Do you like this story?
Melamine risk assessment by FDA released
By Christie Keith
May 25, 2007
The FDA released its interim risk assessment of melamine today. While this document is primarily about human risk — and don’t get me wrong, I love humans, some of my best friends are humans — it makes for interesting reading for those of us watching for the four-footed angle, too.
First, if you want to read along, the complete document is here.
It starts out with a toxicological profile:
As discussed in more detail in this section, the observed toxic effects of melamine on animals in controlled studies only occur following high dose exposures. Differential toxicity is seen in different animal models. It is believed that this differential toxicity is due to species-specific toxicokinetics. All information thus far indicates that melamine appears to be metabolically inactive or inert (i.e., it does not readily undergo any type of metabolic change). This information supports a reasonable probability that all monogastric species eliminate the originally ingested substance, melamine, or its analogues, and not a metabolite. In addition, whether adverse effects are observed in some species and not others may vary depending on the level of exposure.
Translation:
The toxic effects of melamine only happen in studies on animals when high doses are given. There are differences between species in how they react to melamine.
It’s believed that melamine does not break down or transform into other substances when eaten (“appears to be metabolically inactive or inert”). This suggests to them that all species with a single stomach — such as dogs, humans, cats — eliminate the same substance they ate, whether it’s melamine or cyanuric acid, and not that something they eat turns into something else after they eat it.
Some species might be more sensitive than others to the toxic effects of melamine.
Implications:
All the things found in the food, that are being called “melamine related compounds,” did not form inside the dogs and cats who ate them after they ate them, as part of the breakdown of melamine, but were present in the food itself.
The toxicological profile continues:
Melamine and melamine analogues (cyanuric acid, ammelide and ammeline) are assumed to be of equal potency and will be referred to collectively in this assessment as melamine compounds (MC). While it is entirely possible that the analogues are more or less potent than the parent compound, melamine, we have no information that assesses the relative potency of the three analogues as compared to melamine; therefore, for the purpose of this interim assessment, we have made an assumption of equal potency.
Translation:
The four compounds melamine, cyanuric acid, ammelide, and ammeline are being called “MC” for “melamine compounds” in this document.
Also, FDA is assuming for the purposes of preparing this risk assessment that all four of those compounds are equally toxic, even though they have “no information” that would lead them to believe that, and they acknowledge it’s entirely possible they’re wrong.
Implication:
Obviously, if cyanuric acid, ammeline, and ammelide are all less toxic than melamine, this is a safe and reasonable assumption to make, because while you might over-state the risk, you won’t under-state it. If one of them is, however, more toxic than melamine, you would be under-stating the risk.
It also assumes that these compounds together are no more dangerous than on their own, in other words, that they don’t interact to become more toxic. That’s discussed next:
It has been hypothesized that melamine may interact synergistically with its three analogues, but no studies have been conducted that specifically test this hypothesis. Very preliminary work suggests that if it does occur, the formation of lattice crystals, particularly between melamine and cyanuric acid, takes place at very high dose levels and is a threshold and concentration dependent phenomenon that would not be relevant to low levels of exposure. Although still under investigation, it now appears that the combination of melamine and cyanuric acid has been linked to the acute renal failure in cats and dogs that have eaten the suspect pet foods (http://www.labservices.uoguelph.ca/urgent.cfm).
Translation:
Some people wondered if these four substances might interact in some way that makes them more harmful than they are on their own.
No studies have been done to find out.
Preliminary “work,” not sure what that would be, suggests that if they do interact — for example, to form a certain kind of crystal, I would presume in urine but they don’t say that — it only happens at high levels.
In other words, it would take high levels of exposure not just for toxicity to happen, but also for the interaction to happen.
Implication:
This is where the fact that they are looking for implications for humans might color my interpretation of this section. Obviously this did happen in cats and dogs, so their assumption is that high levels of MCs must account for that.
I’m not so sure about that assumption, given that a lot of animals seem to have gotten sick eating foods that were “cross contaminated.” Without more precise information about levels of contaminants found in the various pet foods, and without being able to correlate those with symptoms, I’m not sure how to evaluate that. I hope someone is working on it.
