Pet food recall: Media conference today, liveblogging
By Christie Keith
May 30, 2007
We just got a note there will be an “FDA media briefing on recall of products tainted with melamine” at 3 PM Eastern Time. I’ll be liveblogging it here.
[Gina note: The transcipt is up on the USDA site now.]
Present will be:
* David Acheson, M.D., assistant commissioner for food protection, Office of the Commissioner, FDA
* Kenneth Petersen, D.V.M., M.P.H., assistant administrator for field operations, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA
* Michael Rogers, director, Division of Field Investigations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, FDA
* Kim Young, deputy director of Compliance, Center for Veterinary Medicine, FDA
* Captain David Elder, director, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, FDA
* Michael Herndon, Office of Public Affairs, FDA
Musical interlude:
2:55 PM: The Temptations, “It Was Just My Imagination”
2:57 PM: Frank Sinatra and Nancy Sinatra, “Somethin’ Stupid”
2:59 PM: A cover version of “Scarborough Fair” – kind of 60s jazzy female vocal, any clues?
3:02 PM: Shania Twain, “From This Moment On”
Someone just asked how I know all these songs — I edit a music blog. Betcha didn’t know that, did you?
3:06 PM ET, we’re starting. Reminder: I’m doing this live – there will be typos and misspelled names. Everything not in quotes is a paraphrase.
Mike Herndon, FDA’s media relations. Welcome to briefing on recall of products tainted with melamine. Sorry we are late. We have a speaker today from FDA, and several FDA officials and an official from the USDA. Speaker is Dr. David Acheson.
Acheson: Recall of an ingredient used to make livestock and fish feed.
Source is within the United States. Not directly related to the pet food situation. Not a product that wound up in pet food.
Two companies: Tembec, Toledo, Ohio, and Uniscope, Inc. of Johnstown, CO.
Aquabond and Aqua-tech 2 are the products, made by Tembec and sold to Uniscope
Xtra-bond is made by Uniscope (?), and is intended for livestock feed.
Feeds are used domestically as well as for export. Are notifying other countries where shipped.
The products are binding agents cattle, sheep, goats, fish, and shrimp. Melamine was added by Tembec. They have stopped adding it. FDA is advising manufacturers to STOP ADDING MELAMINE.
Advising all companies making finished feed from Aquabond or Aquabond 2 to recall their products. FDA says foods made using Xtra-bond do not need to be recalled as levels are so low.
Probably level of melamine in Xtra-bond is less than 50 ppm based on recommended mix rate. Estimated levels in fish and shrimp feed are more like 230-460 ppm of melamine and melamine related compounds. He stressed it was the compounds, too.
Levels in binding agent vary, so vary in end product. But are similar to levels already discssed in the risk assessment. Consumption of products from these animals is unlikely to pose human health risk.
Press release will be going out very shortly.
Open to questions.
Andrew Martin, NY Times: So many questions. How did you find out? How long has this gone on? Is there a criminal probe?
(MORE AFTER THE BREAK)
Acheson: Came to our attention because Uniscope brought it to our attention. We have been trying to raise awareness among manufacturers. Uniscope used product they thought could contain melamine, tested it themselves in a private lab, found it to be present. Informed FDA. It was essentially FDA getting the word out that people need to look.
David Elder: The point is well made that FDA has been very proactive communicating with industry so they are taking this seriously. May 18 they brought this to FDA attention, following Monday started an investigation. Active and ongoing, will not comment on specifics. Priorities are communicating these findings to maintain our transparency and effectiveness to ensure that animal and human health is protected.
Steve Hersch, Washington Times: China question, even though this is not related to China. China has sentenced the head of their FDA to death, started a recall action. Does Dr. Acheson or anyone have thoughts as to whether these actions or related actions will improve safety of Chinese food exports?
Acheson: Cannot speak to that per se. We are working with Chinese authorities to focus on food safety issues. We met with them when they were in the US. Recent actions are ones they have undertaken for their own reasons and I can’t comment.
Hersch: You participated in several press conferences, major topic of discussion, one would think if the Chinese take action, the authorities in this country would have some thoughts on this.
Acheson: Cannot comment on actions taken by Chinese. May have nothing to do with recent issues of food safety.
Hersch: Nothing to do with recent actions?
Acheson: May or may not. Not necessarily directly related to food safety.
Hersch: China has recalled many food products.
Acheson: Recent events have focused a lot of people all over the world on food safety issues.
They cut him off and told him to call office for follow-up.
Boston Globe: People thought US food products were safer than products coming in from China. Do you think this is it, or should we expect other recalls down the line?
Acheson: Food safety is not just an international issue, it’s a domestic issue too. Information we have so far. Investigation is continuing. Companies may find things. We are going out and testing products who use various protein concentrates. Cannot rule out that there will be more of these.
Boston Globe: How many livestock involved?
Elder: Information is being gathered. This recall is starting today. We are working with the firms.
Steve Dale: At what point can we be sure that all the pet food available anywhere is absolutely safe? Considering what happened in March and what happened since then. Right after press conference, less than an hour, there was an announcement of five more recalls. At what point will our pet food be absolutely undeniably safe re: melamine etc? Didn’t you stop it at some point?
Acheson: I wish I could give you a short, succinct answer. The things we put in place at the borders will prevent protein concentrates being directly imported from China. Does not mean a manufacturer doesn’t have an ingredient in a warehouse somewhere.
Dale: How can a manufacturer not know?
Acheson: It’s hard to believe a manufacturer of pet food would not know about this. But I’m trying to answer your question in an honest way. We have put as many controls in place as possible to prevent melamine contaminated protein concentrates from being freshly imported. Second, if something was imported that had nothing to do with the pet food recall, and it’s currently being used and no one has tested it and they’re still using it… the material we know about, we’ve chased that down to the point we’re pretty confident none of that is left.
But these companies get cross contamination within the companies, not direct use of the raw contaminated ingredients, but cross contamination in the equipment. I can’t give you a never, we’re done with recalls. Every day that goes by increases the safety margin. But as you learned, a company just decided, maybe we should test this stuff.
Dale: If it happened with Menu Foods in March, and some of the follow up six weeks later, but now it’s seven or eight weeks after that, I’m asking what is the point pet foods will be safe again concerning the products imported from China. At what point will it be safe. That’s what I’m trying to ask. And what about food for pet fish?
Acheson: I don’t know if these recalled products are used in pet fish food.
Elder: Says it’s sold in 50 lb bags for manufacture of feed, not for pet fish.
Elizabeth Weise, USA Today: Binding agents are used in open water to hold the pellets together. Was the company using melamine as a protein binder to hold the pellets together? Pond or open water reared fish? Using melamine as a protein source or a plastic glue?
Acheson: No indication using it as a protein source. Important differentiation from pet food issue.
Weise: Recalling animals fed this feed?
Acheson: At this point no. Levels in Xtra-bond do not reach level of concern. Levels in Aqua-bond and Aqua-tech are higher but don’t reach level of concern for human health – emphasized HUMAN health.
Washington Post: I don’t see a press release?
Herndon: Up in a minute.
Post: Tembec was adding melamine to products used by Uniscope. You’re telling me that after all your announcements going back to March, Tembec never contacted you, kept using this, until Uniscope contacted you. Does that seem irresponsible to you? Didn’t think to stop adding melamine to their products?
Acheson: That’s part of the active investigation.
Post: What evidence are you making the opinion that they’re not adding for protein enhancement?
Acheson: Levels of melamine are not as high as we saw in wheat gluten. That’s essentially the indication, that’s it’s used to improve the binding qualities.
Post: Is there an assay of protein levels?
Elder: Does not think so. Not expected to be high in protein. Are binders.
Carrie Peyton Dahlbergh, Sacramento Bee: Are they used in products that are tested for protein levels?
Elder: At this point in time we’re focusing on the recall of the pellet binder ingredients. Tracing forward the ingredients to the various feed manufacturers. Hard for us to comment further on testing of animal feed, and speculate if melamine addition would affect tests they have done.
Abigail Goldman, LA Times: Scope. Were either of those companies using melamine for a long time? Always part of their ingredients, method of manufacturing? If not, when? How far and wide, how long, have animals and fish and shrimp been getting this?
Acheson: Investigation is trying to determine that. Current thinking is it’s been going on “for a little while.” Don’t have information to share on how long, we don’t have it. Suspect it’s not something that happened “acutely” in May, 2007.
Goldman: How far might this have gone? How big are these companies? Other animals than sheep, goats?
Acheson: Cattle, sheep, and goats. They are the ones primarily target for Xtra-bond, the one with the lower levels. Fish and shrimp targets for A-tech and A-bond. Don’t know extent. Do know the A-t and A-b are exported. Informing countries. Can’t speak to tonnage and where it went.
Goldman: Domestically, are they major players? Or most exported?
Acheson: Most of A-t and A-b, most are exported. For Xtra-bond, don’t know.
Elder: Recall starting today. We are working with the firms to determine scope, distribution pattern and volume. Being obtained. The Aqua-tech and Aqua-bond are primarily intended for export.
CNN: Have you checked to see who else Tembec (they spelled it this time) is selling to?
Acheson: Only Uniscope, we think.
Reporter: There are no approved uses of melamine as a food additive?
Acheson: Approved for dishes etc.
Reporter: But not for food or feed?
Acheson: Not in feed or food.
Reporter: So this is an unapproved use. What action is being taken against Tembec?
Elder: Currently Tembec and Uniscope are cooperating to execute the recall. Our investigations are open and will continue until we’re satisfied and then consider appropriate follow up. They have stopped. No unapproved use going on currently. Under control. Products on market are subject to recall. Investigation remains open.
NPR: Tembec was doing this themselves?
Answer: Right.
NPR: Fish being raised for food, not pet fish?
Acheson: Commercial used directly for human food or hatcheries, probably both, doesn’t know for a fact.
NPR: Presumably for fish intended for human consumption, but don’t think there is risk for humans?
Acheson: Based on what we know, correct.
Karen Roebuck: Xtra-bond has less than 50 PPM, what are levels in other products, and why did it take 12 days from time FDA knew, and more for companies, for a recall?
Acheson: 50 ppm were melamine and related compounds, but heavily melamine. Levels of melamine were by far higher than any of the highers. Cyanuric acid was very low relative to the melamine. Numbers were Xtra-bond less than 50 ppm, Aqua-bond – in the FINISHED FEED – higher because levels in binding agent were high and they aren’t as diluted. 230-460 ppm. Dependent on how much dilution is done at the point where the feed is finally put together.
Roebuck: Why did this take 12 days? And where did it get exported? Did any go to China?
Acheson: Doesn’t want to comment on countries involved until they are notified. We were notified on a Friday the 18th, got investigators in there the next Monday, by the 25th we were assessing impact, getting recall moving, and that took us another 3-4 days, even working through the holiday weekend.
Baltimore Sun: How do levels found in levels found in wheat flour from China?
Acheson: Wheat flour was as much as 20 percent melamine, way higher.
FDA Week: Is FDA doing anything now that would have found the melamine in these products if they had not come forward voluntarily?
Acheson: Yes, domestic surveillance assignment. Although it did have a focus on imported products, so this would have been on a lower list of likelihood.
FDA Week: So you’re doing this protein surveillance assignment, but how many companies are out there making this compared to how many companies you’re actually testing?
Acheson: We’re not going to get to every company. We’ll do it as long as we think it’s warranted. Part of strategy is to raise industry consciousness. Trying to get the word out to manufacturers to look. Uniscope did that. Methods to test are available on the website. We’re tackling this by trying to raise awareness. Multi-pronged approach.
FDA Week: Fine and good, but Tembec didn’t come forward. Why would a company bother to come forward?
Acheson: Not much we can do.
FDA Week: What COULD you do?
Acheson: That’s a theoretical question.
FDA Week: What’s in the statute? What authority do you have to punish companies?
Elder: Products can be seized, companies can be enjoined, comapanies can be prosectuted, per Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act.
Kerley, ABC News: In essence, Uniscope didn’t know what they were getting.
Acheson: Tembec was original manufacturer of Aqua-bond and Aqua-tec 2. Same basic ingredient was shipped to Uniscope who used it to make Xtra-bond. It’s a binding agent.
Kerley: So no idea how many pounds Tembec produced? What was ppm of binding agent?
Acheson: I gave you the numbers in the final feed.
Kerley: Yes, you did.
Acheson: Up to 31,000 ppm in the original binding agent, not the finished feed. Cyanuric acid were 20 (not sure if this is 20K or just 20) ppm.
Kerley: And you haven’t shut down Tembec, even though they have known for months they shouldn’t have been using melamine?
Acheson: They are not producing product with melamine.
Kerley: But they are still producing product.
Acheson: Yes.
Kerley: Was what they were using, the melamine, was it labeled as something else? If I were a mixer at Tembec, would I have known I was adding melamine from a bag labeled melamine?
Acheson: Can’t say, doesn’t know.
Reporter: Is this all voluntary to companies, and what are costs?
Acheson: Doesn’t know about costs. Raising awareness is a key part of this. Vitally important for manufacturers not to make assumptions. This isn’t just feed, it’s food to. KNOW YOUR SUPPLIERS. Domestic, too. Don’t assume the practices your supplier is undertaking are what you’d want in your products.
Reporter: What are the companies expected to do in light of this new information? Uniscope has been getting contaminated ingredients for some time. How does a company protect itself if dealing with what is apparently a known supplier?
Acheson: Who am I getting my supplies from and what exactly is in it. If not happy, test it yourself. Like Uniscope did. Good thing they did. If you are a CEO, ask yourself how sure you are the supplies you’re receiving are what they say they are and won’t cause harm. Ask, test if necessary.
Concludes.
Um… this scares me. And I can’t be here… anyone have any clue why they’d be doing this?
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 11:09 am
I haven’t heard anything, but I’m trying to find out.
Comment by Christie Keith — May 30, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Ya, I’m like oh no, what’s this gonna be about??
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 11:51 am
oh and probably sure to be complete with post-conference, late night news drops. Please no more recalls, please lets not STILL have poisoned food on the selves…
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Wonder if they’re “closing” the “case”?
Comment by Ann H — May 30, 2007 @ 11:58 am
maybe it’s a wrap up since the scare is over . . . ?
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 11:59 am
ann h, i think we might be a tad jaded, eh? ;)
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Don’t you think this is what the briefing will be about?
Feds Complete Melamine Risk Assessment
Late on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, five federal agencies released a risk assessment for melamine-tainted foods that found none cause a health threat to people.
The report, by the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service, in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security is an interim safety/risk assessment for melamine.
Tainted Chinese wheat flour, labeled as wheat gluten, and rice protein concentrate were used to make pet food, and some pet food was mixed with animal feed and fed to hogs, chickens and fish.
“The results of the safety/risk assessment indicate that the consumption of pork, chicken, domestic fish and eggs from animals inadvertently fed animal feed contaminated with melamine and its analogues is very unlikely to pose a human health risk,” according to an FDA press release.
The timing of the report’s release — late Friday before a three-day weekend — means that reporters and other watchdogs will probably start to comb through the report only today.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/2.....ment/1905/
Comment by Maureen — May 30, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
The suspected dry formulas, coming out of the bag?
Comment by Maudigan — May 30, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Doesn’t the FDA also have answers due to Congress by June 1st?
Comment by Ann H — May 30, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
The FDA has not even mentioned any pet food recalls in a long time, not while they were still having regular media conferences, and not since they stopped. I doubt they’d call this just because additional brands or flavors or dates of pet food were found to be contaminated.
This will have to do with human food if a recall is involved, as the subject of the conference suggests. If it’s not about a recall, then my guess is this will have something to do with an arrangement with China, or something to do with another shipment … ooops, beginning…
Comment by Christie Keith — May 30, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
So this is a **US** company adding melamine to a **US** product and in a **US** factory???
Comment by hildiesmom — May 30, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Maybe we’ll learn more about the Canadian corn gluten - like its intended destination.
Comment by Linda — May 30, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Holy cow! As if we didn’t have enough to worry about, now we have American companies doing the same darn thing the Chinese have been doing?
Comment by Therese — May 30, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
*kerthunk!!*
yes, that was me falling over. wow.
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Holy cow.
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
No wonder the animals got sick and died. It was in the meat and the grain.
