did something that you didn't do or saying that you did X when you did Y? I need proof that she lied stating that e.g. a pet food contained organically grown flaxseed oil and it didn't. Your attempt to attack my character is rather dubious to say the least.

Here is a link that might be useful: Designer Pet Food

This is an internet discussion forum, there is no "onus" on anyone to "proove" anything. One can pretty much say anything that they like within the rules of the forum.

If someone wants to offer a different opinion, that is fine too. If a person wants to back up their opinons with adiditional information that is certainly helpful, but its not required. Its a discussion... not a presentation of facts or research or anything else.

Please discuss away...

Thanks joe. I will won't give anyone the satisfaction of baiting me. Nor do I care what ojoy thinks at this point. I'm not into sitting in front of the computer surfing the net, cutting and pasting websites when my dogs don't even eat the Solid Gold.

I was merely trying to alert those who use it that there may be an issue with the ingredient list and that the owner/manufacturer was under indictment.

Also, Ms. Harrington-McGill is a "public" person and what I posted wasn't slandering her. If it was, those rags like The Enquirer or whatever they are called wouldn't be selling at the grocery checkout line.

Have a good one. I've got better things to do than argue here on the computer especially over this. I'm going to take advantage of this beautiful day, The frisbee and my boys are waiting for me outside. Clears the mind and spirit. Peace.

Hi Labmomma,
I have always seen you as nothing but helpful and devoted, so I am not questioning your veracity in any way. I did a Google search and I see blog posts and alternative press publications and some straight news, but it is all about the 1990 stuff. I am not really interested in the old stuff or an argument about the FDA vs health food gurus.

From what you wrote, it sounds like the misrepresenting the contents of her food is a fairly new charge. Can you say when? I bought a bag of Solid Gold and the dogs are finishing it up now. We never buy food with wheat gluten, and I even checked the bag for rice protein powder, but your post has me thinking that it doesn't matter what is written on the bag. Since I cannot find info about the ingredient list fraud, can you give a little more info - especially regarding when this happened, whether it was resolved, and if the practice of mislabeling was stopped?

My dogs, husband, and father-in-law thank you!
Nancy

Hi Nancy,

These were a couple of sites I could find info on Harrington McGill during a quick search. Most refer to the 1990 indictment. You will have to access a legal research engine (for which you will have to pay) if you want to research the later litigation.

I have also posted a link to a pet food evaluator who discusses that her food is good, but now the company doesn't want Harrington McGill to be very "visible" on the Solid Gold website or at trade shows.

This was the best I could do this morning. You are going to have to decided whether you find this woman to be made of the fabric that you wish your pets' foods to be provided by. It is really a no brainer for me, but I have never fed her food, only know friends and 2 family members who do. That is what peeked my interest in her at all.

To me the first citation regarding her 1990 indictment is pretty eye-opening.

I tried to find official sites, not blogs, or supporter or detractor sites.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00064.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9246902.html

The lady is Solid Gold founder Sissy Harrington-McGill. Ms. Harrington-McGill has, until recently, written all of the company's ads and brochures and included all kinds of unsubstantiated claims

My experience with Ms. Harrington-McGill goes back to 1992, the year she was put in jail for 114 days contempt of court. The case involved the FDA and Solid Gold. Ms. Harrington-McGill contacted me, and told me that the FDA was after her. She said they kept having her change the label on one of her products. She would spend the money and make the change, and then the FDA would require further changes. This apparently went on until she could take it no more. She refused, it went to court, she went to jail.

I received several letters from her, where she called herself a "political prisoner," and where she asked me to intercede with President Bush to get a presidential pardon for her. (Not that he ever listened to me. Millie didn't read Good Dog!)

Recently, new executives at Solid Gold have been trying to downplay Ms. Harrington-McGill's involvement, and keep her from making claims in person at trade shows, and in advertising. Solid Gold redesigned its website (now at www.solidgoldhealth.com), and she's not even mentioned. The website is a model of corporate professionalism, in fact.

This is good, and bodes well for the future of the company.

Overall, I think the company is getting its act together, and the food has certain advantages in ingredients which can help some dogs out. The packaging is great. I think the food would do better with higher protein and especially, higher fat content.

-- Ross Becker source: http://www.gooddogmagazine.com/articles/detail_search.asp?ID2=148

Happy Earth Day!

I'm not sure why this thread got resurrected after seven years, but I started using one of the Solid Gold foods in 1996. I continued using it for sixteen years and anticipate using it again.