The toxicity of melamine to mammals is low.
[...]
The most commonly observed effects in animal experiments where melamine was administered orally include: reduced food consumption, body weight loss, bladder stones, crystalluria, epithelial hyperplasia of urinary bladder, and lowered survival rate. However, no kidney failure or clinical symptoms of kidney failure were observed from these studies, including in a dog study.
Translation:
I ellipsed out the footnotes and also a number of doses given. That information is in the original document, but in short, it’s basically FDA’s position that kidney failure was not seen in studies of oral melamine, even in a dog study.
Implication:
If this is all accurate, then the kidney failure seen in dogs and cats can’t be explained using the studies being cited in this assessment. (Note: They do not, as far as I can tell, cite the 1966 sheep study posted on the AVMA website. I’ll dig into that in a later post.)
The rest of the analysis seems to pertain to the “dilution effect” theory in humans. One interesting point, up from the comments, courtesy of spocko:
Swine and Poultry Exposure Assessment
In this investigation it was determined that for swine, pet food scraps typically are mixed with grain to make hog feed, with the scraps comprising 5-10% of the final feed. Therefore, the concentration of MCs in the hog feed typically would be much lower than that found in the pet food. Investigations have also shown, however, that some hogs were fed 50-100% pet food scraps.
I’ll go over this more carefully, including the appended information and citations, and possibly do additional posting later. I won’t just update this post, I’ll start a new one.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Exactly! What happens when this livestock ends up back into the pet food. They have conveniently skirted this issue. Also, this isn’t just about the risk assessment of melamine….there were other poisons with it.
Comment by Tammy — May 25, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
In my thinking bulk fiber is metabolically inactive or inert. It goes straight through…
Melamine and it’s compounds goes into the blood stream, does who knows what and only then is (hopefully) filtered out by the kidneys.
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 25, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
The FDA has lost all credibility as a federal regulatory agency. It is nothing but a political swamp that uses taxpayers money to protect and promote the interests of large food and drug companies. This whole charade of “FDA assessments” and “FDA investigations” is a national disgrace. Congress should shut off their funding and close them down, or at least cut off the funding of salaries for the political appointees who have destroyed the agency and turned it into a pawn of corporate special interests.
Comment by MFEMFEM — May 25, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Comment by MFEMFEM — May 25, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
I agree 100%
Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
And if it is all really so safe for humans (kaff, kaff), will they be now allowing their pregnant employees to do the testing?
Comment by Sandi K — May 25, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Part of the document says …Due to the rapid excretion of melamine and cyanuric acid and because these compounds are not metabolized, withdrawing contaminated feed would be expected to lead to a relatively rapid clearance of the compounds from the animal.
I still dont understand. Why is it not being excreted from dogs and cats and causing the crystals, but for some reason its just flushing right out of chickens, hogs and fish?
Comment by Sandi K — May 25, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
So here is my question. Say that an outside scientist looks at this and say, “This is a really flawed risk assessment.” Then what?
They used the process to certify the food based on this risk assessment. Why? Because the alternative would be to say, “We aren’t taking chances. Cull them all.”
The design of the RISK assessment and of the test is important. If you say, “Look for A but not B. Or we don’t know what happens when A and B interact with C, but we aren’t going to go there.” you are making a choice.
I can design a test that I can “win” every time if I want too.
It’s too late right? Now we just watch for symptoms in humans. Good thing the CDC is on alert!
Comment by spocko — May 25, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Food watchdog blocks melamine-tainted [corn] gluten from entering Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/sto.....amine.html
Comment by Ann H — May 25, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Good 2:56 pm. But I wonder what they were going to do with the corn gluten - what was its destination?
Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
One thing I noticed too is that the studies seem to be involving animals that ate the feed but then stopped eating it relatively quickly. So what happens to pets like mine who were proably eating it for months, they dont appear to mention that scenario.