Comment by Robert — May 30, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
When my state agriculture dept told me there was already melamine in the food supplies.. I knew it had to the US companies too…
Comment by Ann H — May 30, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Still catching up here - MAY 18th??! Hmmm, just before they ‘discontinued’ regular briefings saying the story was over.
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Good thing they made up that test that proved it was safe first!
Comment by spocko — May 30, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
“Good thing they made up that test that proved it was safe first!”
Which begs the question why they now are telling them to STOP using it…if it’s so safe!!! LOLOL
Riiiiiiggghhhhttttt!!!! And I got some oceanfront property in AZ to sell ya!
Comment by hildiesmom — May 30, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
No kidding Spocko.
So, we want to know - what ingredient did they buy from what company that turned out to contain melamine???!!!
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
do you suppose someone at FDA (phone person) is having fun at the Directors expense with the music selections? Those are just too clever and right on target at times.
Comment by lost for words — May 30, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
well, now we know why tainted meat suddenly became ok for market?
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
“Acheson: Only Uniscope, we think.”
well that’s a reassuring answer . . .
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Found uniscope online: http://www.uniscope-inc.com/
Can’t find Chembeck, lots of links for aquabond as in chemical adhesive but not for food or as a binding agent, coming up blank on aquatech 2 as well…
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Tembec’s website: http://www.btlresins.com/
Comment by Therese — May 30, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
“we think”, “can’t rule out”. Well, we all have 10 weeks of experience as to what THOSE mean.
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
From the Tembec website…I hit the submit button too soon on that last comment…
A proven wood adhesive used worldwide…
Applications:
* wood shop glue
* glue for furniture joints
* glue for plywood, particleboard and veneers
* binder for aquaculture feed pellets
* binder for foundry core and sand
* binder for plant fertilizer
Comment by Therese — May 30, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Tenbec is here but I don’t think this is the place?
http://www.tembec.com/public/Produits/Apercu.html
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
And this page shows both an Aquabond AND an Aquatech:
http://www.worldmaterial.com/b.....%20abc.htm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 30, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
We need Bernie or LYnn for this. If I remember right, because cows are ruminants they CAN safely digest Melamine, it has been added as a NPN in the past I believe.
BUT, the same might not hold true for the melamine compounds such as cyanuric acid.
I’m not at home or I’d check my emails from Bernie on this subject. (I also have a Word file with many of the early posts on this topic)
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
“Acheson: Not much we can do.
FDA Week: What COULD you do?
Acheson: That’s a theoretical question.”
oh, he didn’t . . .
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Peggy…same company. It looks like the one you found is the main company site and the other that I found is the chemical division here in the US.
http://www.tembec.com/public/Produits/Apercu.html
http://www.btlresins.com/
Comment by Therese — May 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Our buddies at Alibaba:
http://www.alibaba.com/company/25613.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Good Job you guys!
Tembec has had dealings with the EPA in Ohio:
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic.....embec.html
“Ohio EPA, Toledo Company Settle Violations
“Tembec BTLSR Inc. of Toledo will pay a $15,540 civil penalty for the company’s failure to have an accurate risk management plan and implement a prevention program. The company agreed to the penalty in a settlement with Ohio EPA.
“The company, located at 2112 Sylvan Ave., has completed a risk management plan and has implemented a prevention program.
“State and federal regulations require businesses to develop risk management plans if they use more than specified amounts of regulated chemicals. The plan helps prevent accidental releases to the environment and reduces the severity of releases that do occur. The company reported using 210,000 pounds of formaldehyde in 1999. A risk management plan is necessary when at least 15,000 pounds of formaldehyde is used.
“Tembec BTLSR manufactures custom spray-dried powdered resins. Tembec acquired BTLSR Toledo Inc. in October 2003.
The company will pay $12,432 to Ohio EPA. The penalty will be used to benefit the Ohio Environmental Education Fund and administer air pollution control programs. The remaining $3,108 will be paid to Ohio EPA’s Clean Diesel School Bus Fund.”
A little dated but gives us some background.
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
“Tenbec is here but I don’t think this is the place?”
http://www.tembec.com/public/Produits/Apercu.html
Tembec-Ohio is a division of Canadian based co., wood products
Comment by Maureen — May 30, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
remeber to archive links!
just sayin’
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Tembec is a Canadian forest products company. Their BTLSR division in Toledo makes a variety of resins, including Melamine.
http://www.tembec.com/public/home.do
http://www.btlresins.com/
Comment by Mike — May 30, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
“We need Bernie or LYnn for this. If I remember right, because cows are ruminants they CAN safely digest Melamine, it has been added as a NPN in the past I believe.”
Ruminants can break down the urea component to get at the nitrogen. Take a look at this page, and read the description for a product called “Maxi-Bond”:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/fiel.....468E06.htm
“Alternatively, binding agents such as polymethylolcarbamide (ie. Basfin) and urea-formaldehyde/calcium sulphate mixtures (ie. Maxi-Bond)”
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 30, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Now we all understand how important it was to establish “safe” levels of Melamine using a test based on weak science.
I do think that the risk assessment needs to be looked at much closer.
And what if it is wrong. Oopie. Those 20 million chickens that went out? Good thing they never told us the name of the company that put them out. Or where they went so we could you know, avoid them if we choose to not trust their weak science.
Comment by spocko — May 30, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
I’m not surprised. Weren’t adding it to increase protein levels - right!
Comment by Linda — May 30, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Well, I guess it’s too late to ask about “binding agents” used directly in our human foods.. and how much is melamine/other compounds.
Comment by Ann H — May 30, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
I wonder how many medicines that stuff is in. They use binding agents to make pills stick together.
Comment by Robert — May 30, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
I’m expecting that this announcement will be a nice trigger for Durbin to move another part of the Food Safety Agency forward.
The people need to see just how weak the FDA is and how the FDA/USDA “working closely with industry” really might not be working with it in the fashion we would expect.
Say that they industry knows that melamine in the feed. First they have to establish that there is a safe lower limit. Then they can say, “Well we are under the limit” compare this with a statement like “There is no “safe limit” that has been scientifically determined.”
Comment by spocko — May 30, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
maybe they should rework their “dilution” based risk assessment with the average weight of say 9lbs? seeing as he kept stressing it was safe for *humans* . . . not all humans weigh 132 . . .
cause they sure aren’t saying it’s safe for pets . . . .
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Turkey, turkey’s not on the list …as far as we know…we can still eat turkey; if we hurry; I think…
Why do I suddenly feel like vomiting and not metaphorically either, but more like for-realsies?
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
I thought it wasn’t to be used at all in Feed or pets or human food supply. None.
Comment by Linda — May 30, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Comment by Robert — May 30, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
so it may not be the Tylenol® that wrecks the the kidney if used too often, but the binder?
a kidney cleanse diet is sounding good about now . .
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Exactly straybaby. How about all this fish and chicken and beef and who knows what else that went into pet and baby food???
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Why do I suddenly feel like vomiting and not metaphorically either, but more like for-realsies?
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
prob the same reason i can feel my kidneys . . OY!
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Just now seeing Maureen’s post - excellent point as to why the FDA released that ridiculous Melamine Risk Assessment document last Friday! To ‘prepare’ us for this. Unbelievable.
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
I have such a headache from this I think I’ll go out and chew the bark off the willow tree.
Comment by Robert — May 30, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Kim, i think i’ll revise that to 10 lbs. it would be easier to work their numbers up to other weights then. after all, we can’t expect them to give us the real numbers . . .
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
And why the heck do we even have laws forbidding specific products/chemicals/ingredients in our food supply if companies can avoid punitive action simply by “cooperating” with the FDA once they’re caught????!!!
The shock, outrage and disgust I feel right now can’t even be put into words.
Comment by A.C. — May 30, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Isn’t the big story here that the U.S. is/may be exporting feed products containing melamine and melamine compounds abroad?
Didn’t Acheson indicate this might have been going on for some time? As he said melamine isn’t approved for food products, therefore why aren’t the Feds seizing Tembec/Ohio and its records in order to proceed with an orderly recall and worldwide notice to all companies that might have received these products? They don’t have to admit that the contaminants are dangerous, just that they are clearly not approved for food products, including animal and fish feed.
I used to enjoy arguing the need for regulations with my Libertarian acquaintances. None of us are laughing any longer.
Comment by Maureen — May 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
oh straybaby, you’re telling me…
OMG and what A.C. said, too: “The shock, outrage and disgust I feel right now can’t even be put into words.”
I can get to Toledo in about an hour…I could start by puking on them…
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Oof. Johnstown, CO is just about 20 miles from here. It’s about 45 miles north of downtown Denver, near Greeley where they have a lot of local feedlots.
Melamine as “binder”? Well, in combo with cyanuric acid, it sure “binds up” the kidneys, doesn’t it?
Argh. Not happy.
Comment by Barry — May 30, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
I’m going to have to check BBC News and Deutsch Welle later and see what they say.
Comment by Robert — May 30, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Here’s a snip from the melamine-contaminated fish feed recall 3 weeks ago. How big a story would it be if Tembec, a US company, shipped a melamine contaminated binder ingredient overseas that then came back to the US in finished fish (and animal) feed?
Skretting issues recall of Bio-Oregon fish feed
09 May, 2007 -
RECENT testing by the United States Food and Drug Administration has found a very low level of melamine in a batch of Bio-Oregon brand fish feed shipped to the United States.
(more) http://www.fishfarmer-magazine....._feed.html
Comment by Maureen — May 30, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
No wonder FDA said they “can’t comment” on China’s food safety policies:
“Roebuck: Why did this take 12 days? And where did it get exported? Did any go to China?”
“Acheson: Doesn’t want to comment on countries involved until they are notified. We were notified on a Friday the 18th, got investigators in there the next Monday, by the 25th we were assessing impact, getting recall moving, and that took us another 3-4 days, even working through the holiday weekend.”
Comment by Maureen — May 30, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Barry, I am sick—cause I am not too far from Greeley.
I would drather eat just plain old dirt rather than the melamine and cyanuric acid.
Just not only put in cat and dog food but a whole lot of other species on earth, including humans.
Unbelieveable this is happening in America. And no jail time for offenders. No criminal charges and no recall enforcement powers by the FDA. Need something strong to face this new reality I have just learned—but it might have some poison, also.
Comment by Evelyn — May 30, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
I agree, Evelyn. I wonder how much of this stuff got into local feeds? There are quite a few feed manufacturers in the area, plus a big Purina plant in Denver.
Comment by Barry — May 30, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Acheson “notified on a Friday the 18th, got investigators there the next Monday, by 25th were assessing impact, getting recall moving, and that took us another 3-4 days, even working through the holiday weekend” —
WHY, repeat WHY, does it take a company, with the FDA’s assistance, 7 days to assess and another 3-4 days to get the recall moving?
I have been through 2 recalls with employers. The first was “discovered” when a consumer purchased a product and found something wrong with the packaging/contents. They called an 800#. Within 24 hours they had “assessed”; within 48 hours they had “executive meetings for planning” and within 72 hours the recall was in process.
A company may never actively establish procedures for a recall, however, when it happens you simply do whatever it takes to get the product out of the marketplace and give notification.
Comment by Donna — May 30, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Well isn’t that nice that they stopped using it because the FDA told them to. And since they are being so cooperative there will be no repricussions for deliberately tainting food. That’s like stealing a TV and then trying to return it to the police station because someone found out it was you who stole it. I’m sure the police will just let it go since you are being so cooperative. All charges will be dropped for you being such a good samaritan.
Comment by Tammy — May 30, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
More from the anti-American, culture-of-death, pro-uber-corporate-welfare Bush administration (since this issue relates directly to the safety of our food supply, and kudos to Creekstone):
ADMINISTRATION FIGHTING MAD COW TESTING
“The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. But Arkansas City-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows.
Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.
Permalink: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....w-testing/
thinkprogress.org is an amazing amazing site that tracks news that we SHOULD be getting but rarely do. they source everything so you can go to the original documents, articles, and videos to check the info for yourself.
Comment by Sandy — May 30, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
What was the date that the FDA last announced that it was discontinuing weekly media events due to a “lack of new information” regarding the melamine scandal? By any chance was it around their declared knowledge date of the 18th?
Did the FDA already know about this new Tembec/Uniscope “done by good american product sellers” melamine scandal at the time of discontinuing those conferences?
I have said it before - know your sources locally before buying (I won’t share the horrific stories of things done by our own people here in the USA, but don’t think this doesn’t happen here. But don’t trade with even americans who do this). Beyond that? Understand there is NO CERTAINTY at this juncture, just each of us scrambling amidst the uncertainty to minimize our personal risk with foods.
Cripes, what a mess.
Comment by TC — May 30, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Yes, they suspended them on the 22nd. Go read my post on this…
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....-melamine/
Comment by Christie Keith — May 30, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
ha ha Acheson “can’t comment on chinese policies”, because he has known for some time that we were doing the same things to the Chinese that they have done to us.
KNOW YOUR SUPPLIER - yes, even Acheson is saying that now as well.
Unless the FDA can be given teeth, they need to be disbanded, as they of no use whatsoever. His stupid comments sound like they are nothing more than an advisory board/cheerleading squad. I heard…blah blah “getting the word out!” “letting manufacturers know the risks!! - how many different ways did he say that one?
They knew, because of the pet food scandal unfolding. The FDA knew that they knew AND I will wager knew melamine contamination was occuring in food fed to other animals, like what has been “revealed” to us now.
I bet this company that came forward did so under some threat of disclosure or some insider finked them out to the FDA, who tried to hold a carrot and stick in front of them. So the FDA could at least in some way manage how DOPEY they knew they were going to look with all that flipping mud on their smug mugs.
I need to go for a adrenaline cleansing walk, except I would wilt in this weather. But the evening walk is going to be a LONG one.
Comment by TC — May 30, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Christie, I will go read that link.
So another instance of an absolute lie to the american public. They knew on the 18th, and still claimed no new melamine news on the 22nd. This does qualify as new melamine news.
I suspect they lied to give themselves lead time so they and their agri-biz buddies could package this right for public consumption.
My fear now is that this thing has legs and must be even bigger than this. This being the opening salvo in a long summer of terribly bad news for us and for our pets.
Comment by TC — May 30, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Comment by Sandy — May 30, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
“re testing for mad cow disease”
Can anyone think of a remotely plausible rationale that Bush could possibly make as his administration says “it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease”?
Since the disease in humans is so devastating, and if costs wouldn’t be noncompetitive if ALL cows had to be tested, then how can he justify this?
I don’t know if we can survive another year and a half of this administration. Seriously.
Comment by Maureen — May 30, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
“Can anyone think of a remotely plausible rationale that Bush could possibly make . . . “
LOL!~~~~~~~~ think about it ;)
Comment by straybaby — May 30, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
We can’t be spending money on silly things like making the food supply safe, or providing Americans with affordable healthcare, or revamping Social Security, or buying new equipment for the troops, or wasting time on the environment, or lowering gas prices and preventing the oil companies from raping the citizens while they profit billions a quarter, or rebuilding hurricane ravaged areas that still resemble a war zone after 2 years. We have to give Africa yet another $30 billion for Aids. Don’t worry we can afford it.
Comment by Tammy — May 30, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Christie! That picture you added! Are those the agency heads at FDA and USDA?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 30, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Got to tell you something. On good morning america tomorrow they are supposed to have something about what’s going on with Wal-Mart? They are losing business and custumers. Maybe We are all getting through to them. and the boycott on P&G doesn’t help either. yeah. I would like to see what say is going on. Should be interesting.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 30, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Is there anything wrong with corningware plates? Thanks,
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 30, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Snort. Gina added that. I love it.
Comment by Christie Keith — May 30, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
It’s all been researched and discussed way back. I said then that it appeared that from info I found while sleuthing, that test data was available on melamine in livestock as well as dogs and people. It was a matter of time before we learned it as a fact that the U.S. produced feed with melamine. I found it all on line in the “early days” of the pet food debacle,including encapsulation and the spraying of the feed to hold it together. It goes through a conveyor belt operation then sprayed. It is all in the blog. I still have many notes in my documents which pertain to all of this, some of which I had not posted because it was not yet relevant. Some of the info I gleaned is very interesting. I will post tomorrow when I have more time. I’ll post the old stuff on ruminants and Bernie’s and my comments.
Comment by Nadine Long — May 30, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Trudy, how’s your pup? Have you heard anything??
