Comments on: Scientists review FDA conclusions on melamine, other contaminants in human food http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/ The Web blog of the Pet Connection, a pet-care feature syndicated internationally by Universal Press. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:51:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: DMS http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81220 DMS Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:02:03 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81220 Comment by Dee — June 14, 2007 @ 5:44 pm It's more of the FDA's twisted belief system. Comment by Dee — June 14, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

It’s more of the FDA’s twisted belief system.

]]> By: Linda http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81160 Linda Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:29:22 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81160 MSNBC has BIG headlines: Consumers being ripped off by Bogus ingredients: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19230748/ MSNBC has BIG headlines: Consumers being ripped off by Bogus ingredients:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19230748/

]]> By: Trudy Jackson http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81149 Trudy Jackson Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:27:35 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81149 What China wants- http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-NG.asp?id=39578 What China wants-
http://www.foodnavigator.com/n.....p?id=39578

]]> By: Dee http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81130 Dee Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:44:15 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81130 Comment by Jay — June 14, 2007 @ 3:26 pm Add to your comments that the FDA released a statement that they "rule out acetaminophen as a pet food contaminant" prior to communicating with the lab who analyzed those results. They tested random samples and made a declaration. Comment by Jay — June 14, 2007 @ 3:26 pm

Add to your comments that the FDA released a statement that they “rule out acetaminophen as a pet food contaminant” prior to communicating with the lab who analyzed those results. They tested random samples and made a declaration.

]]> By: DMS http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81123 DMS Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:56:00 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81123 I will say for myself, "I am unwilling to eat the evidence!" I will say for myself, “I am unwilling to eat the evidence!”

]]> By: Linda http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81092 Linda Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:27:31 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81092 I'm thinking it is better to eat meat from "Large" animals rather than from small ones. Does this makes sense? I’m thinking it is better to eat meat from “Large” animals rather than from small ones. Does this makes sense?

]]> By: Jay http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81091 Jay Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:26:15 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-81091 “pretty confident” = FDA Recalls to my mind the great blog piece on horsesass.org: the FDA as FAITH-BASED DINING ADMINISTRATION “FDA and USDA BELIEVE the likelihood of illness after eating such pork is extremely low.” – USDA/FDA, 4/26/2007 “We have no reason to BELIEVE that anything other than the rice protein concentrate or the wheat gluten have been a problem in the United States recently.” – USDA/FDA, 4/26/2007 “But overall, we BELIEVE the risk to be extremely low to humans.” – USDA/FDA, 4/26/2007 “One of the reasons we BELIEVE that this is very low in humans is due to the dilution effect.” – USDA/FDA, 5/1/2007 “We do not BELIEVE that there is any significant threat of human illness from consuming poultry.” – USDA/FDA, 5/1/2007 “We have no reason to BELIEVE those animals are any risk to the public.” – USDA/FDA, 5/3/2007 Here is the link for the commentary which begins: I’m not a very spiritual person, but I’m having a crisis of faith. Twice a week I sit in on the FDA’s media teleconference regarding our growing food safety crisis, and twice a week I come away struck by the difference between what officials believe and what they actually know. As a born agnostic and a fan of science, I can fully appreciate the FDA’s reluctance to express absolute certainty. But as a devoted father and pet owner, I can’t help but find their reassurances less than reassuring. First we were told that none of the adulterated wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate had made its way into the human food supply, and then we were informed that a mere 6,000 hogs had eaten feed contaminated by “salvaged” pet food. Next it was chickens. 3 million of them. Slaughtered, butchered and eaten by unsuspecting Americans. Then 20 million more chickens, and today another 50,000 hogs… not to mention the God-knows-how-many fish in the US and Canada raised on farms now known to have received Canadian fish meal manufactured from contaminated Chinese flours. Still… not to worry, we are told, because large manufacturers are “unlikely to have exposed their animals to large amounts of the tainted pet products.” http://www.horsesass.org/?p=2883 “pretty confident” = FDA