Comment by Sandi K — May 25, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Comment by Sandi K — May 25, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
if you look at page 22 of the 3rd pdf, you’ll see that it doesn’t seem to all excrete quickly, imo.
Comment by straybaby — May 25, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
MFEMFEM,
I just called Congressman Dingell’s office and left a message, thanking him for his attention to the food safety issue.
I sorta used some of your comment, hope you don’t mind, :-)I thought it was well said. I told him the FDA assessments and FDA investigations is a national disgrace.
Forgot to mention that I am upset about FDA not doing press releases anymore, and that they didn’t say anything of value when they did do press releases.
Comment by Elaine — May 25, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
oh great. just great. slow torture by dilution excretion?
Comment by Ally — May 25, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
I e-mailed the news company that was linked at 2:56 pm and asked them for more information on the corn gluten. If I get an answer, I will post it.
Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Tammy wrote: “…What happens when this livestock ends up back into the pet food. They have conveniently skirted this issue…”
EXACTLY—Like you, I and others who really care about this issue and are paying attention to this issue have been asking this question for WEEKS with no answer. It’s disgusting … and what happens when you cook up a batch of food for your pet(s) using the allegedly safe tainted poultry, fish, pork … the whole chain of deaths is going to start all over again.
I also noticed that a previous “risk assessment” addressed consumption only by adults (I think it was a 150-pound person). What about kids who eat this stuff, or someone who is seriously ill, or babies eating baby food made from tainted flesh?
HUH FDA? disgusting entities, all of them
Comment by Sandy — May 25, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Well I’m using beef - and I hope that is safe so far - and if that gets contaminated with Malamine then I guess my dogs will eat veggies (cottage cheese or something for protein - eggs) and me too.
Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Comment by straybaby — May 25, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Thanks Stray, I guess Im not understanding where they have come up with their info to even be able to say its quickly excreted in the first place? Isnt that an assumption on their part? They do all of this so-called assessment based on an assumption that its excreted quickly? I am so confused…..
Comment by Sandi K — May 25, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Comment by Sandy — May 25, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Excellent question. Sandy: Would you like to know the names of the companies that sent those 20 million out to market? and the 56,000 hogs?
That info has not been released. And it won’t be released.
Reading the report I noticed that some pigs ate 50-100 percent of the tainted pet food (vs the 3- 15 percent the chickens)
from APPENDIX II
Swine and Poultry Exposure Assessment
So say you want to feed pork to your dog or cat . Might you want to know if you are feeding him one of those pigs that were feed 100 percent pet food scraps?
Comment by spocko — May 25, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
oh crikey spocko!I missed that!!
i wonder what their kidneys look like . . .
Comment by straybaby — May 25, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
“I’m not so sure about that assumption, given that a lot of animals seem to have gotten sick eating foods that were “cross contaminated.”
remember, some pets fell ill after the owners opened a new bag. and got sick quick. this is where their earlier remarks about the ‘pets eating the same food everyday so we don’t have to worry’ exploded my head. basically, they were eating it everyday and it just so happens they got sick after a new bag? or the new bag was toxic. either way, i’ll pass on the *experiment* thankyouverymuch!
Comment by straybaby — May 25, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
OK I need to calm down I can tell but would you guys esplain this to moi? I am just not understanding any of it at all!! Help!
Comment by Sandi K — May 25, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
I would love to be a fly on the wall at the next CDC meeting.
Comment by Annette — May 25, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Oh….I don’t trust any of it anymore and I know some of it is okay. I just don’t know which one on which day - like musical chairs of death or something equally to be avoided.
Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Isn’t it odd that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reports opposing findings. They say “”Shipments are being tested for both melamine and cyanuric acid since, although neither substance is believed to be particularly toxic by itself, their potency appears to be increased when they are present together,” the federal agency said in a statement.
Comment by Annette — May 25, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
yup Linda. I cleared out my freezer. They aren’t telling, so it was just a tad too creepy looking at chicken that could have been from the first released batch. and who knows what the heck else was slaughtered and sent to market before they connected the dots/got exposed. yeah, the chances are prob low that I had it, but just really didn’t want to go there . . .