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
I can’t remember what list I posted now. good heavens. He threw up all last night, and We were up with Him .He drank a lot of water. First thing this morning i took him right to the vets. He was just starting to dehydrate, so they are putting him on fluids and taking all kinds of tests. The vet is a friend of mine, I worked for Him for 12 years. And He’s real good. Anyway, He had to stay overnight. The good thing is, He hadn’t gone to the bathroom except to pee. The Dr. said that was good as far as the food goes. He wouldn’t eat anything this morning. He “thinks” it could be pankratitis [sp?] but is checking for everything. He knows how I feel about the food mess. I just emailed the vet tech and she said He, the vet, was going in tonight to check on Him for Me. We miss not having him here. And after losing the 3 cats I am very upset, to say the least. i’m just hoping it’s something that can be fixed. i’ll know in the morning. Waiting is hell. Thanks so much for asking,
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 30, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
you’re welcome. let us know in the morning when you hear something. will keep you guys in my thoughts. Good Luck!
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 30, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
pancreatitis - that’s inflamation of the pancreas
Merck Vet Manual: http://www.merckvetmanual.com/.....%2ccanines
This is about diabetes:
http://petdiabetes.wikia.com/wiki/Pancreatitis
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
RE: Comment by TC — May 30, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
PLUS~ they didn’t want to to lose sales on hot dogs, burgers & steaks for the family cook-outs over this past holiday….
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Menu Foods reports earnings and conference call Thursday:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.c.....2698c.html
Might be interesting.
Comment by Don — May 30, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Trudy~ which dog food were you feeding your little guy?
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Kat, Thanks for the links. The dog is overweight, My husband will sneak any kind of food to him that He is eating, so it just might be that. I keep telling Him that He is killing the dog with kindness. Thanks again.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 30, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
We had just given all the dogs Pedegree. and one cup of Beneful the day before yesterday. He starting getting sick yesterdaay afternoon. I thought He had just overeaten or gotten into the cat food again. I guess not.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 30, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
*Nicaragua latest to grab tainted Chinese toothpaste*
http://www.alertnet.org/thenew.....272971.htm
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Beneful is what my dogs got sick on. Took them off in Feb. Lots of people have complained about Beneful.
IE Explorer problem - again.
Plus, my Reuters post didn’t go thru. New find on contaminated toothpaste in Nicaragua. Don’t know why it would have caught in the spam filters…
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Kat, how long do you wait? I generally just go find something to do (especially if I know I’ve posted something “problematic” - for example, with multiple URLs). I haven’t timed it, but I think there have been times it’s been an hour or so before the post shows up.
On another note - did you see my soapmaking posts for you at the end of the “Endangered animals abandoned on boat” thread?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 30, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Yes, I did. Thanks! I’ve bookmarked it & will see what she says. I left a note for you on that link, but it’s buried.
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
MANAGUA, May 30 (Reuters) - Nicaragua has seized tens of thousands of tubes of Chinese toothpaste tainted with a lethal chemical, the government said on Wednesday, following mass raids on suppliers by other Central American nations.
Contaminated toothpaste has been pulled from stores and seized by customs in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Panama since last week after tests showed high levels of diethylene glycol, a toxic chemical used as an engine coolant.
Health Minister Maritza Cuan said Nicaragua had seized over 40,000 tubes of Chinese-made toothpaste brands “Mr Cool,” “Genial” and “Dentamint” at border posts in recent days.
“We are still searching all over the place,” Cuan said in a news conference.
The United States said last week it was checking all toothpaste shipments from China as a precautionary measure.
No adverse effects of the toothpaste have been reported.
Last year cough medicine contaminated with diethylene glycol killed at least 100 people in Panama.
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Ohh, boy! Now a skunks outside. Somebody has upset it! It’s one thang after another here. NEVER a dull moment!
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Deborah Blum - Huffington Post is writing about the DEG contamination:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....49970.html
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Just went looking around & found TWO MORE SCORPIONS!! Can’t get to one… ahhhh!
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Nadine
I remember yours and Bernies posts about melamine in the feed. I also posted research done here in AZ re: NPN and the effects on cattle during drought.
I’m wondering if the melamine the pets ingested might be “waterproof” encapsulated - I wonder if that might be why it couldn’t be readily excreted????
Maybe you or Bernie would know -
Katie
Comment by Katie — May 30, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Now Australia found contaminated toothpaste - requiring new laws:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/new.....938082.htm
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
3 scorpions!
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
4!
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Yikes!!! Did you all read how the Diethylene glycol kills? “It kills primarily by destroying the kidneys,jamming the organs with wierd triangular CRYSTALS”!!!!!
Quote from the Huffington article posted above by Kat at 8:12 “Diethylene glycol is famously easy to detect, in and out of the body. Homicidal killers occasionally use it to lace food — earlier this year a Georgia woman was convicted of killing both husband and boyfriend with antifreeze — but any competent pathologist can figure that out. The poison leaves behind a distinct signature. It kills primarily by destroying the kidneys, jamming the organs with weirdly angular crystals, a clue as unmistakable as a bloody fingerprint.”
Do you suppose there was also diethylene glycol in the pet food to make it more palatable?
Comment by Elaine — May 30, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
The new, May 30th, FDA Recalls are out:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/.....01006.html
Health Valley has a recall for “wheat free” containing wheat
Good golly! A WHOLE BUNCH OF MEDS HAVE BEEN RECALLED - mislabeling: haldol, imiprimine, indomethicin, ibuprophen, hydrocodone
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
That drug recall is ongoing — not new…
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
It wouldn’t surprise me if they found roofing tile, at this point!
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
Thanks for the chuckle Kat! It wouldn’t surprise me either…
Comment by Kim — May 30, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
Here’s another chuckle, Kim — I live in a tiny town & went shopping & out to eat today in a nearby town, not as small as where we live.
For dinner, (skeptically) I ordered the SW Chicken. I asked the young waitress if it was melamine-chicken. She laughed & said “no.” Then, she asked “Why, are you allergic?”
I told her that melamine & other chemicals have been fed to 2 million chickens that are now out in the food supply. She gasp! She had no idea.
That’s because the local media is still doing an incredibly poor job of reporting.
Comment by Kat — May 30, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
” … I told her that melamine & other chemicals have been fed to 2 million chickens that are now out in the food supply. She gasp! She had no idea. …”
I thought it is more than 38 million chickens?!?! Need to check on that … but whether it’s 2 million or 38 million, those chicks should not be entering the people or animal food chain. Ditto everything else.
Comment by Sandy — May 31, 2007 @ 1:32 am
What about rabbits and gerbils and similar small pets? Commercial foods for these animals are pellets, right?
I like how we’re again left to play guessing games — which feed manufacturers are involved, how many animals might have eaten contaminated feed, which countries has the U.S. exported contaminated feed or feed ingredients to?
- Paul
Comment by Paul — May 31, 2007 @ 2:27 am
It’s very upsetting to learn that so many fda agents lost their jobs, to ensure our protection in events like these. that’s the bush administration aka the evil empire doing their handiwork again. big business as usual!!!
Comment by ann — May 31, 2007 @ 4:25 am
Kat,Did You find any anti-depressions or anixety meds recalled? thanks,
And why is Bush still in office??????
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 31, 2007 @ 6:54 am
Trudy,
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/.....01006.html
“REASON
Misbranding. There is the possibility of multiple product packaging mix-ups. An OTC drug, Rx drug ,or nutritional supplement other than what is indicated on the product labeling, may be inside the packaging. “
So here are a few of the drugs off the list. Gee - wouldn’t be a problem if anyone took any of these when they thought they were taking something else, huh?
Haloperidol: An antipsychotic drug used to treat schizophrenia which also has sigma activity.
Hydralazine: an antihypertensive drug (trade name Apresoline) that dilates blood vessels; used (often with a diuretic) to treat hypertension and congestive heart failure
Hydroxyzine: hydroxyzine hydrochloride: a drug (trade names Atarax and Vistaril) used as a tranquilizer to treat anxiety and motion sickness
Imipramine: a tricyclic antidepressant (trade names Imavate and Tofranil) used to treat clinical depression
Lisinopril: an ACE inhibiting drug (trade names Prinival or Zestril) administered as an antihypertensive and after heart attacks
Lorazepam: used for the management of anxiety disorders, the short-term relief of the symptoms of anxiety or anxiety associated with depression.
Methyldopa: used to treat high blood pressure
Metoprolol:Metoprolol is a beta blocker drug used in treatment of several diseases of the cardiovascular system
Naltrexone: A long-lasting opiate antagonist used for the treatment of heroin addiction, and more recently used for the treatment of alcohol addiction
Nortriptyline: a tricyclic antidepressant drug (trade name Pamelor) used along with psychotherapy to treat dysthymic depression; may interact dangerously if taken with other drugs
Oyster Shell
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 7:31 am
Thanks so much for the info. Trudy
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 31, 2007 @ 7:59 am
I also just to went to the list you sent Me. Makes Me feel just great about taking drugs or anything.
And what’s wrong with the ibuprophen?
Thanks,
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 31, 2007 @ 8:10 am
Well, considering I just FINISHED a course of Indomethacin and have STARTED a course of Ibuprofen (both on the list), I kind of want to know that too!
I think I’m gonna call Walgreen’s and ask for lot numbers on the prescriptions they gave me . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 8:13 am
Very good of you to decipher that list The OTHER Pat. ;) !!
I agree ~ mislabeling drugs could cause a LOT of trouble for some people.
I think the haldol is in bags, which means for pharmacy bottling… vs bingo-card pack.
That’s a good idea to call the pharmacy. This is a serious recall. A doctor/patient are trying to treat a certain disorder — say bladder disorder & end up giving a mental disorder. That’s just a guess — I don’t know what switches occured.
Wonder if any of that has gone into the vet medications?
The company is a repackaging company.
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 8:39 am
The Other Pat- Where is the info. on the soap making? I can’t find it. thanks,
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 31, 2007 @ 8:47 am
ooops! Not GIVING a mental disorder - although that COULD occur giving a psychotropic drug. I meant - giving a drug to TREAT a mental disorder!
Hopefully, if any of this has actually gotten out for consumption, that people who have BEEN TAKING a certain med, would realize the difference in medication.
So, Trudy — if you’ve been taking a certain drug for awhile, you would probably recognize the difference of something else in a bubble pack (example).
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 31, 2007 @ 6:54 am
Why is Bush still in office? funnnnny!
I think the reason he hasn’t done anything — is cause he doesn’t know about this. No one has told him — otherwise he’d be DOING or SAYING ~ SOMETHING!
Maybe he lost his “executive order” pad, ya think?
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Trudy - I too hope your pup is doing okay.
As for Tembec, why no criminal charges for a deliberate adulteration? I don’t want no stinking recall as a stand alone remedy.
I want creeps who think poisoning the american food supply for profit is okay to be dealt a real bad hand now. I don’t care if they are chinese, canadian, name your country or if it is my fellow americans. If a foreign nation, then cut trade. If a fellow american, I want them prosecuted.
But what are the odds that we will make them realize crime doesn’t pay? Esp. in a nation where we all see examples of crime paying via the drug trade, white collar crimes, and now add ag-biz crime lord activity? Who is the candidate that will minimize this kind of activity? I really agree with the sentiment re how easy it is to debate liberatarian principles, until you see what happens when our more base human natures really get kicked into gear out there in the real world. I am registered Independent, and I can’t find a single candidate that even vaguely looks like they would be interested in protecting both my nation AND my food supply.
“F” global warming debates about a theory that may not even be real (probably why it is so popular). I want candidates from all parties who can intelligently discuss FOOD SAFETY, TRADE, and MILITARY issues, without getting “party” hysterical over them.
Comment by TC — May 31, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Trudy (and Kat) - I don’t know how to link to specific posts, but WAAAY down at the bottom of this thread are three posts I wrote for Kat on soapmaking. I’m still not sure if she saw the last two:
http://www.petconnection.com/b...../#comments
And for others who might be interested, this is another way to “disconnect” from commercial providers. Making your own soap means you know exactly what went into it, and the ingredient list is generally WAY shorter than what you see on a package of commercially-available bar soap!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 9:23 am
On Dick Durbin’s special website for contacting the FDA, he has a contribution page for his IL reelection. I live in TX, but would even consider contributing to his canpaign.
and, ESPECIALLY IF HE RAN FOR *PRESIDENT!*
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 9:25 am
http://ga3.org/campaign/petfoo.....food%5fweb
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 9:32 am
The other Pat- Thank You, I found it.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — May 31, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Thanks The OTHER Pat !! !! Got your links. Thanks for pointing the other two posts out. I had missed them.
I wanna go make some TODAY !! and wrap-up & sell!! I’ll read about what it takes ^ do soon.
About the goat’s milk soap - wanted to do that, but now I’d have to add mela-goat’s milk — for disclosure — hahaha~
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 9:54 am
Here is a fairly simple recipe I used for a soapmaking workshop I did recently. It minimizes the amount of weighing needed since the recipe is designed to use the full amount in each container of the various oils. For that reason, if you use this recipe, you need to either buy the EXACT size shown here, or have a means to weigh out the proper amount.
The problematic ingredient is the lye. You used to be able to buy it in the “drain cleaners” section of your local grocery, but not any more (since the meth labs discovered it). Be wary of what you buy even if it IS labelled as “lye” - I couldn’t find any that didn’t have something else added (I called the manufacturers to ask) such as carbon black or powdered aluminum. Best to find some from a soapmaker’s supply - several available online. And weighing it is an issue if you don’t have a scale - that’s the part I’m not sure how to address with beginning soapmakers.
Anyway, here’s the recipe. Remember to always add the LYE to the WATER. NEVER add the WATER to the LYE.
INGREDIENTS:
One Tub of Organic Shortening (Palm Oil) by Spectrum Naturals Net
Wt. 24 ounces
One Jar of Organic Coconut Oil by Spectrum Naturals Net Wt 14 ounces
(If you can’t find these at a local grocery, you can get them online here:
http://www.spectrumorganics.com/?id=87)
Two bottles of Olive Oil, 17 ounces each, for a total of 34 ounces. (You can buy whatever is cheapest.)
One bottle of Sweet Almond Oil, 8.45 ounces
11 ounces of lye
4 cups distilled water
DIRECTIONS:
After you’ve slowly added the lye to water while stirring it well to dissolve it (stainless steel or wooden spoon, stainless steel or glass bowl) it needs to come back down to less than 100 degrees F. Room temperature is okay. This can take more than an hour.
The solid oils (Palm Oil, Coconut Oil) need to be melted completely, but not TOO hot. I used to melt them in an oven at its lowest setting, but recently realized I could use the microwave.
Once melted, you can combine them with the liquid oils (Olive Oil, Sweet Almond Oil) and this mixture needs to cool to less than 90-100 degrees F.
Using a stick blender facilitates the process tremendously. Pour the dissolved lye into the oils while using the stick blender (not turned on yet) to stir it in. Then run the stick blender in short bursts - making sure you move it around in the bowl (remember - glass or stainless steel) so that all of the solution gets evenly mixed.
The solution will become milky almost right away. What you are looking for is a thickening to about the consistency of instant vanilla pudding. This is called “trace” because - at this point - if you lift out the blender (turned OFF!) and dribble some of the solution over the surface, it will leave a faint “trace” of a line before it disappears.
There are no fragrance oils in this recipe. I think it’s kind of nice to have an unscented soap. So once your mixture reaches trace, you can pour it into the molds (have two 1-quart cardboard milk-type cartons ready wth their tops fully opened). If you don’t want a white crusty layer forming on the surface, cover it with a film of plastic (like Saran Wrap).
The molds need to be wrapped in old towels or blankets to keep the heat in, and then LEAVE THEM ALONE for 48 hours (that’s the hardest part! LOL! I always find myself snaking my hand in under the towels to feel the heat on the sides of the molds and I don’t uncover them if I still feel any heat). They need that initial heat to be kept in, otherwise the reaction might get stopped.
After 48 hours, you can demold. With the milk cartons it’s relatively easy - you just tear away the cardboard. At this point the soap is kind of like a wax and can be cut into bars with a knife (a miter block can help).
Set the bars on end on a shelf somewhere (out of reach of the dogs - they seem to like to chew on newly-made soap!) and let them dry out and continue curing for 6 weeks. (Some people are okay with waiting only 3-4, although I think that may be in warmer climates).