That said, when I started using it in 1996 it was difficult to find anyone carrying it. I called Solid Gold and ended up telling a Customer Service Rep that while I liked the food's results, I likely would have to stop using it due to its lack of availability to me.

Sissy called me later and read me the riot act! lol

I continued to use it in spite of seemingly outrageous claims that could not be substantiated. In other words, I weighed strange behavior on the one hand with results seen in my (English) Bulldogs and pups.

Solid Gold Hund-n-Flocken is now readily available should anyone be considering it.

Please, someone tell me why you are discussing something that happened so long ago. It seems to be about mislabeling. Have you forgotten the fake protein debacle of several years ago? How many dogs and cats did that kill? Those companies were all mainstream and supposedly upfront. Did what she did so many years ago kill or injure any pets? I'll tell you one thing; my twenty-three year old cat at the end of her life would only eat the solid gold product, indigo moon dry cat food. I believe it allowed her to live that much longer, since she wouldn't eat anything else. Find something worthwhile to worry about.

Nan-E-Fan,

Two people posted this time 'round. BOTH posted based on FIRST HAND dealings with Sissy.

BOTH praised the food, and acknowledged that Sissy is a little "out there."

I think your admonition to "find something else to worry about" would be better applied to YOU.

This post was edited by saltidawg on Sun, Sep 28, 14 at 16:29

We started using Solid Gold products in 1987 for our pets. The best thing we ever did for our pets. Then, we started bringing in Solid Gold products as a business and our customers for the 10 years we had the business praised Solid Gold products. The REASON, Sissy was IMPRISONED was because she was letting pet owners KNOW WHAT WAS NOT IN HER PRODUCTS, BHT, Ethoxyquin, and the rest of the garbage in the OTHER products, by products, wheat, soy, etc. The OTHER pet food companies pushed their agenda and had her imprisoned. I know Sissy and she may be a hard nosed, arrogant woman, but she knows her product and would never feed her Great Danes anything less that what she would eat herself. She herself, used the shampoos, skin creams, oils, supplements. So, when you start bad mouthing a woman who KNOWS her products, you better think twice. Cyber bullying just does not happen to children, it happens to businesses with a great product, by those who have less than healthy products.

Miss McGill's first Felony Conviction was for failing to desist advertising her Equine Supplement(s) cured cancer in horses. She had so advertised for many years and finally was ordered to stop advertising these supplements cured a whole host of diseases (including cancer) in horses and cats and other creatures with no scientific basis whatsoever.

I know nothing about any subsequent convictions. I fed Hunden Flocken and its puppy variant for many years and weaned my litters to it. I continued to feed this product because of my past experience with it - not because of any hype or other claims that she made. Ms McGill years pack paid for Ads in my National Breed Magazine suggesting that Canadian Moose meat from a certain area was an ingredient in her competitors' products. Turns out she was not correct at all!

To read a summary of that first conviction, GOTO: First Felony Conviction

I now have only one dog, a retired Racing Greyhound from the Tampa, FL, track. I started her on Solid Gold, but she did not do well on it. Had she done well, I would have continued her on it, but certainly not because of any of her claims.

Drink the Cool Aid.

This thread is ancient, but my friend spoke with sissy a couple years ago so I know more details about Sissy's story, and it's quite fascinating.

Sissy lived in Germany for a while and noticed their great danes lived to be 17 years old, which is nearly double that in the US. She eventually figured out it was because of the food they were giving the dogs, so she started to make her own in the US. Once she did, this trumped up garbage about FDA labeling got thrown at her, then as others mentioned above, she eventually lost the court battle and went to prison OVER A FREAKING LABELING NUANCE. They also tried to lobotomize her in prison, but you likely won't see that in any record books for obvious reasons. She made friends with the guards, and one of them saved her from the lobotomy by claiming she was a conscientious objector. She was cell neighbors with the highest female member of the mexican drug cartel, who started giving her advice on how to get help. She told her to write to high profile politicians (congress, president, etc.) and she did but she didn't get any responses at first. The female cartel member then realized the prison was likely intercepting responses to her letters, so she told Sissy to start using her (the cartel lady's) name on the return address, after which she started receiving responses and eventually was freed from prison as a result.

It's seemingly unbelievable... until you realize the driving force behind it all: the evil f***ers at Monsanto. They stood to lose a LOT and considering they basically print money it is very believable that they were likely doing everything they could to stop her, including manipulating media stories, paying off judges, prison guards, etc. It's no stretch of the imagination to assume they basically owned the FDA at the time (and maybe they still do, not sure).

I'm not big into conspiracy theories but Monsanto is just plain evil so I 100% believe it, and the commentary in this thread supports it.