Comment by straybaby — May 25, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
I wonder if they are rechecking any of the hogs, chickens and fish to see if they have stopped excreting melamine?
Comment by AnnA — May 25, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Straybaby,
I know. So I stick to hamburger and beef, maybe the cows are so big that that will help. Sigh! I have some frozen chickens that I avoid too.
Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Well, it’s FRIDAY & it’s a 3-day weekend.
Lots for us to “chew on” while the FDA officials, et al, laugh their butts off on their yachts.
Comment by Kat — May 25, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Great work, Christie. Thanks.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 25, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
“Results are available for 21 poultry feed samples for the four analogues from two locations”
TWO chicken facilities tested!!!!!
TWENTY-ONE TESTS?????
WOW!!!! I WOULDN’T WANT TO TO WORK TOO HARD ~ OR WASTE THE TAX $$$
Comment by Kat — May 25, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
ooops! typo! THEM TO WORK TOO HARD
Comment by Kat — May 25, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
OK I have read the interim risk assessment, then I re-read the interim risk assessment, then I did it again. Am I a complete idiot? I must be because every time I read this I come away with the understanding that only really high levels of melamine would cause sickness, that none of their test animals had kidney crystals and THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON ON THE FACE OF THIS PLANET why thousands of cats and dogs died.
Was this whole thing a figment of our imagination?
Would someone please explain to me what this risk assessment means, please
sam
Comment by sam — May 25, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Quote:Would someone please explain to me what this risk assessment means, please
sam
Comment by sam — May 25, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Risk Assessment (FDA, PFI): How big is the risk that they don’t calm down if we all tell them, over and over, that everything is fine and dandy?
Comment by MaKo — May 25, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
I’m missing something here.
Say the chickens have melamine or CA in their little bodies but not much because of the dilution factor (right, FDA?) Ok, so now we come to the excretion factor…..now how do they know this. Are they following the chickens around with little plastic cups to catch the chicken urine & then test it to see if they are excreting the melamine & CA? Where are they getting this excretion BS anyway?
I’m sorry, I’m not buying it….nor am I buying any melameat. I’m not only worried for our fur babies but now I’m worried about the human race.
Comment by JanC — May 25, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
ROFLMAO
The image of FDA officials running around holding little cups for the chickens to pee in. I can’t stop laughing
you are killing me
sam
Comment by sam — May 25, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
What we are seeing at the FDA is representative of what has happened at almost every federal agency. They have become the servants of big business which has bought the best government money can buy. There is no attention paid anymore to consumer protection or to the interests of the consumer. Big business has a free hand. They have access to the heads and top people at all the agencies and THEIR interests are all that matter anymore.
You can’t embarrass them and you can’t expose them because they don’t care. Go to the web sites of any major federal agency and you see pictures of the secretaries, deputy sectary, assistant secretaries, posted all over in photo ops with business leaders or attending business functions. We taxpayers are paying for their online resume presentations and their excursions. The political appointees expect to get well paying consultant jobs until any time limitations expire where conflict of interest is an issue (which it almost always is), and then they will get six and seven figure jobs with the corporations that they served while in government.
When is the last time ANY of them had lunch with the head of any group that represents the taxpayer or the consumer? Corporations own the federal agencies and that is why there are “16 dead pets” and “no serious health risks”. If we don’t take back our government the next headlines will be “only a few human deaths, nothing to worry about”.
Comment by MFEMFEM — May 25, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
We lost our precious cat from the poisoned PetPride cat food,…. it was very bad of Menufoods to make a”buck” before quality control!
Comment by Terry — May 25, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
AVMA released a study in 1966 of just how toxic melaimine is.
http://tinyurl.com/yovffc
Comment by Rose — May 25, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Wow, Rose, thanks for posting this! All the way back in 1966 the South Africans knew Melamine alone caused crystals in the kidneys, yet in 2007 our own FDA says it doesn’t!