Then try out your new soap and see how much better you like it than the chemical-laden commercial stuff you buy in the stores!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Are either of those 2 websites yours? Also, where do you get the paddle? Sage didn’t have one.
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Nope - I don’t have a website. However, a dog person friend of mine who is also an artist put up this one when I wrote an analogy to help her understand the saponification process:
http://www.canis-art.com/soaping.htm
Not sure what you mean by “paddle”. Do you mean stick blender? Those are available in most housewares departments, often for less than $20.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Thanks so much for the recipe! I am copying it, plus I’ve saved the two pages & links in my fav’s.
I’ve been wanting to get a bread rack, like the one’s they have at the grocery stores with 8 shelves or so. That would be purrrfect for curing. We have lots of humidity here, so I’d imagine it would sweat like glycerin.
Sounds like the scale & paddles, safety equip. are all necessary equipment. That’s ok.
Thanks so much for your help, The OTHER Pat! Now, just findng time & space to do.
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Glycerine (Melt-and-Pour) soaps sweat because they have the chemical property of being hydrophilic (moisture-loving). Cold process soaps (as distinct from Melt-and-Pour - “Cold Process” refers to soaps you make from scratch using oils and lye and no added heat) won’t sweat like that, but the excess water in the recipe needs time to evaporate out. That’s part of what happens during the weeks of curing.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
The OTHER Pat - thanks too for the recipe!
I am working through some old soap purchases and planned to refill with soaps made by a couple of back to the earth kind of businesses who sell them at farmer markets. I have always chickened out about making soap, due strictly to my queasiness over using the lye. I am saving your recipe and hope to have time and my nerve up sometime this year, to try it out!
Comment by TC — May 31, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
I wonder how long it takes a human to detox plastic out of the body? Would we all test positive for melamine, too? ;o))
Comment by Cheryl Hansen — May 31, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
I’ve worked in chemistry labs, so that helps. But in general, I think the lye is scarier to think about than to just do! VBG!
The main thing is that you don’t want to get lye in your eyes. When you’re working with it, remain aware of where your hands are, what you touch, and what you have touched (for example, be on guard against absentmindedly wiping your face or rubbing your eyes while doing this). Wear gloves and goggles, and when you’re done mixing all the lye into the water, take a bunch of wet paper towels and wipe down every surface in the area to “capture” any unseen dry particles. Have a trash container right there (I just set up a paper bag) and take it out when you’re done making the soap.
As a safeguard, its nice to keep a bowl of vinegar on the countertop. Vinegar is an acid, and if you think you’ve gotten some lye or some soap solution on your skin, you can use the vinegar to help neutralize it.
Mostly though - just wear the protective stuff, don’t be in a rush, remain aware of what you’re doing and where everything is, and wipe things down after you’re done using the dry lye crystals, and you should be fine!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Thanks for the extra tips, like the vinegar The OTHER Pat. I was never good at science, and thus escaped to law, lol…
Funny that I would think of taking up something like soap making ,where I need to pay strict attention to things, just about the time I am getting old enough that I enjoy letting all the details, warnings, and rules that used to run my life just fade away:)
Will put a butcher paper sign with large print on the kitchen wall: WARNING OLD GAL - LYE CAN BLIND. DON’T BE CARELESS!! lol….
Comment by TC — May 31, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
HAha, I’d look at the sign, get distract as to why I put it up there, and pour the lye all over myself…
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 31, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Shhhhh Peggy, don’t give me poor old mind any crazy ideas:)
Comment by TC — May 31, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
:) just tell it to go back to sleep, thats what I do, LOL! :)
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 31, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Comment by TC — May 31, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
“Funny that I would think of taking up something like soap making ,where I need to pay strict attention to things, just about the time I am getting old enough that I enjoy letting all the details, warnings, and rules that used to run my life just fade away:)”
But the cool thing about this is that you can see the *results* of what you’re doing. You make the soap, you get to watch it change, end up with these solid bars that you get to use later and know YOU made them (at least *I* get a kick out of that!).
And you can make up your own recipes if you want by following the guidelines on a site like http://www.millersoap.com. As long as you check the recipe to be sure there isn’t too much lye. the only fallout is the possibility of bothed batches. So heck - you try again!
You can put in whatever fragrances, herbs, etc. that appeal to YOU or add nothing at all and keep it simple (and sometimes those are the hardest to find for sale - so you’re not subject to that - you make your own!).
It makes great gifts - EVERYONE needs soap, and always appreciates the fact that it was made by you. And there are some really FUN recipes out there, like Chocolate Swirl or Beer soap (I did Beer Soap in Mother Earth Goddess molds for my guy friends - just my warped sense of humor expressing itself!)
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the nitpicky details don’t seem to be as bothersome when you know “where they’re going” v.s. rules that are just *there* for no apparent reason.
Approach it with a sense of fun, take appropriate precautions, and I think *you’ll* end up getting hooked, too!
P.S. Even if you made some lye-heavy soap by mistake, it is supposed to work well as a laundry soap or a pre-spotter - so even that doesn’t have to be thrown away
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 31, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
New Rule: If someone commits a bunch of crimes and then cooperates with the police and cleans up their act and promises never to do it again then there are no punishments? hmmmm
“Typos are there for those that look for them. I try to do something for everybody.” :-)
Comment by JAG — May 31, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
To Donna — May 30, 2007 @ 2:10 pm: “why so long to make the recall of Aquabond & Aqua-tech 2?”
You cannot recall something until you know what it was, where it was processed, who it was sold to, etc.
Did it ever occur to you that the Aqua-xxxx could be handled in bulk semi loads, similar to corn and wheat? There is no simple/neat packaging with product names, dates of mfg, name of mfgr available to identify what in particular was delivered to Uniscope, as would be the case high value, low volume intermediate manufactured products, such as car parts. Identifying the melamine tainted product could be impossible, physically, just the way it would be impossible to look at a pile of corn and try to determine which farmer harvested it. These ingredients might look the same, whether it contained melamine or not. Traceability by physical characteristics would not be possible, the way it would be with components of, say, toys or computers.
So to trace the usage of the Aqua-xxxx product thru Uniscope’s processing would require reconstructing the flow of raw bulk ingredients (which could be in the form, variously, of liquids, powders, granules, etc) thru their plant, and then to match that up with shipment schedules and customer names.
It is only in America that melamine is banned from use in food for humans or animals, even though, by itself, it is inert in most digestive tracts (ruminants being the exception, who can actually digest it and safely make the animal grow). OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE NO SUCH PROHIBITION! It was reported that Tembec was only using melamine in product that was to be exported. Given these points and the fact that the melamine was very much diluted by the time that it was actually fed to an animal, we can speculate that maybe the fda didn’t work with as much hast as they would have if humans were the product consumers.
The truth is, there are a lot of unknowns involved in the Tembec situation, the least of which is the very poor quality of the news conference transcript. So, in terms of this blog, all of the jumping to conclusions, combined with an often poor understanding of ALL of the facts surrounding melamine, is just generating a lot of fear and concern that is unfounded and unfortunate. One person somewhere was worried about the melamine getting into dairy, in spite of the fact that cows actually digest and safely utilize melamine. There is even a U.S. patent on using melamine as an additive in cattle feed, issued in 1958.
Then there is the fact that Uniscope actually did take it as their responsibility to test their Tembec ingredient purchases for melamine, and when they found it, reported it to the FDA. I think that they should be given a lot of credit for doing that.
Clearly many people are either ignoring the dilution factor between the Tembec plant and animals that might eat an end product, to that animal retaining some melamine in its tissue, to coming full circle as human food, again being only a tiny fraction of one human’s diet (as if you would even purchase and eat any melamine tainted fish at all), plus the fact that melamine is INERT (DOES NOT REACT in the human digestion process), or cannot comprehend the resultant level of danger. You are far more likely to be run over by a drunk driver while crossing the street or going to the grocery store!
The unfounded doom and gloom on this blog is simply mind boggling.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 1, 2007 @ 12:21 am
To TC — May 31, 2007 @ 9:18 am: “…why not criminal charges to Tembec?”
Very simply, because it is legal to use melamine in exported products, that’s why! It is only banned in the U.S. for humans and animals. It was reported that they were using melamine only in export products.
You really should go to primary information sources, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_crisis, Universities, NYTimes, CNN, etc and read every thing you can find there, before writing anything on a blog. Just google “melamine Tembec” or “melamine pet food”. Then ignore every site that is not one one of the above web sites.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 1, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Comment by Rockman13 — June 1, 2007 @ 12:21 am
Comment by Rockman13 — June 1, 2007 @ 12:21 am
Thanks for the admonitions to concerned pet owners on this site, Rockman 13.
It is ironic that you make so many errors in taking people to task.
Of course you are wrong about Wikipedia, NYT, CNN, etc. being primary sources. Remember library science in high school? Look up “primary sources” on Wikipedia. However, the FDA’s own transcript of the May 30, 2007 press briefing is a primary source and they refute your incorrect “facts”:
Also, you stated: “It was reported that Tembec was only using melamine in product that was to be exported.”
Dr. Acheson said: “Uniscope makes a product called Xtrabond, X-T-R-A-B-O-N-D, using ingredients supplied by Tembec. The Xtrabond ingredient is intended for livestock feed. The Aqua-tec and Aquabond products are for exported use and domestic use. The Xtrabond product is domestic only.”
You said: “The truth is, there are a lot of unknowns involved in the Tembec situation, the least of which is the very poor quality of the news conference transcript.”
Agreed that there are “a lot of unknowns involved” but you’ll have to admit that the FDA made an undeniable primary source available, which is the press briefing transcript itself:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/05/0158.xml
There is much speculation by pet owners who are not scientists as people try to grapple with the illnesses and death of their pets, at least with the involvement of melamine and related compounds, and possibly yet to be known other contaminants. People can’t be expected to wait to find out what to safely feed their pets. The FDA and the companies involved are clearly in a protective mode and information does not flow in a way that is assuring or helpful. We do know that we’ve all been educated during this sad time by people with unquestionable bona fides as to what is really in many, if not most, commercial pet foods and there will be a sea change by those so educated in how they feed their pets going forward.
I must say that your silly statement that there was a melamine patent approved in 1958 hardly refutes the FDA’s own current statements that melamine is not allowed in the U.S. for human, animal or pet food. Go to the primary source…
Comment by Maureen — June 1, 2007 @ 4:34 am
Rockman13 - you are correct that the body of knowledge available up until just recently has considered melamine to be relatively inert and benign - even if ingested.
But no one can ignore the fact that *something* has changed, and it was pretty much “all of a sudden”. Over 4000 pet deaths in a couple of months’ time? (Yes, I understand those are “self-reported” numbers - but still . . . . . . . . . )
Best evidence right now is the more recent useage of cyanuric acid in the same “protein boosting” capacity as the melamine has been apparently been used for the last 13 years or so. We’ve seen that the melamine/cyanuric acid combination can be a deadly one in the urine of cats (Guelph University’s work). We’re still trying to find out if someone has been/is doing similar studies in the human system.
That being said - all of a sudden, the fact that melamine is considered “benign” isn’t nearly as comforting as the spin doctors would like us to believe. Because what we’re learning (whether it’s melamine and cyanuric acid in pet food, sodium benzoate and citric acid in soft drinks, or more as-yet-to-be-discovered potential lethal combinations) is that with the increasing number of additions and substitutions made in ours and our animals foods, we’re all just sort of “chemistry experiments” waiting to happen.
And yes - that scares the heck out of us.
When it comes to additives in our food these days - “benign” or not - Less is More.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 1, 2007 @ 6:39 am
Melamine was made from coal; we do not eat coal. We do not want to eat coal no matter how diluted it is; it is still coal. Do you understand? No coal in our food; it is not acceptable in any amount, nor under any circumstance. That includes our pets food, too.
We are not full of unfounded doom and gloom in this comments section; a few post may sound that way but you have to take it into context that we currently have poor government administration, poor food inspection, and unlabeled imports. What you missed also is that they/we are venting, have you never said anything absurd while upset or angry, Rockman13??
One last thing is that I do not believe that something that is digested that then enters our blood stream is inert. DDT was safe, Agent Orange was safe, and now melamine is safe; nope, sorry we are not buying it.
No tolerance for melamine in our foods in any concentration, at all, whatsoever, for any reason or purpose. We will not have it! We will have control over our food and what is in it. We will preserve our right to know what is in our food and what we put into our bodies.
If you think it’s alright then you and your children and your pets can all go eat melamine laced cake in China. We are not falling for it here.
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — June 1, 2007 @ 6:40 am
http://zanesvilletimesrecorder.....002/NEWS01
“Tembec contends it is not a manufacturer because it produces only “a binder that is used in the production of feed,” company spokesman John Valley said.”
Yup. The fact that animals put it into their mouths, chew it and swallow it is just “an unfortunate coincidence”!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 1, 2007 @ 7:00 am
I will agree that Uniscope deserves a lot of credit. I hope that many more companies will follow their lead!
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — June 1, 2007 @ 7:02 am
My cousin called me yesturday. She has been battling mystrious illness for the last few months. Recently she changed her diet, to her suprise she found that this switch may have had something to do with her illness. Aspartame is a “fake suger” this is what she used as instead of suger in her brief new diet. She has since stopped using it and the mysterious illness are already disapearing. She asked I do a little research.
I was horrified by what I found out. Big business got the FDA toapprove this stuff in the mid 80’s.
So Rockman13, there just happens to be a little doom and gloom out there in the food supply for both ourselfs and our pets.
As Dr. Adrian Gross of the FDA (not sure when this statement was made or if he is still with the FDA) told Congress, “And if the FDA voilates it’s own laws who is left to protect the people.”
This has once again as raised it’s ugly head to the forfront, who is protecting the people.
Comment by Maudigan — June 1, 2007 @ 7:33 am
“Goverment is a trust and the offices of the goverment are trustees, and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.” Henry Clay (1777-1852)
Comment by Maudigan — June 1, 2007 @ 7:40 am
Rockman13 - Another follow-up thought on how “safe” it is to be eating food containing melamine:
One thing that came out as we learned what the Chinese had been doing (and how long they had been doing it) was that the melamine they wee using was not some nice, clean polymer formulated in some chemistry plant somewhere and sold to them.
Nope - what they were using was industrial waste scrap left over from processes that had used the melamine (and melamine compounds) for all sorts of products. There were NO guarantees on how “clean” this was or what else may have been mixed in with it.
In one particularly memorable case, it was reported that a supplier in China actually razed some buildings to get at the melamine landfill scrap beneath them because there was so much more profit to be made in “salvaging” the scrap this way.
And who’s to say that Tembec - who isn’t even licensed to operate as a feed company - might now be doing some of the same - using the “feed” channels as a means to make some money off of its own industrial scrap?
Cynical? Sure. But we’ve found out that the dog food supply chain is a dumping ground for all SORTS of industrial scrap. Why not the same for the fish feed supply chain.
Here are some of the melamine products that Tembec’s chemical division sells (from their website at http://www.btlresins.com/):
”- compression molding resin for hard plastic school furniture and dishware
- upgrading bond quality of plywood and chip board glue used in exterior applications
- post forming resins for paper, cloth, cellulosic fiber
- fiberglass mat impregnation resin”
“_ truck flooring
- binder for diamond wheel abrasives
- cargo container flooring
- laminated wood structures ‘
How do we know that some of THOSE “leftovers” didn’t go into a vat marked “fish feed binder”?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 1, 2007 @ 7:44 am
They razed buildings to get scrap melamine? I wonder what else found its way into pet food that we don’t know about, asbestos maybe?
Comment by ango — June 1, 2007 @ 8:14 am
Good Morning All,
I just received this by email this morning, and knowing that most of you are concerned about the safety of our food supply and that we keep family farms and ranches in business so we have access to safe food, I thought you would want to see it and contact them.
Thanks!
Subject: Help Locating every consumer group, organic group, Buy American Group in USA.
Importance: High
Help Need Locating every consumer group, organic group, Buy American Group in USA etc.. Please cross post to any blogs, anyone you even remotely think are interested. We have just four weeks to get things done before the mark up farm bill leaves the ag committee.
Get involved now or we all lose.
Contacts from cattle people are great but we need to get everyone involved in this farm bill.
Every consumer needs to be educated about the farm bill and how it effects them. Each of us need to get involved especially consumers. That means they need a real crash course on how their food is grown, handled and the real price they pay. We on the Legislative Committee need to ask for each of them to help one on one. If the consumer, market gardener, self use raiser, organic raiser, independent grower does not join the competitive issue fight for real legislation reform and ban on Packer ownership of animals, NAIS fight, stopping unfair and dumping of chemically laden, unlabeled imports then everyone will lose. Please email me karber@pldi.net with any and all names, phone numbers, email addresses if available or how to locate the groups or people to enlist to help and to activate their contacts. YOU OR ANY SUGGESTIONS of contacts DO NOT HAVE TO BE R-Calf Members. We need to off set the numbers Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen’s Association etc. are claiming with real people who grow and consumers who eat real food not corporate factory foods starting here and now. . Corporate AG swear they represent the consumer and independent growers which is bull. Also you can contact Bill Bullard CEO, R-Calf at billbullard@r-calfusa.com who is acting as our lobbyist in Washington right now. Next week we need to have conference calls with reps being lined up and we want all growers represented not just cattle and all consumers of all areas. Thanks.
I know it will take effort but we need this effort now. As the R-Calf Legislative State Chairs we can get the attention and conference calls with every representative of every ag committee member and every state chair can freely say they represent all R-Calf members and any one or group can join in with their name or group of the state so all representatives will meet with us even out of their district. The one thing that is vital is all agriculture be represented and consumers NOW. The Ag House Committee will finish mark up of the farm bill by June 30 so time is precious.
Anyone as a person that wants to help please give me your state, contact info. including email, if you can do a no cost conference call, fax, get the word out or whatever you are willing to do such as phone, fax, attend conference calls, attend meetings with reps. forward action notices, visit health food markets, farmers markets, contact personal email list etc. We need every contact you can muster because every dirty tactic is being used but we have right and the will to prevail on ours. We will be get material on the bills we have introduced and the main items plus coordinate with those who respond. Please help.
.
Sue Karber
If you put someone down then put them down on your prayer list.
No to NAIS
The scariest thing isn’t the daily news; it’s our food’s lack of Country of Origin Labels (COOL) and
the horrid NAIS to make it worse with eliminating real food safety and family farms for only factory farms.
1% of imports inspected and how many have melamine in the meats/foods and now we know USDA and FDA has allowed contaminates in USA products produced here in USA…..what other unknowns are we feeding our children?
Comment by Elaine — June 1, 2007 @ 8:14 am
This should be posted at Kat’s website, and I have know no idea how to go about that, I am not very computer literate, and I just copy and paste! So could someone post this on there? I put it up on Itchmo blog.
Comment by Elaine — June 1, 2007 @ 8:18 am
I just want to make sure I’m doing what I need to, I’m a little slow this morning: Should I forward this message on to the various co-ops, farms, CSA, etc… in my state?
Comment by ango — June 1, 2007 @ 8:27 am
ango,
I think that is a good idea.
One organization that is opposing COOL, which may surprise some of you, is the National Farm Bureau, but if you realize that Farm Bureau just uses their organization in order to sell Country Companies insurance ( in other words they are a BIG insurance company) you will understand! You have to be a Farm Bureau member to buy Country Companies insurance.
Also the NCBA, which claims to represent ranches, is actually way more interested in representing the Big 4 Packers.
Comment by Elaine — June 1, 2007 @ 8:39 am
Will do then. I don’t think LocalHarvest.org has a global email list of their members, but will email them too, just in case. It sure would save some time.
Comment by ango — June 1, 2007 @ 8:48 am
Rockman13,
In reading your messages, I have two questions. First, I can’t help but wonder whose interests you are representing? Two, how many pets do you have and have they experienced any unexplained health issues in the past 6 months?
Hopefully you have seen the article posted on another thread that appeared in today’s The Columbus Dispatch stating Tembec, Inc. was in violation of Ohio law per the Ohio Ag Department. Ohio law states any feed ingredient must meet US safety standards whether for domestic or export use.
Now to address your 12:21am message. I am familiar with purchasing and distribution. Any responsible company that purchases ingredients from another source should (1) have accurate records of purchase, receipt of delivery and (2) most important, quality control practices which test the ingredients for safety. Even if the ingredients are not tested upon receipt, the final product should be tested for quality and safety; mandatory when you are dealing with feed.
You mentioned that Uniscope actually tested the Tembec ingredient for melamine. That is contradictory to your previous statement that there is “no simple/neat packaging with product names, dates of mfg., name of mfg. available to identify what was delivered to Uniscope”.
I refuse to give “special credit” to any company for doing something like quality control practices which should be done as part of their daily business routine.
Furthermore, even with bulk semi loads, there has to be some type of traceability to the manufacturer with details. If you are purchasing from farmers, that’s one thing. If you are purchasing from a manufacturer of food ingredients you can trace the shipment back to that company. It’s on the bill of lading.
I would encourage you to do some additional research and see that other countries have, in fact, blocked imports from what they deem as questionable sources and others have placed special watch alerts on imports.
Also, you state that melamine “by itself, is inert in most digestive tracts”. The problem with that statement is melamine is not going to remain “by itself.” Can you disprove what scientists have researched and the evidence seen throughout the pet food recall? Do you have any research data that explains what happens when melamine does bond with another chemical?
Each of us is responsible and accountable for making decisions for our own health and that of our family and pets. I make a conscious choice to select products that I believe are as safe and healthy as possible. And, that does NOT include products that have been tainted with unsafe chemicals. I do not care to “place a bet” on dilution factors – it’s my health, not a horse race, there is a lot at stake.
You stated that “melamine is inert and does not react in the human digestion process”. Please share the research you are quoting this information from. I do not believe there has been enough testing or research done to determine what the actual effect on humans really is, short-term or long-term.
I am sorry that you are so closed minded that you confuse concern with food safety for humans and pets with “doom and gloom”. Many people share information on this blog which is essential to understanding the current state of safety of US food sources. We choose to make informed, intelligent decisions regarding our food and we choose to get involved to push for needed legislative reforms.
In closing, I guess I simply question a company’s ethics and corporate responsibility when they include ingredients that are known to be unsafe and unauthorized for use in food products.
Comment by Donna — June 1, 2007 @ 9:33 am
********To TC — May 31, 2007 @ 9:18 am: “…why not criminal charges to Tembec?”
Very simply, because it is legal to use melamine in exported products, that’s why! It is only banned in the U.S. for humans and animals. It was reported that they were using melamine only in export products.
You really should go to primary information sources, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_crisis, Universities…”
Comment by Rockman*********
As an attorney, I am very familiar with how to research primary and secondary source material.
Your idea of what is a “primary” source did give me a chuckle. “Wikipedia” is not primary source material by any stretch of the imagination - in fact, you could not have named anything that would be less “primary” than that. Except CNN, & NYTimes. They are indeed useful and may have references that are valuable. But written with a slant, and definitely not original source material - just one author’s compilation of only the “facts” that she/he sees fit to tie together and print. Reading those sources as your “primary” authority is nothing more than letting another human do your thinking and verifying for you.
You may wish to google news sources for Ohio, and reference today’s actions of the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture, who state that what Tembec has done is contrary to existing Ohio law. The argument you gave, ie Tembec being in the clear because there is no law against exporting melamine, is nothing more than Tembec’s own misguided claim. Looks like they put it out there because some people do believe the first thing they read in the news, and don’t follow up further.
I would look up the site for you and provide a link of what I found this morning (as I still need to verify for myself that the Ohio Ag guy is on solid ground, but I suspect he may be), except I think you need to work on your research skills. Good luck!
Comment by TC — June 1, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Oops missed the mention of the Ohio newspaper in Donna’s post! Guess the Rock won’t be polishing those research skills as much as I had hoped, ha ha….
Whatever Rockman’s position in the industry is or is not, there is clearly a level of awakening to the gravity of this situation that hasn’t occurred to the Rock yet. Until the recall, I did not fully comprehend the bits and pieces I had read previously. Some had mildly alarmed me, but I was still fairly naive and uninformed about our food safety system and our food trade policies. And quite a few other things.
This pet food recall gave me the push to finally confront those subjects, and more, and realize what pickle we are in at the moment. Unless you come to understand the entire picture, you can’t begin to plan a solution, either for your own family’s safe consumption of food, or for your government to pursue in the future. You are just living blind to the danger. I am grateful that I am no longer thinking like that.
Comment by TC — June 1, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Nadine - missed your reply on this until now. I’d also missed your original posts on the encapsulation and spraying on feed, or just don’t remember it. I have a lot of your early posts in a Word doc (along with Bernie’s and Lynn’s) - I remember your posts are what triggered Bernie’s thoughts on the subject. Please do post the rest of what you have!
“…It was a matter of time before we learned it as a fact that the U.S. produced feed with melamine. I found it all on line in the “early days” of the pet food debacle,including encapsulation and the spraying of the feed to hold it together. It goes through a conveyor belt operation then sprayed. It is all in the blog. I still have many notes in my documents which pertain to all of this, some of which I had not posted because it was not yet relevant. Some of the info I gleaned is very interesting. I will post tomorrow when I have more time. I’ll post the old stuff on ruminants and Bernie’s and my comments.
Comment by Nadine Long — May 30, 2007 @ 5:54 pm”
Comment by Kim — June 1, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Well put TC, Donna & Nadine! Rock sounds like an “insider” to me — in a defensive mode. And, he’s educating us…
Comment by Kat — June 1, 2007 @ 11:00 am
RE: Comment by Elaine — June 1, 2007 @ 8:18 am
It’s posted Elaine — under Government Information, Child Board - COOL. Thanks!
http://www.truthinfoodlabeling.com/index.php
Comment by Kat — June 1, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
The OTHER Pat - now I feel more confident after reading that re the soap, thx:)
Good point re rules: I disliked math, because all I saw were abstract “rules” that I had no use for, pointless exercises. Some satisfaction on mastering things, but not a whole lot. Then I took a course from a woman who taught statistics by showing us “results”, ie she had us using the principles for real world outcomes. Math then rocked:) Granted, law can be abstract but I loved that kind of abstraction, well, because I made things happen in the real world with it. Results:)
So I am just a soap and dog food making bundle of contradictions, huh?:)
Comment by TC — June 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
I want to second what Elaine says re the NAIS. I have never had anything strike me as that repugnant in a long time. It is completely unworkable. It makes no sense once it is closely examined - I remember thinking, okay, a way to track food safety and disease issues, sure, we could use that. Then I read the USDA documents, and met with some of them in my state, and went to meetings, and read many an article in our state ag newspaper, and was aghast at the stupidity of the program. I felt this way well before the whole pet food crisis, which has only strengthened my resolve to see that it goes down the drain.
I hope it is thwarted and never put into place. If for no other reason than this food supply safety nightmare has shown that the USDA cannot even successfully police their present areas of authority adequately. I am convinced that they could in NO way police or be effective with the NAIS.
Or let’s make a deal - how about the FDA and USDA fix their CURRENT problems with policing, enforcement, making regulations more realistic, etc. And please make my food supply safe with a larger margin than they are right now. If they can do that, then let’s talk NAIS, with major revisions. They are not successful with what is currently on their plates, and need to fix what ails them first.
Comment by TC — June 1, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
And for the record, I currently feel the NAIS is a tool for driving all independent small and mid-sized farm and ranch operations into oblivion. And I believe it is because the USDA can dictate policy re trade issues much easier with big agri business, than they can tell tons of independents what to do. And so they are deliberately trying to clear our market place of “obstacles” to such goals. Big agri biz does as it is told re trade/import policies; non big-ag tries to do silly things like, oh, say, test their cows for BSE so they can certify them free of it. And many more examples of being a thorn in the USDA/administration’s “global trade policy” sides.
If NAIS becomes a mandatory reality in all states, we will ONLY be dealing with the large Tysons, etc of the world. Period. If the USDA wants you to eat imported things, and you want to do otherwise, but they have ruled/regulated/fined and paperworked the “others” to death, you WILL be eating imported food, because they killed off your other options.
Given what we’ve learned during this pet food scandal, it ought to scare the socks off of you.
Comment by TC — June 1, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
ango - here’s one of the articles from the end of April that talks about companies in China using industrial melamine scrap to fraudulently “enhance” the apparent protein content of feed:
http://www.reuters.com/article.....1020070430
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 1, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
To The OTHER Pat — June 1, 2007 @ 6:39 am: “Rockman13 – you are correct that the body of knowledge available up until just recently has considered melamine to be relatively inert and benign – even if ingested. But no one can ignore the fact that something has changed, and it was pretty much “all of a sudden”. Over 4000 pet deaths in a couple of months’ time? (Yes, I understand those are “self-reported” numbers – but still . . . . . . . . . )”
The chemical and metabolic qualities of melamine have not changed, suddenly or otherwise. The same is true of cyanuric acid. Melamine by itself in food is still inert in cats, dogs and humans.
“Best evidence right now is the more recent usage of cyanuric acid in the same “protein boosting” capacity as the melamine has been apparently been used for the last 13 years or so. We’ve seen that the melamine/cyanuric acid combination can be a deadly one in the urine of cats (Guelph University’s work).”
Yes, without a doubt, the combination of melamine and cyanuric acid in the same batch of pet food, in sufficiently high concentrations, is what has happened “suddenly”! No urinary tract melamine-cyanuric acid crystals could possibly form without sufficient levels of BOTH compounds being ingested in close time proximity by the pet.
If the Chinese had, hypothetically, since we don’t really have any information of when, what, or what combinations of illegal adulterations they were making, possibly just begun using cyanuric acid or melamine, or both in the same batch of gluten. Or Menu Foods might have mixed a some melamine adulterated gluten with a some cyanuric acid adulterated gluten into the same batch of pet food, for the first time just before the pet deaths.
“We’re still trying to find out if someone has been/is doing similar studies in the human system.”
To make this statement strikes me as TOTALLY unnecessary fear mongering. It unnecessarily feeds the hysteria surrounding this subject.
Why would we need this study? Have some humans been squirreling away recalled, contaminated pet food and eating it? Have human food makers been found to illegally (for no apparent benefit to anyone) add melamine/cyanuric acid to their recipes? Do you really expect U.S. human food makers to knowingly add worthless (to humans) harmful or inert illegal additives to their recipes? Do you have any idea of just how much legal trouble they would be in? Or how quickly they could go bankrupt?
“That being said – all of a sudden, the fact that melamine is considered “benign” isn’t nearly as comforting as the spin doctors would like us to believe.”
See above.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
To make this statement strikes me as TOTALLY unnecessary fear mongering. It unnecessarily feeds the hysteria surrounding this subject.
I don’t see it as fear mongering, or hysteria. It simply seems that there are no proper scientific data in reference to this, and therefore all and every statement needs to be questioned. Even the ‘dilution’ illusion.
Why would we need this study? Have some humans been squirreling away recalled, contaminated pet food and eating it?
As much as this mental image amuses me, I think we need this study because we don’t know where these components are already in the human food. How much. In what percentage.
Have human food makers been found to illegally (for no apparent benefit to anyone) add melamine/cyanuric acid to their recipes?
No apparent benefit? We are talking about industries where the eternal mantra is ‘cheap buying, cheap producing’. Do I trust those big industires? Absolutely not! Please read up on Raw Milk, Somatic Cell Count, Bovine Growth Hormone, Anitbiotica, filler/fertilizer, Gen-manipulated grains and a few other nice little ticking time bombs who will blow up fat into our faces…
Do you really expect U.S. human food makers to knowingly add worthless (to humans) harmful or inert illegal additives to their recipes?
Yes, without a doubt, in a split second.
Do you have any idea of just how much legal trouble they would be in? Or how quickly they could go bankrupt?
For that you need to *prove* that your sickness is caused by this and that (20 years later…)- against a very mighty industry that has no hesitation to praise food products as ‘healthy’ which are known to be extremely allergy-causing or illness-creating. No tests for BSE, no tests for Creutzfeldt-Jacob, but a rise in Alzheimers… yeah, right.
We are talking about the Golden Calf, errrr, the Mighty Dollar; we are talking about Lobbyists and Politics; and in this case I have to admit that I assume the worst and will not be shocked to learn that even a bleak outlook can be darkened.