Comment by Nabiya — May 25, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
I think this comes under the heading of “baffle them with bull!@#$” (aka science gobbledyspeak). It’s almost as bad as legalese.
Comment by Pamela J. Betz-Baron — May 25, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Comment by Rose — May 25, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Yes thanks Rose. This just confuses me even more. Why are there such clear studies here in this article you found but FDA’s assessment sounds so confused and they dont even reference this prior study done ven though its on AVMA’s website. Amazing. Every day that goes by I wonder more and more if FDA is really trying to cover things up…
Comment by Sandi K — May 25, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
MFEMFEM hit the nail on the head: “You can’t embarrass them and you can’t expose them because they don’t care.”
Comment by Sandy — May 25, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Dead pets, troops, seniors, citizens (think NOLA, Gulf Coast)… this is what “compassionate conservatism” is my friends, the culture of death is the face of this administration, and they thrive on it.
Comment by Sandy — May 25, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
i think we should disband fda and usda and let the insurance industry do risk assessments. they’re much better at it judging by all the exclusions to coverage they can come up with
Comment by explodinghed — May 26, 2007 @ 3:05 am
You know…maybe we need to be thinking outside what they want us to stay bashed or focused on…Like the every Friday routine…Uhm. What other bones or fixes are being thrown at us to keep us focused elsewhere ??
Comment by Bee — May 26, 2007 @ 5:53 am
“remember, some pets fell ill after the owners opened a new bag. and got sick quick. this is where their earlier remarks about the ‘pets eating the same food everyday so we don’t have to worry’ exploded my head.”
Seriously.
My (four year old, otherwise healthy) cat began exhibiting signs of kidney failure approximately twenty six hours after consuming his first pouch of tainted food. (He ate a total of three pouches.) I’d purchased the food as a ‘treat’- he’d never eaten it before in his life.
Comment by Gwen — May 26, 2007 @ 6:14 am
the fda report is not saying the pet food wasn’t the cause of the kidney failure. To me it is saying the farm animals are not unsafe to eat because the toxin went right through and out the kidneys, not left in the animal.The report seems also to be saying high levels of melamine/whatever are required to cause death. That means the pets that died *ate very high levels of melamine compounds. It doesn’t mean it was left in their bodies (just as it was not in the farmed animals). It does mean the pet food was not *laced* , it was *loaded*. Parts per million are not what killed these pets, they got a bit whack of it and that’s why they died so quickly. It’s about dosage. The farm animal flesh will end up with a very low dose, the pet food had a very high dose. It had to, low amounts would not have done this. Over a long period it still takes a fair amount (although less), and way more than what is in the farmed animal flesh, because they peed it out.
Comment by marlene — May 26, 2007 @ 7:36 am
i do not buy the premise that low dosage of this particular adulterant is anything like ok… not in pets, not in livestock and not in humans. this risk assessment makes far too many presumptions to qualify as good science, and it’s certainly not good math. if you were going for a PhD and presented this thing for peer review, i suspect that you would be ripped asunder. i suspect that the people chosen to do the peer review of this assessment will be very carefully chosen to reach a positive consensus. this report ignores reality, that reality of thousands of reported pet deaths. it is leading melamine and related compounds toward the designation of being generally regarded as safe. in other words, they are fixing the problem simply by saying that it’s not a problem. they have set up arbitrary tolerable daily intakes based on almost no hard data and then backing the sampling data they’ve collected about contaminants into it..
Comment by explodinghed — May 26, 2007 @ 9:27 am
I was always taught that a “thief is a thief”, wether he stole a single dollar or $10,000.
It is Black or it is white—there is no “grey”
If melamine is “illegal” to add to falsly boost the protein concentration, it doesn’t matter if small levels are considered ‘safe’.
ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL—-so quit trying to bamboozle the public that small amounts of melamine are safe.