Comment by MaKo — June 4, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
To Maureen — June 1, 2007 @ 4:34 am:
I suspected that I would ge some flack over the usage of the term primary source, but since that was quite secondary to other issues on the blog, I left it along. The reality is that there are very few documents/sources that are truly primary in the food/melamine issue. While wikipedia isn’t a primary source, it is an excellent one - having been found to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica by an independent study (circa 2006). It is written and edited by experts in the various fields. Wikipedia does cover this topic in a much more comprehensive and accurate manner than just about any other source. That is the main reason that I recommended it to the blog readers.
And in the case in question, wikepedia reporting does contain extensive references to primary research, etc documents, standard reference manuals and press releases as well as newspaper reports. All of which are referenced, and if you fear bias in wikipedia, you can always go and read their reference sources your self.
I don’t have to defend the discrepancies between Tembec’s claim of “export only” and Uniscope’s purchase and use. Tembec could be stating what they believe to be true, they could be lying. The fact is, their product didn’t go into either pet or human food. That is the important point to consider.
So, given the inertness of melamine to humans, and the dilution of it in the animal feed, AND the additional dilution when present in animal tissue, AND the dilution factor of contaminated meat among all meats in the super market, Tembec is really a non-issue.
FDA press conference as a primary source? That is questionable, since, with out a doubt Dr. David Acheson and Dr. Kenneth Petersen neither performed any of the research, investigation, nor risk calculations, nor did they present any such primary documents. They either read summaries of such research or had verbal conferences the the primary or secondary sources. Higher level executives generally do not deal with people ranking below their own subordinates (I spent over 3 decades in a fortune 500 company).
“…what is really in many, if not most, commercial pet foods…”
Most pet food is contaminated? Do you have numbers to back that up? For this to be true, Menu Foods would have to produce most of the pet food in the U.S.. Is that really possible? I doubt it.
I pointed out the 1958 ruminant food patent simply to point out the applicability, in a primary source sort of way, that melamine is a valid ruminant protein source. YOU misconstrued that point as somehow intending to refute current food practices or regulations. Not at all. Rather to point out that it is harmless to bovine ruminants. The practice was stopped because it was the least economically source of nitrogen. I can find no statement of reason on either the FDA or USDA web sites for prohibiting melamine from ruminant diets, so would conclude that since it was not profitable and there is no purpose to including in the food stream for other animals or humans, that the FDA simply took the “safe route” and made a simple rule banning it completely from all food stuffs.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
When is a conclusion an assumption?
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
So, given the inertness of melamine to humans, and the dilution of it in the animal feed, AND the additional dilution when present in animal tissue, AND the dilution factor of contaminated meat among all meats in the super market, Tembec is really a non-issue.
Rockman13,
I would be grateful if you could link some primary sources for your statement of ‘inertness of melamine in humans’ (if possible, long-term studies), ‘dilution of melamine and resulting harmlessness’, or ‘dilution factor of contaminated meat among all meats in the super market’.
I have been unsuccessful in finding independent long-term studies regarding melamine, or anything that supports the dilution theory and invalidates the accumulation theory.
I do have my doubts concerning the dilution theory, and the death pets showed one thing: melamine + cyanuric acid (+ perhaps something else) seems to be a deadly mixture.
Since we have no way of knowing what kinds of food have been ‘spiked’, ‘laced’ or ‘enhanced’ with what kind of chemicals we have to assume that any additional substances might trigger what kinds of reactions in humans or animals.
Speaking about Wikipedia:
On May 8, 2007, The International Herald Tribune reported that three Chinese chemical makers have said that animal feed producers often purchase, or seek to purchase, the chemical, cyanuric acid, from their factories to blend into animal feed to give the false appearance of a higher level of protein, suggesting another potentially dangerous way that melamine and cyanuric acid might combine in protein products.[53]
or
However, until the 2007 pet food crisis melamine in foodstuff has not routinely been monitored, except in the context of plastic safety or insecticide residue. This could be due to the previously assumed low toxicity of melamine, and the relatively expensive methods of detection.
quoted from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine
Comment by MaKo — June 4, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
** correction **
I can find no statement of reason on either the FDA or USDA web sites for prohibiting melamine from ruminant diets, so ONE COULD conclude…
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Or when is an assumption a conclusion? Anyway you like it, the two are not equal in soundness.
So…————————
To Maureen — June 1, 2007 @ 4:34 am:
I suspected that I would ge some flack over the usage of the term primary source, but since that was quite secondary to other issues on the blog, I left it along. The reality is that there are very few documents/sources that are truly primary in the food/melamine issue.
excerpted from Rockman
——————————
I think you just said it, Rockman, there are not a lot of primary sources regarding melamine as a food and that is precisely the problem. I have no confidence in the inertness of Melamine in the human or chicken digestive track, the possibility of it being biochemically dumped into the egg, the quantification in the muscle tissue of hogs and chickens that were eating feed on the high end of the spectrum from Jan to March when no one was testing them—-“no indications it was necessary.” I do not know what else was in the melamine scrap—does the FDA? They released it. Perhaps something even they do not assume is inert? I don’t know. I do know that I am not sure what I have not been eating and feeding my kids for years in the RAmen noodles and other rice flour products we used to love. I don’t know that the bread we used to eat did not have contaminated “gluten.” Being a vegetarian, I have eaten a lot of gluten as have my kids. The FDA did not see fit to sample it when this crisis arose. At least, they say they didn’t—despite the fact that some might consider this a logical progression of thought and investigation.
Why was melamine listed as so dangerous in the 2007 surveillance assessment? Did I miss this refutation? Is it only active when inhaled? I find that hard to believe. Please provide any facts you have. My husband is a pharmacist and I am an environmental science major. We will look it over. We were not impressed with the many assumptions and missing pieces in the FDA’s melamine safety/risk assessment.
If given the right, I would choose not to eat melamine and it’s analogues and other piggy-backing contaminants or feed them to my children. For now, I have modified our diets to reduce the risk of eating contaminated food. I want the info to make a well-informed choice. I do not want to add that contaminant to my diet now or ever. Diluted or direct. I don’t want it. How can it be acceptable in feed—which I had seen the earlier mentioned info before—-and unapproved for feed and food at the same time?
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
I would just add that 2 weeks or so is a very short time for a “study” or risk/safety assessment to be conducted. If a pharmaceutical company tried it, the FDA would think they were kidding. That’s about how long it took USDA to give the meat their stamp of dilution and now all the rest is following suit, like not recalling the fish, not recalling the feed. The one thing that is truly diluted is the specifics.
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
To Donna — June 1, 2007 @ 9:33 am:
We have been feeding our 2 retired racing greyhounds IAMS dry LAMB & RICE, which is gluten free, by the way, for 7 years, and they are quite healthy, thank you. I cannot afford to feed my 145 lbs of dogs wet/canned dog food.
The Columbus Dispatch hadn’t even been published when I wrote my comment. Do you really expect people to be familiar with the laws of ALL states? Personally, I do not have time to read all news accounts pertaining to melamine, much less familiarize myself with the laws of all states.
I suspect that there is far less testing of either the raw ingredients and the finished product than anybody on the blog would ever guess. In practical terms, the consumer would never put up the the immense cost burden that would be incurred if testing were the way some people here have idealized it to be. Very, very few people would be willing to pay the financial penalty.
My “no simple/neat packaging with product names, dates of mfg., name of mfg. available to identify what was delivered to Uniscope” was merely to point out that it could TAKE TIME to reconstruct the feed manufacturing process where the ingredients can be handled in bulk with some of the raw ingredients possibly being commingled, bad with good, and then converted into an end product where the naked eye cannot even recognize the original ingredients. This could make it a much more time consuming task to trace the tainted product to the end consumer other manufacturing using few discrete, solid physical items. Here we are talking about granules and liquids.
I wouldn’t have a problem with banning all human/animal food imports from China. After all, they treat their population the same, whether it is human rights, political rights or consumer rights. After 60+ years of one party, totalitarian rule, the government and businesses (the big businesses are all government controlled anyway) have evolved into what is essentially a criminal organizations. Just last week I heard from 2 separate individuals that the Chinese way of doing business with precise instruction/specifications, is to try to re-engineer the product to produce it even more cheaply, often to the point of failure in the end product. This probably explains the cheap digital Chinese camera that my wife purchased that produced pictures so badly pixilated that one could just make out the subject and setting.
“Can you disprove what scientists have researched and the evidence seen throughout the pet food recall?”
There has been no evidence that melamine alone has harmed a single animal in the pet food fiasco. What you are referring to is proof of just the point that I made, “that the pets were killed by melamine AND CYANURIC ACID.” Cyanuric acid is another nitrogen cheat that the Chinese found to cheat their customers into over paying for their gluten.
“melamine is inert and does not react in the human digestion process”
True, there are no known dietary tests of melamine in humans. This is TRUE OF ALL SUBSTANCES THAT ARE NOT NEEDED OR BENEFICIAL TO HUMANS. Melamine has been tested on the mammals: rats, rabbits and dogs. It wasn’t found to be harmful to them. This is the usual way that toxicity is assessed for humans, by testing it on mammals. The lethality of melamine is considered to be the same as table salt. See the Acute toxicity section of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....e_toxicity
“I simply question a company’s ethics and corporate responsibility when they include ingredients that are known to be unsafe and unauthorized for use in food products”
Your ire here is directed at the wrong party. Menu Foods, IAMS, etc., TTBOMK, didn’t know they were buying bad gluten. Your ire should be directed at the Chinese who make American business men look like Boy Scouts.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
To The OTHER Pat — June 1, 2007 @ 7:44 am:
“…melamine they wee using was not some nice, clean polymer…”
This is quite true. Specifically, we just don’t know if there were harmful compounds included or not. I could ask my chemical engineer uncle or chemical engineer cousin to speculate or find out what might have been included.
“[Tembec…] – might now be doing some of the same – using the “feed” channels as a means to make some money off of its own industrial scrap?”
Hardly. Melamine resin, a plastic, is not at all the same thing as melamine. We sometimes do refer to plastic dish ware as melamine, but that is only half of the real name for it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
To DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 5:49 pm: “…2 weeks or so is a very short time…That’s about how long it took USDA to give the meat their stamp of dilution…”
Once you know the concentrations of melamine contamination at each point in the process, it is only a few seconds/minutes to calculate the probably impact on the consumer’s diet. Actually, you only have to know the concentrations of melamine in the final meat products bound for the super market to calculate the amount of melamine bound for the consumer.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
“I spent over 3 decades in a fortune 500 company.”
Well, I’m completing my third decade in a Fortune 100 company.
Sorry - not impressed.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 4, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
To DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 5:18 pm: “I do not know what else was in the melamine scrap—does the FDA?”
I haven’t heard of the FDA releasing any melamine scrap. Melamine scrap existed only in China. The FDA released pork and chicken for human consumption, animals that had been fed small amounts of melamine contained in tainted pet food scraps.
To illustrate the dilution factor involved in consuming the above mention meat, let’s calculate just how much of this meat one would have to eat. Bear in mind that of the 100,000,000 pigs slaughtered every year, only 56,000 are even thought to have consumed the tainted scrap pet food.
Assuming that melamine is as poisonous to humans as rats, then based on the rat mortality studies, it is calculated that 50% of the 154 lb humans that eat 0.5 lb pure melamine at one time would die from it. To consume that 0.5 lb of melamine by eating tainted pork, and given that the pork contained variously between zero and 50 ppm, one would have to eat more than 10,000 lbs of this tainted pork. And you would have to eat it all at one time.
Given that only 1 pig in 1,786 has ANY known melamine contamination at all, it would be doubly difficult to find the right (wrong) pork and eat 10,000 lbs of it all at one time! ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....e_toxicity
Did you know that the trace metals are quite toxic to humans, yet small amounts of them, such as: zinc, selenium, magnesium, copper, manganese, chromium and molybdenum are required to be healthy!
So, it is quite possible that tiny amounts of melamine are completely harmless to humans even if large amounts MIGHT be harmful.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Once you know the concentrations of melamine contamination at each point in the process, it is only a few seconds/minutes to calculate the probably impact on the consumer’s diet.
Actually, you only have to know the concentrations of melamine in the final meat products bound for the super market to calculate the amount of melamine bound for the consumer.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
===============
But,how does this speak to the safety of the product? We know that pets died and were sickened. Melamine was measured in the urine and muscle tissue of hogs. The cyanuric acid could not even be measured in the animal tissue and was not measured in the urine. What of the other two analoges and whatever else may have been there? Where is evidence of long or short-term safety? How long have we been exposed? Prove the effect is not accumulative? Prove I have not been eating it for years. Many things were assumed safe in large and small concentrations until proven otherwise. I’m sure you in your life can think of many examples. I know I can. My husband sees it as a pharmacist all the time with drug safety.
===================
Melamine has been tested on the mammals: rats, rabbits and dogs. It wasn’t found to be harmful to them. This is the usual way that toxicity is assessed for humans, by testing it on mammals… Rockman
The fact that melamine was tested on dogs and didn’t prove lethal in larger doses makes it more likely that the levels of melamine alone should not have been the only consideration for releasing the contaminated chicken, pork, fish and feed. Yet this is the compelling evidence we are given to “prove” the meat is safe for consumption. Most likely there is another contaminant. But where is the evidence?Where are the names and numbers? It’s seems to me that the USDA and FDA are saying there is no indication it is unsafe, therefore it is safe. I saw no measurement of even melamine in the eggs. This is why I say information vital to the safety of the meat and eggs is missing. The FDA gives you something (and I don’t even want to consume small amts of melamine) and says that is the whole story. Food safe, case shut. But is it really? This doesn’t make sense in light of all of the dead or sickend pets. We should have evidence of the meat’s safety and I do not believe it has been proven. A long term study would have been more substantial than a 2week review. I’m not ready to sign on to that or eat it. I’m fairly young and my kids are younger. I have also worked for a fortune 500 company—but this does not substantiate my point of view, or yours. I think we all should have had the information available to us so we could choose for ourselves. I don’t want someone telling me to just trust them. I do not believe the FDA and USDA are looking out for the American consumers best interest with this and other issues regarding food safety.
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
Did you know that the trace metals are quite toxic to humans, yet small amounts of them, such as: zinc, selenium, magnesium, copper, manganese, chromium and molybdenum are required to be healthy!
So, it is quite possible that tiny amounts of melamine are completely harmless to humans even if large amounts MIGHT be harmful.
Rockman
==========
So, following your logic, melamine might be required to be healthy.
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
To DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 5:18 pm: “I do not know what else was in the melamine scrap—does the FDA?”
I haven’t heard of the FDA releasing any melamine scrap. Melamine scrap existed only in China. The FDA released pork and chicken for human consumption, animals that had been fed small amounts of melamine contained in tainted pet food scraps
===================
The pet food scraps were made with scrap melamine from China.
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
To illustrate the dilution factor involved in consuming the above mention meat, let’s calculate just how much of this meat one would have to eat. Bear in mind that of the 100,000,000 pigs slaughtered every year, only 56,000 are even thought to have consumed the tainted scrap pet food.
================
Rockman, using the FDA’s risk assessment, my 30 pound dog could have eaten 18 lbs of contaminated food a day and been fine. But he was sickened. So, i think there is a flaw in that thinking.
======================
Here is the math we did for our dog:
Only one oral long-term dog study has been reported. Apart from crystalluria (excretion of crystals in the urine) in that study, no toxic effects were observed in dogs
fed 1200 mg/kg/day for one year.1, 3 No oral studies with cat or human subjects have been reported.
Concentrations of Melamine and Related Compounds in Feed
Pet Food Scrap Samples
Approximately 57 samples of pet food scraps destined for swine or poultry feed were collected from 14 locations thought to have received contaminated product. The results of the analyses are presented in Table A-1. Of those samples analyzed to date, 30 tested negative for melamine. The range for other pet food samples, when quantitative amounts were reported, was 9.4 to 1,952 ppm melamine. Results for cyanuric acid were reported for 20 samples. Of those, 13 were negative and the highest value quantitated was 2,180 ppm. Information was available on ammelide and ammeline in 20 samples; 18 samples were negative and two were positive for both compounds. For ammelide, the two concentrations that were positive were 6.0 and 10.8 ppm, and for ammeline were 3.0 and 43.3 ppm.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My Calculations
As stated above no toxic effects in doggie at 1200mg/kg/day
Example 30 lb dog
30lb/2.2 =13.6 kg
Per FDA assessment safety data 13.6 multiplied by 1200mg/per day =16.32 grams per day 30 lb doggie would still be ok.