Comment by Beth — May 26, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
I want to know if any of the contaminated food can cause extremely low blood platelets. I gave both my dogs the contaminated food back in December (not knowing then it was contaminated). My dogs have never gotten sick at the same time and both began having diarrhea and vomiting the same day which continued throughout that week. By Friday of that week my youngest dog was still vomiting and had severe diarrhea so I took him to the vet. My older dog was no longer vomiting, but still had diarrhea so I chose not to take her. The vet did tests on my younger dog thinking it was something intestinal, but came back with a urine sample and showed me where the white count was off in his blood work. She said it was something to do with his kidneys. She gave him medication and he is fine now. My older dog was scheduled to have dental cleaning and a minor surgery at the time when the pet food recall came out. I phoned the vet and told her I had given my dogs the food in December and was concerned because I didn’t bring my older one in to the vet during that time. She said she would do blood work on her before the surgery. I received a phone call that afternoon from the vet telling me the surgery wasn’t done because my dog had extremely low platelets. Everything else was normal in the blood work. She also stated that the strange thing about this is that just a week before I brought my dog in, she said another lady brought her dog in and was concerned because she had fed her the dog food. The only thing wrong with her dog’s blood work was also extrememly low platelets. I opted to have the blood sent away to determine if it was Ehrlichia or an Autoimmune Disorder. All those profiles came back negative. I believe the contaminated dog food caused this, but I can’t get anyone else to believe me. She has never had a problem like this before.
Comment by Susan — May 27, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
I think another big question about the assessment is the lumping together of all of the compounds—if those really are all of the compounds. Tha assessment definitely does not explain the pet deaths, but is supposed to explain the USDA’a reason for releasing the pork and chicken and now eggs into the human food supply. But wait a minute—the cyanuric acid levels are never measured in the meat or urine of the livestock. But wait another minute—we don’t have any long or short term studies on the effects of melamine or cyanuric acid on humans even if we did have the info. And I don’t see where even the level of melamine was measured in eggs. What are they basing those numbers on? Were milk and other dairy products ever checked? If so, what results? If not, why? What about human grain products which if affected would be a direct hit on our toxin load? So, what do we know? Nothing really substantial that I can see except some of the excreted melamine levels in swine fed the adulterated feed. Would I buy it? I’m not buying it at all.
Comment by DMS — May 27, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
sam — May 25, 2007 @ 4:24 pm says: “that none of their test animals had kidney crystals and THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON ON THE FACE OF THIS PLANET why thousands of cats and dogs died.”
Because Melamine alone is not harmful to dogs, cats & humans. Melamine alone does not cause the crystals. What they (reporters and investigators) are finding though is that the animals that have died and were investigated by FDA/USDA (?) had the crystals formed from melamine & cyanuric acid. This means that those animals were fed both melamine & cyanuric acid. The melamine & cyanuric acid could have been in a single pet food or possibly one in each of 2 different foods fed at about the same time. Even though gluten importers were not expecting either melamine & cyanuric acid to be in their imports (since neither is a legitimate food), the NYTimes reported that Chinese chemical companies are selling cyanuric acid to Chinese food product exporters and that the cyanuric acid is used because it is even cheaper than the melamine. (Both melamine and cyanuric acid are possible additives that will give a false boost to the protein assay tests on the Chinese gluten exports. So both can be used to deceive the purchaser of the adulterated glutens.)
Melamine is considered harmless to dogs, cats & humans. It will pass thru the animal unmodified. However, when combined with cyanuric acid in the same diet, crystals can form in the animal’s kidneys causing the kidney failure!
The real culprits in this whole fiasco are the Chinese criminals that have been purposely adulterating their gluten exports to boost their profits!
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05.....9food.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_crisis
Nabiya — May 25, 2007 @ 8:07 pm, Sandi K — May 25, 2007 @ 8:17 pm and Rose — May 25, 2007 @ 7:27 pm.
Unlike humans, cats & dogs, sheep are ruminants. It is known that ruminants can digest and even benefit from melamine by growing bigger/faster from the nitrogen content in melamine. Nitrogen is necessary to build muscle and other animal tissue.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine
And there is even a U.S. pat. for melamine as a ruminant food: “Another agricultural use reported for melamine is that of a protein substitute in ruminant feed supplements. B. B. Wilson discloses in U.S. Pat. No. 3,653,909 that melamine included in ruminant feed supplements improves the nitrogen intake of the animals consuming it, and increases the desirable production of volatile fatty acids in the rumen of the animals. The liquid supplement contained urea, salt, melamine, minerals, vitamins, ammonium polyphosphate solution, water, and molasses. The melamine used in the liquid supplements was limited to minor concentrations, and was blended with many other materials.”
ref: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5125952.html
JanC — May 25, 2007 @ 4:57 pm said: “Ok, so now we come to the excretion factor…..now how do they know this. Are they following the chickens around with little plastic cups to catch the chicken urine & then test it to see if they are excreting the melamine & CA? Where are they getting this excretion BS anyway?”
Actually, the answer to that is real easy. You simply go into a chicken broiler house and scoop poop off of the floor. If you really want the urine separate from the solid feces, there are chicken surgeries and colostomies: ref: http://ajplegacy.physiology.or...../128/3/592
and http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....332b0.html
Who would of “thunk it.”
rockman13
p.s. I own 2 retired racing Grayhounds and wouldn’t want them harmed by the food I feed them either.
Comment by Rockman13 — May 28, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Cyanuric acid is also added to cow feed in the form of biuret. Like Melamine, it is also a non protein nitrogen source. So, both can be legitimately (but unfortunately) added to ruminant feed. I don’t know if they can be added together for ruminants or must be kept separate so as not to form crystals. But how did they both end up in pet food and people food.
Comment by DMS — May 28, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
DMS — May 28, 2007 @ 7:08 pm: “So, both [biuret & melamine] can be legitimately (but unfortunately) added to ruminant feed. I don’t know if they can be added together for ruminants or must be kept separate so as not to form crystals. But how did they both end up in pet food and people food.”
1) Cattlemen and farmers would not feed 2 separate nitrogen supplements to their cattle, since supplements are expensive when compared to the ordinary feed.
2) What makes you think that there is a problem with an animal ingesting both biuret & melamine? I haven’t seen anything reporting both in animal feed, or a problem with digesting both together. What is your source?
3) What is your source reporting both of these entering human food? I haven’t seen this reported anywhere.
DMS — May 27, 2007 @ 8:52 pm: “…But wait a minute—the cyanuric acid levels are never measured in the meat or urine of the livestock. But wait another minute—we don’t have any long or short term studies on the effects of melamine or cyanuric acid on humans even if we did have the info. And I don’t see where even the level of melamine was measured in eggs. What are they basing those numbers on? Were milk and other dairy products ever checked? If so, what results? If not, why? What about human grain products which if affected would be a direct hit on our toxin load? So, what do we know? Nothing really substantial that I can see except some of the excreted melamine levels in swine fed the adulterated feed. Would I buy it? I’m not buying it at all.”
1) The USDA did analyze the pork, chicken and eggs for melamine and did find very low levels in some and in others could not find any.
You should read: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH.....index.html
and the May 17th portion of: http://www.naturesvariety.com/news.lasso
2) Dairy cattle CANNOT be fed any animal by products at all (not fed any pet food processing plant waste) since the mad cow food scare. So why test beef or milk?
3) The gist of the chicken & egg safety decision is that amount of melamine that could have been ingested by them is thousands of time less in the chicken’s feed, than is considered safe in human food. Therefore any residue in the chickens and eggs consumed by humans would be even less harmful, even if one’s food were ONLY CONTAMINATED chickens/eggs.
4) The joist of the hog situation is that only 45 hogs actually entered the human food chain. The others were quarantined and the farmers paid to destroy them.
5) Hogs that did enter the food chain, USDA reported: “For people who ate large amounts of contaminated pork, chicken and eggs, they most likely would be exposed to contamination at levels 18,000 to 30,000 times lower than that considered safe [for human consumption].”
Comment by Rockman13 — May 29, 2007 @ 11:35 am