Highest levels found per pet food as reported by FDA/USDA approx 2000 parts per million lets round for math sake.
2000 divided by 2000 = 1
1 million divided by 2000 =500
2000 parts per million is the same as 1 part per 500
According to USDA/FDA study above, a 30 lb doggie (like ours) could eat 16.32 grams of melamine daily and still be ok. Therefore doggie would have to eat (16.32 times 500=) 8160 grams of the most contaminated dog/pet food scraps daily in order to get this level of toxin (which is stated as still safe in dog toxicology study above). So, a 30 lb doggie could eat 18 lbs (8160g divided by 454g/lb) of the most adulterated dog food daily, and our doggie’s renal function should still be ok. Per FDA study urine crystals were noted. Urine crystals can cause kidney damage; however, per listed study, not enough for a health issue— even if doggie eats 18 lbs of dog food daily for a whole year.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++How is my method?
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Here’s a link that was posted 3-4 weeks ago regarding melamine testing in numerous studies on a wide range of subjects, including a waterway study. Most are short tests. Report is 89 pgs in length. This is a compilation of tests ranging back at least 30 years.
I sent the link off to Nutreco, Sundloff & Acheson, on 5-16-07. The findings in the tests from the link above showed neural tube damage in fish. Hence, the reason for sending at the time.
Plus, there is discussion at the end about human health problems who worked in the melamine industry.
Also, the FDA tested 6 chickens, out of 2 million, before they announced they were “safe to eat” — that’s according to their own interim study.
18 hogs had to be put down, prior to slaughter, because of nephritis. That is also in their interim report.
http://www.inchem.org/document.....108781.pdf
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/melamra.html
Comment by Kat — June 4, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Rockman 13,
You still have not answered the first question asked “I can’t help but wonder whose interest you are representing.”
Now to other issues,
>
I assume you are quoting information printed on the Iams package ingredient statement. I can only state that I am most happy you have such confidence in your pet food company that you do not believe any contaminants could possibly find their way into the manufacturing process.
I would, however, in review of the Lamb & Rice ingredient statement ask the company why a Lamb & Rice formula, which is often given to pets who have allergies or food intolerances, contains chicken by-product (you need to get your own definition of that) and fish meal. And while wheat gluten may not be in the formula it does not mean that a contract producer might not include it on their own.
>
I would, as would many of the other people on this blog.
>
If substances are not needed, they should NOT be included. Food for humans or pets should not be a dumping ground for waste product as a simple means to make money off the waste instead of disposing of it in a safe, environmental manner.
>
If your dogs were sick or had died due to this food contamination, you would feel quite differently! However, I do feel the actions, research and involvement of the bloggers constitutes hysteria.
>
The ingredients don’t even have to be illegal to be worthless or harmful. Example – high fructose corn syrup and obesity.
It is all about revenue and bottomline for corporations (Fortune 500 and all others). If they can find a cheaper ingredient, they will use it regardless of quality and healthfulness — or — harmfulness and worthlessness. It’s all about generating the highest profit from the lowest cost production.
>
Selections from The Columbus Dispatch: “Tembec Inc., which makes melamine, a binding agent used in some livestock and fish feed, did not register as a feed manufacturer in Ohio and used an unapproved ingredient in its products, according to the Ohio Department of Agriculture.
Tembec primarily makes paper and wood products, as well as AquaBond and Aqua-Tech II, two feed ingredients that are sold to Uniscope, of Johnstown, Colo., north of Denver. The company makes feed pellets for cattle, fish and shrimp. “
I think cattle, fish and shrimp are human and pet foods.
>
What level was your employment? I worked at executive level at a Fortune 500 corporation and the executives communicate and deal with all levels within the organization. Who do you think briefs them with critical information?
So, bottomline, it’s all about greed and cheap ingredients, irregardless of what their toxicity level.
Oh yes, one last item . . .
>
I have a Nikon and it is of superior quality and makes excellent photographs. I guess that gets us back to the difference in buying cheap and buying something of quality. It’s not a “financial penalty” as you mentioned previously. The truest penalty suffered by consumers is they seek out and settle for lowest cost goods. And as they say “you get what you pay for” whether cameras or food.
Comment by Donna — June 4, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
My apologies, the last post deleted formatting on Rockman’s quotes…
Rockman 13,
You still have not answered the first question asked “I can’t help but wonder whose interest you are representing.”
Now to other issues,
“feeding our 2 retired racing greyhounds IAMS dry LAMB & RICE, which is gluten free “
I assume you are quoting information printed on the Iams package ingredient statement. I can only state that I am most happy you have such confidence in your pet food company that you do not believe any contaminants could possibly find their way into the manufacturing process.
I would, however, in review of the Lamb & Rice ingredient statement ask the company why a Lamb & Rice formula, which is often given to pets who have allergies or food intolerances, contains chicken by-product (you need to get your own definition of that) and fish meal. And while wheat gluten may not be in the formula it does not mean that a contract producer might not include it on their own.
“In practical terms, the consumer would never put up the the immense cost burden that would be incurred if testing were the way some people here have idealized it to be. Very, very few people would be willing to pay the financial penalty.”
I would, as would many of the other people on this blog.
““melamine is inert and does not react in the human digestion process” True, there are no known dietary tests of melamine in humans. This is TRUE OF ALL SUBSTANCES THAT ARE NOT NEEDED OR BENEFICIAL TO HUMANS”
If substances are not needed, they should NOT be included. Food for humans or pets should not be a dumping ground for waste product as a simple means to make money off the waste instead of disposing of it in a safe, environmental manner.
“feeds the hysteria”
If your dogs were sick or had died due to this food contamination, you would feel quite differently! However, I do feel the actions, research and involvement of the bloggers constitutes hysteria.
“Do you really expect U.S. human food makers to knowingly add worthless (to humans) harmful or inert illegal additives to their recipes?”
The ingredients don’t even have to be illegal to be worthless or harmful. Example – high fructose corn syrup and obesity.
It is all about revenue and bottomline for corporations (Fortune 500 and all others). If they can find a cheaper ingredient, they will use it regardless of quality and healthfulness — or — harmfulness and worthlessness. It’s all about generating the highest profit from the lowest cost production.
“The fact is, their (Tembec) product didn’t go into either pet or human food”
Selections from The Columbus Dispatch: “Tembec Inc., which makes melamine, a binding agent used in some livestock and fish feed, did not register as a feed manufacturer in Ohio and used an unapproved ingredient in its products, according to the Ohio Department of Agriculture.
Tembec primarily makes paper and wood products, as well as AquaBond and Aqua-Tech II, two feed ingredients that are sold to Uniscope, of Johnstown, Colo., north of Denver. The company makes feed pellets for cattle, fish and shrimp. “
I think cattle, fish and shrimp are human and pet foods.
“Dr. David Acheson and Dr. Kenneth Petersen neither performed any of the research, investigation, nor risk calculations …….Higher level executives generally do not deal with people ranking below their own subordinates (I spent over 3 decades in a fortune 500 company)”
Did you work at subordinate level? I worked at executive level at a Fortune 500 corporation and the executives communicate and deal with all levels within the organization. Who do you think briefs them with critical information?
So, bottomline, it’s all about greed and cheap ingredients, irregardless of what their toxicity level.
Oh yes, one last item . . .
“cheap digital Chinese camera that my wife purchased”
I have a Nikon and it is of superior quality and makes excellent photographs. I guess that gets us back to the difference in buying cheap and buying something of quality. It’s not a “financial penalty” as you mentioned previously. The truest penalty suffered by consumers is they seek out and settle for lowest cost goods. And as they say “you get what you pay for” whether cameras or food.
Comment by Donna — June 4, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
To MaKo — June 4, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Just to “cherry pick,” you are worried about BSE causing vCJD (variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease), for which the highest rate in the U.S.(presumably) that I could find was 1 person /1,000,000,000. Now the annual death rate from autos in the U.S. is 1 person/6,976 = (300,000,000/43,000)!
The total number of identified North American cases of BSE, EVER, is just 9, like the number of cat’s lives.
I think that you are worrying about the wrong things.
“Do you really expect U.S. human food makers to knowingly add worthless (to humans) harmful or inert illegal additives to their recipes?”
“Yes, without a doubt, in a split second.”
Then we should be “dropping like flies.”
“Raw Milk” - up until the age of 18 nearly 100% of the milk my family consumed was raw. By age 12, my family of 4 used 1 gallon/day. We stopped using raw milk only when it was not cost effective to buy it.
“BGH” - I guess you didn’t read: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/.....00564.html
If you were me, you would feel lucky, since most of the milk in my house is either Dean or Kroger. It could be 100% if we cared enough to make an effort. (http://www.organicconsumers.or.....le_747.cfm) One of my cousins has a dairy in DE and does not use BGH, I believe.
There is no evidence whatsoever that humans have been harmed by melamine in our food supply and there is evidence from animal testing that moderate levels are harmless to animals, yet you want to tell this hysterical group of bloggers that we need long term testing, for something that no one is likely to volunteer for. Good luck with that.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
To Donna — June 4, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
I represent me and my family. No one else, not the FDA, not any companies, food or otherwise. I have no financial interest in ANY companies, other than those in the several mutual funds that I have ownership in. I just noticed a significant amount of hysteria on the pet blogs and felt that it was my social duty to add a little reason to the discussions. I wish I had ready access to statistics on all of the human death rates for which we (individually) have control, VIRTUALLY ALL of which we are far more likely to die from than melamine poisoning, especially seeing as how nobody on record has ever died due to melamine.
Yes, there is a remote chance that some minute amount of contaminated chicken, or fish product might find its way into IAMS lamb & rice. Given that the ingredients in question are ranked 6th, 10th & 12th on the ingredient list, I cannot get very excited over the remote possibility that there might be a small amount there. Besides, the only symptoms of abnormality has occurred, is that 1 of the 2 dogs had a gas problem when my wife brought in a bag of dog food of a different recipe.
If it is all about the bottom line (which is important), then why do some pet food companies use more expensive ingredients? Not every company uses the cheapest ingredients. Just compare the serving size per lb of pet in a higher priced brand to a lower priced brand. You can find cases of some cheap brands having so much filler in them that it takes twice as much to feed your pet. I compared and it does.
I was a database administrator. We were a hierarchical, sometimes matrixied organization. In 34 years I had one briefing with a vice president. And then only because my knowledge was so specialized that non of my superiors could sit in my stead. Later, when word processing became common, information flowed up the chain of command in memo form, from subordinate to superior, who then either forwarded or massaged and then forwarded the information. Sometimes the end product was hardly recognizable.
I can relate to the difficulty that the FDA has analyzing, filtering and presenting information of a technical nature, to relatively ignorant reporters, who in turn are going to try to digest it and report to, often times, an even less knowledgeable audience. This was quite evident in the May 15th FDA press conference, some of the transcript of which I did finally read.
And the Chinese digital cameras - I was not happy when I heard what she paid for it, since the price was only about 5% of what a low priced camera was going for at the time. I still have 1-2 lousy pics from the camera on my computer.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 5, 2007 @ 1:23 am
To DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 9:46 pm:
If you dog was sickened by melamine, then obviously your food contained a second (or third) contaminant, namely, cyanuric acid since the melamine along wouldn’t have harmed him. That is the point I have made over and over.
I have heard of no evidence that cyanuric acid accumulates in animal tissue. Therefore, any small amount of melamine that might be in human food from the contaminated pigs and chickens would be the only contaminate passed on to us.
Look, I’m not defending putting melamine or other contaminates in any food. I’m just making the point that melamine alone is not the problem. There is at least 1 other contaminate present along with the melamine. Melamine alone cannot cause the crystals in the kidneys. Another contaminate must be present for that chemical reaction to occur.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 5, 2007 @ 1:47 am
Rockman 13 is behind the curve on news that has been uncovered regarding the growing body of information about contaminants found so far in pet food. I don’t think any pet owners think that melamine alone is responsible. Anyone who has followed this since March has journeyed beyond what the FDA appears to want us to believe.
The Univ. of Guelph told all of their findings that combined melamine and cyanuric acid tested in their lab with the equivalent of cat urine formed crystals similar to (identical to?) those found in pets that died. We are just now learning the results of lab tests commissioned by pet owners whose pets died: Itchmo recently wrote about and is testing dry food found contaminated with cyanuric acid; Don posted two days ago here the lab results of cat food that he believes killed his cat Chuckles,which tested positive for acetaminophen — which is the subject of an article today in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; we have yet to learn from the NY State lab if it has replicated its original aminopterin finding in pet food.
So, Rockman 13, we all hope your dogs remain healthy on the diet you are feeding them, just as we wish the same for our dogs and cats. This isn’t the appropriate time or place for personal attacks. We’re all in this together to share information. Today’s USA Today article is about the power of this blog and others to coalesce pet owners and keep this story from being put on the back burner until regulatory agencies do their job and help keep the food supply safe for our families and ourselves.
Comment by Maureen — June 5, 2007 @ 4:11 am
Your ire here is directed at the wrong party. Menu Foods, IAMS, etc., TTBOMK, didn’t know they were buying bad gluten. Your ire should be directed at the Chinese who make American business men look like Boy Scouts.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 4, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
That’s the easy way out, isn’t it?
A company does process cheapest ingredients without any testing, sells the stuff with a profit but without quality control, is brainwashing consumers into believing their ‘premium food’ fairy tale, and now is a *victim*.
Yes, China is to blame for adulterating ingredients, but the pet food industry is to blame for using the cheapest ingredients, careless production, failing to inspect or use quality control at any level: and they know the laws and standards of this country.
Where is ‘responsibility’? If my company delivers shoddy work, I am responsible - financially and otherwise. The pet food industry, however, is victimized by the bad, bad Chinese - yeah, right - and does not take resonsibility.
And, please, don’t give me the ‘costs would be prohibitive for the company/consumer’.
I paid for ‘premium food’ that has been processed in the same production line as the cheapest of all imaginable pet foods, with (see ‘cross-contamination’) probably the same ingredients and without any QC in the first place.
To me, the pet food industry is even worse than China: a totalitarian system of a vastly overpopulated contry has a different attitude towards ‘life’ than a rich, powerful ‘nation under God’ blessed with a constitution that protects the individual life and the individual’s rights, for a couple of hundred years.
And in the future, the (pet) food industry will start to have quality control and testing, and still be affordable: other countries (see Europe) are able to manage that; and the consumers here are beginning to demand it. Could mean less profit for the company, but without qc and tests it could mean ‘bye-bye’ to the company in question.
Comment by MaKo — June 5, 2007 @ 5:45 am
Comment by Rockman13 — June 5, 2007 @ 1:47 am
I have heard of no evidence that cyanuric acid accumulates in animal tissue. Therefore, any small amount of melamine that might be in human food from the contaminated pigs and chickens would be the only contaminate passed on to us.
I have not heard of evidence that cyanuric acid does *not* accumulate in mammal tissue. Therefore, as long as I have no reliable third-party long-term study, I have to assume the accumulation theory is correct.
Look, I’m not defending putting melamine or other contaminates in any food. I’m just making the point that melamine alone is not the problem. There is at least 1 other contaminate present along with the melamine. Melamine alone cannot cause the crystals in the kidneys. Another contaminate must be present for that chemical reaction to occur.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 5, 2007 @ 1:47 am
There is this New Zealandian study from ‘63 that suggests exactly that: Melamine (not scrap, not combined with …) caused crystal formation in the kidneys of sheep.
Conclusion 1) without further testing and studies any statements relating to Melamin, cyanuric acid and/or the combination of both and/or a third, fourth or nth component are not valid.
Conclusion 2) Studies in the 50s and 60s are only applicable to a limited extent, because the saturation with environmental pollutants and substances differs greatly compared to now.
Without any reliable long-term studies, I reject the ‘dilution’ theory and rather subscribe to the well-know accumulation effect.
Comment by MaKo — June 5, 2007 @ 6:22 am
RM: I have heard of no evidence that cyanuric acid accumulates in animal tissue. Therefore, any small amount of melamine that might be in human food from the contaminated pigs and chickens would be the only contaminate passed on to us.
MaKo — June 5, 2007 @ 6:22 am: I have not heard of evidence that cyanuric acid does not accumulate in mammal tissue. Therefore, as long as I have no reliable third-party long-term study, I have to assume the accumulation theory is correct.
RM: You made me track it down. I first read where the FDA, I believe, said that it is not accumulated. Since no one here trusts the U.S. govt, would you trust the Canadian Govt?
Per: http://www.intox.org/databank/.....cie286.htm
Potential for Accumulation:
Does not accumulate. Two volunteers who ingested unreported quantities eliminated half of it within 3 hours and greater than 98% of it in the urine within 24 hours. Swimmers in chlorinated pools were found to absorb cyanuric acid and then eliminate it quickly in the urine.(14) Rats dosed orally with cyanuric acid rapidly absorbed and eliminated it with no accumulation in any tissues.(15)
RM: Some chemicals accumulate in animal tissue, some are partially accumulated and some do not accumulate at all. Take salt, for example (it is a chemical), or vitamin D, animals accumulate as much as is needed and expels the rest via urine.
To Illustrate further, the dilution effect of contaminated pet food going to pigs/chickens, and then in turn eating contaminated meat, the 10,000 lbs of contaminated meat is the equivalent of eating 1/2 lb of that meat every day for 54.8 years! (54.8 yrs = (2 x 10,000 lbs) / 365 days)
AND you body would have to retain ALL of the melamine to gain lethality. Now I ask you, just how could you eat that much contaminated meat if it is only on the market a few weeks/months?
The New Zealanders, no doubt, did not have the necessary equipment to assay the crystals to determine what they were composed of. They, the crystals, might have been formed from melamine and cyanuric acid. But there is insufficient evidence from the test one way or another to get too concerned.
I guess that there is no comforting you if you persist in flatly rejecting the known science surrounding “the dilution effect” and “accumulation,” as they pertain to the melamine contamination situation.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 5, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Rockman,
“there is a remote chance that some minute amount of contaminated chicken, or fish product might find its way into IAMS lamb & rice.”
You missed the point. Many Lamb & Rice pet foods are designed for pets with allergy or food sensitivities. Thus, the product name. I was not referring to melamine contamination. I would, however, question a manufacturer who labels a product LAMB & RICE and then includes chicken by-product and fish meal. If I were not a conscientious shopper I would look at the product name and think it only included LAMB. So, it appears the subject product includes cheaper fillers. If you were dealing with true allergies or sensitivities, you would potentially have a problem with these other ingredients.
Comment by Donna — June 5, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Also from: http://www.intox.org/databank/.....cie286.htm
Composition/Purity:
Cyanuric acid exists… Impurities present include ammelide and ammeline.(1) Crude cyanuric acid contains up to 30% impurities consisting of melamine and its precursors, biuret, triuret, ammelide and ammeline.(6)
We can speculate that the Chinese source for cyanuric acid might have been “crude cyanuric acid” and thus explain the cointaminates present necessary to form the deadly crystals.
To DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 9:38 pm : “So, following your logic, melamine might be required to be healthy.”
No, simply that there can be completely different, even paradoxical effects when comparing consumption of large quantities and very small quantities. Thus small quantities very reasonably can be harmless.
Comment by Rockman13 — June 5, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Rockman … if you want to eat “relatively safe” contaminants, you’re welcome to do so. But many of us don’t, and we want the information we need to determine which products we will and won’t buy.
I don’t find industry-funded science to be particularly reassuring, any more than I find FDA media briefings to be particularly informative.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 5, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Rockman: “I just noticed a significant amount of hysteria on the pet blogs and felt that it was my social duty to add a little reason to the discussions.”
I am certain everyone on all the pet blogs/websites also believe they are fulfilling their social duty. And some are fulfilling an obligation to their dead and critically ill pets.
Comment by Donna — June 5, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
If it’s all so safe, Rockman, why did so many animals die? You obviously didn’t have to watch a pet suffer. If you don’t like the “hysteria” then why are you here? What pet food company do you work for? If you don’t, why don’t you mosey on over and post all of this at the pet food websites? They would probably love to hear all the BS you’re spouting. And it’s not like you’re talking down to anyone, right? You’re just “informing” us since we are so hysterical and under-educated. Do I have that right?
Comment by Ann Jackson — June 5, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
*****Rockman 13 is behind the curve on news that has been uncovered regarding the growing body of information about contaminants found so far in pet food. I don’t think any pet owners think that melamine alone is responsible. Anyone who has followed this since March has journeyed beyond what the FDA appears to want us to believe.
Comment by Maureen**************
I have noticed that about Rockman’s posts. And of course, his infamous example re Wikipedia. I have nothing against it as a source, but The Rock has zero understanding of even what a Wiki is, or its shortcomings. So expanding that, maybe just can’t come to terms with what is happening because it is way beyond someone who advises bloggers to just stick with only being Wiki surfers and the like. Who listens when someone makes so little sense, and then demonstrates a closed mind? I feel bad, but you can’t make someone hear when they’ve stuffed socks in their ears, singing LALALALALA… until the bad news goes silent.
Rock might just be one of those who really wants all of this to not be true, so he/she can continue with their lives uninterrupted. I know many people like that. Unlike Rock who feels the need to convert people to his position, I don’t feel one bit of a similiar inclination. I believe accurate information should be out there and available to everyone. But the decision is up to each of us.
My opinion is that if someone has to be a guinea pig to see how many and what amounts of these contaminants really safe vs. safe in theory, there are plenty of those people out there volunteering for the job. Would rather someone like Rock, who has had the chance to inform him/herself be the g. pig, than others who are not aware of these issues and are thus not able to be making an informed choice.
Rock has an opinion that I would be foolish to entertain seriously. I wish Rock and similar minded people the best of luck with their chosen path re food safety issues.
Comment by TC — June 5, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Wait, maybe I figured it out. Something about the last few posts of Rock’s ring a bell.
Rockman - do you work for the FDA or any other governmental agency, either now or have in the past?
Comment by TC — June 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
You might have something there, TC.:)
Comment by Ann Jackson — June 5, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
I said it before — I think we have an insider here…
He says he’s not — but rather a concerned citizen like all of us — from all walks of life — here to dish out some reasoning & save us from ourselves …
Well, Rockman, if it is so safe — why does the FDA *NOT* allow their pregnant employees to work on the case??
As reported on Itchmo, 5-9-07: FDA Warns Staff On Major Melamine Health Risks:
http://www.itchmo.com/read/fda.....s_20070509
Just follow the links he has within his article.
Is there something they are hiding?? A pregnant woman should not have contact, but it’s ok to eat??
And, testing 6 chickens out of 2 million, is absolutely, conclusively deemed to be safe? They want us to believe them & keep on eating chicken?
They reported 18 hogs had to be euthanized, prior to slaughter because of nephritis? Then said, it’s ok! Go ahead & eat your bacon!??!
Rockman - how much of the contaminated — or potentially/rumored contaminated products are you and your family actually consuming these days?
How about your cat or dog? Gerbil? Turtle? Bird? Fish? Frog?
Which toothpaste, cough syrup, granola bars, bread, pizza, shrimp are you and your family consuming? How often do you look at the labels when you go shopping?
How many manufacturers have you contacted to see what the country-of-origin is of their products?
This is not hysteria that you see on this blog —
We are people who have been here for MONTHS now keeping each other up-to-date with the *constant bombardment* of poisonous, polluted products from a country with known pollution & corruption. It’s been one thing after another with China. And, our government is taking it’s sweet-time discovering which products are contaminated — and even a longer time getting the products recalled — if ever. Or, worst - deemed “safe!”
I’d say we have the “ground hog” mentality — maybe. One sits, waits, watches for anything resembling a threat — then, reports back to the others - ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Well, our government is supposed to be the ground hog. They are supposed to be keeping our food safe. Even after all the contamination has come into this country they are still allowing it. Even Futian Biology attempted a delivery of rice protein concentrate on 5-31-07. Luckily, that was caught. But, the FDA waited over a month before even issuing that import alert.
Why is ANYONE still ordering from them anyway? Who is going to find that out? And, what will happen to them then? Nothing?
So, I don’t know what more to say… you have your iron-clad opinions & we have ours. That’s one of the great things about this country. It does give us the freedom of speech…for now.
Comment by Kat — June 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
He said Fortune 500 employee. He has a science/tech background. He said he was a database administrator.
Comment by Kat — June 5, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Comment by Rockman13 — June 5, 2007 @ 11:42 am
Rockman13,
thank you for this link:
http://www.intox.org/databank/.....cie286.htm
I quote from above link:
Warning Properties:
Insufficient information available for evaluation.
Effects of Long-Term (Chronic) Exposure
There is no human information available.
Kidneys/Urinary System:
Based on animal studies, long-term ingestion of relatively high doses can result in the formation of crystals in the kidneys resulting in kidney injury. Ingestion is not a typical route of occupational exposure.
Carcinogenicity:
There is no human information available.
Before I now copy more or less the whole article, let me formulate it in one nice sentence:
“There are no studies, and we don’t know.”
Your Honour, I rest my case.
BANG!
Comment by MaKo — June 5, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Well said, Kat. And I don’t mind being a ground hog at all!:)
Comment by Ann Jackson — June 5, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
To DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 9:46 pm:
If you dog was sickened by melamine, then obviously your food contained a second (or third) contaminant, namely, cyanuric acid since the melamine along wouldn’t have harmed him. That is the point I have made over and over.
by Rockman
===============
Rockman, my point about this is that if the FDA/USDA is using their limited melamine analysis as a reason to assume the pigs and chickens that have consumed adulterated pet food are safe to release to market, then they were not considering the whole scope of the contamination and therefore the safety of eating the aforesaid pigs, chickens and eggs is in question. Obviously, melamine must either not be as safe as they are saying, must occur in higher concentrations (remember the fda found contamination at a level of one magnitude higher—but we were never given those exact numbers on the risk/safety assessment. A magnitude as I know it is a multiple of 10 which switches things up a bit and may leave one wondering how much was out there and for how long) or there must be another one or more contaminants that also need evaluation before deeming safe. Either way, I believe the USDA should have erred on the side of caution and not released the meat and eggs. At the least, they should have notified the public of brands under which the meat was sold. I also believe they should do more testing of what is already out there, animal feed, livestock, and human food—not just commodities coming in for import. Their waiting for indications seems incompetent and negligent. The Chinese have admittedly been adding melamine, which degrades into cyanuric acid, for at least 10-15 years. Where you have melamine, you can potentially have cyanuric acid, by chemical definition. How long have we been importing it? Also, we now know at least one of our own companies that makes binder for feed has been using melamine for 3 years.
To sum up, the Study on melamine and dog toxicoloy presented by the fda in their risk/safety assessment, does not explain the pet deaths due to eating the contaminated food. Our dog could have eaten 18 lbs a day of pet food contaminatd at the level of the scraps fed to pigs and chickens. He ate only 1 1/2 cup. He was sick. So I’m not comfortable with the extrapolation of data to humans. Information is skewed or missing.
Comment by DMS — June 5, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Ground hogs are really quite cute! Have you ever been to CO? They are all over the place — at least in the mountains. Very watchful & alert!
Comment by Kat — June 5, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
I don’t feel it’s worthwhile to spend much more of my time on the Rock. But will say this - over the course of my 29 years working in a Fortune 100 company (see - I can play that game, too!) I have worked with some pretty high level scientists. There are two notable occasions I recall where what I was seeing happen didn’t jive with what was SUPPOSED to happen according to what they understood to be true.
In both cases, they told me I MUST be wrong. In both cases, I went ahead on my own and gathered enough information to disprove them. In both cases, the insisted I repeat the work in their presence. In both cases - standing there and staring at the results I’d just generated which contradicted what they knew “must be true”, they stood there just shaking their heads and saying “That can’t be true. That just doesn’t make sense.” But in both cases, we changed the procedure to reflect my findings rather than “what they knew” and began getting more consistent and reliable results.
Science can lead us down some paths of new and astounding learning. But if we’re not careful, it can also close off minds too tightly bound to considering the possibility that what “must be true” might NOT be after all . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2007 @ 8:00 am
As of June 7, the Peer Review is released for the 2007 Interim Melamine Assessment. Here is a link. It confirms what a lot of us were saying, but it falls short of laughing them out of the lab. Number 2 is particularly troubling. Might have been Rockman.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/melamra2.html
Comment by DMS — June 11, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Great. Only one of the 6 is actually in the specific field of Toxicology. Four of the others are in areas that generally deal more with pathogens and bacteria, and one comes from studies in the area of obesity.
Since this issue is one of toxicology rather than a microbial infection, maybe their “balance peer review board” might have included more than one tox expert to offer additional opinions?
Oh, I forgot. That would be logical . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 12, 2007 @ 5:56 am
TO MaKo — June 5, 2007 @ 5:45 am
“A company does process cheapest ingredients without any testing, sells the stuff with a profit but without quality control, is brainwashing consumers into believing their ‘premium food’ fairy tale, and now is a victim.”
What an amazing statement. Do you test ALL of the food, cosmetics and drugs that you you use? How did that work out? What does it cost? My guess is that the only testing you do is when you use them, you might take them into consideration when you have a negative reaction to them. Similarly, there are regulations REQUIRING producers to only use approved ingredients and additives in their recipes, AND to list ALL of the ingredients on the label. The fact is, because of these regulations and the fact that people in the food business are honest and law abiding, there is minimal testing for unusual chemicals anywhere along the food production chain. As to using the cheapest, the mfgrs are only doing what you and I do, buy the cheapest food that serves our needs. Most people do NOT go into a store and purposely buy the most expensive food available. No, most people make a brief cost benefit analysis and buys the cheapest brand/recipe that meets their needs. If we didn’t do this, than there would be less pressure on the mfgrs to import even cheaper ingredients.
“Yes, China is to blame for adulterating ingredients, but the pet food industry is to blame for using the cheapest ingredients, careless production, failing to inspect or use quality control at any level: and they know the laws and standards of this country.”
See above. And, there is some testing…the some pet food mfgrs actually feed it to lab animals of the same species to monitor the health impact and the quality of the food. This is no different than what humans have been doing for thousands (millions?) of years…eating the foods that make us healthy and stop eating the foods that make us sick. That’s how we learned what is and isn’t good for us. Nothing has changed, except that you want to place all of the responsibility on the food producer (and often without allowing them to test the food on animals).
“I paid for ‘premium food’ that has been processed in the same production line as the cheapest of all imaginable pet foods, with (see ‘cross-contamination’) probably the same ingredients and without any QC in the first place.”
Yah, I wouldn’t want to have any of that cheap chicken parts contaminated with my beef by-products. But, seriously, you pay premium price KNOWING that they are using the cheaper ingredients? May I suggest that you buy the cheap pet food and save the cost difference.
“To me, the pet food industry is even worse than China: a totalitarian system…”
If this were actually true, then the American PF mfgrs are really stupid too, since they could have cut out the middle man and simply used American scrap melamine as a protein enhancer (kind of an oxymoron, if you ask me)! But they didn’t.
P.S. The Chinese exporter deceived both the Chinese and the US export/import authorities by purposely mis-identifying the wheat glutamine as textile products! So as to avoid any required gluten quality testing at the ports.
“…but without qc and tests it could mean ‘bye-bye’ to the company in question.”
And, if the Menu Foods doesn’t go out of business, the owners are going to take a real good “hit” for this one, as will many of their customers (P&G, Wal-mart, etc).
Comment by Rockman13 — June 18, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Rockman … do you really think you’re making headway here? Your utter contempt for the potential health problems of pets and PEOPLE caused by “standard industry practice” is not doing much to engender trust for the industry or government agency you no doubt work for.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 19, 2007 @ 5:52 am
There is so much food coming in contaminated that there is no way they can catch it all. It is not just Melamine but many other toxins are in food imports from China. I am afraid to eat anything that has a wheat, or corn gluten or rice gluten in it now. I just won’t touch anything processed…because it could be poisoned..period. JR Simplot makes french fries for Macdonalds and they used wheat gluten on the fries until they got caught…where did they get their wheat gluten. JR grows GA potatoes in China……and they must of have imported the wheat gluten from USA?….I think not……so how many Americans were affected eating fries covered in contaminated melamine….millions that’s how many! Ban all food imports from China…what a simple solution to this ongoing problem.
Obewan
Comment by Lew Orban — June 22, 2007 @ 6:26 am