Recalls to my mind the great blog piece on horsesass.org: the FDA as FAITH-BASED DINING ADMINISTRATION

“FDA and USDA BELIEVE the likelihood of illness after eating such pork is extremely low.”
– USDA/FDA, 4/26/2007

“We have no reason to BELIEVE that anything other than the rice protein concentrate or the wheat gluten have been a problem in the United States recently.”
– USDA/FDA, 4/26/2007

“But overall, we BELIEVE the risk to be extremely low to humans.”
– USDA/FDA, 4/26/2007

“One of the reasons we BELIEVE that this is very low in humans is due to the dilution effect.”
– USDA/FDA, 5/1/2007

“We do not BELIEVE that there is any significant threat of human illness from consuming poultry.”
– USDA/FDA, 5/1/2007

“We have no reason to BELIEVE those animals are any risk to the public.”
– USDA/FDA, 5/3/2007

Here is the link for the commentary which begins:

I’m not a very spiritual person, but I’m having a crisis of faith.

Twice a week I sit in on the FDA’s media teleconference regarding our growing food safety crisis, and twice a week I come away struck by the difference between what officials believe and what they actually know. As a born agnostic and a fan of science, I can fully appreciate the FDA’s reluctance to express absolute certainty. But as a devoted father and pet owner, I can’t help but find their reassurances less than reassuring.

First we were told that none of the adulterated wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate had made its way into the human food supply, and then we were informed that a mere 6,000 hogs had eaten feed contaminated by “salvaged” pet food. Next it was chickens. 3 million of them. Slaughtered, butchered and eaten by unsuspecting Americans.

Then 20 million more chickens, and today another 50,000 hogs… not to mention the God-knows-how-many fish in the US and Canada raised on farms now known to have received Canadian fish meal manufactured from contaminated Chinese flours.

Still… not to worry, we are told, because large manufacturers are “unlikely to have exposed their animals to large amounts of the tainted pet products.”

http://www.horsesass.org/?p=2883

]]> By: Linda http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-80963 Linda Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:18:49 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-80963 The New York Times has an Opinion Piece on Problems with buying Local - environmental reasons: http://tinyurl.com/2xur7g The New York Times has an Opinion Piece on Problems with buying Local - environmental reasons:

http://tinyurl.com/2xur7g

]]> By: TC http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-80955 TC Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:01:46 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-80955 Thanks, Elaine:) There are always wrinkles and complications when we try to figure out where this stuff originates, huh? Good point re cows from Canada/Mexico that end up here. I will ask those questions - we have to call the custom dudes today. I would imagine they would NOT be cleaning between grinds. They are a USDA facility, but frankly, that doesn't mean much to me anymore. Thanks, Elaine:) There are always wrinkles and complications when we try to figure out where this stuff originates, huh? Good point re cows from Canada/Mexico that end up here.

I will ask those questions - we have to call the custom dudes today. I would imagine they would NOT be cleaning between grinds. They are a USDA facility, but frankly, that doesn’t mean much to me anymore.

]]> By: Elaine http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-80941 Elaine Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:20:40 +0000 http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/13/scientists-review-fda-conclusions-on-melamine-other-contaminants-in-human-food/#comment-80941 TC, It is quite likely. If the chain receives their beef as boxed beef, it will be labeled as to COOL on the box. Our local chain grocery store used to get boxed beef from Canada. I think IBP has slaughter facilities in both Canada and the U.S., so your butcher could read the country on the box--just ask him. But even if the boxed beef comes from a U.S. source, that would not mean that the beef on hoof wouldn't have come in from Canada or Mexico and fed here before slaughter. A custom slaughter plant may combine your beef with other beef carcasses in the interest of efficiency, so as not to clean the grinder between critters? I am not sure about this, but I would ask them. TC, It is quite likely. If the chain receives their beef as boxed beef, it will be labeled as to COOL on the box. Our local chain grocery store used to get boxed beef from Canada. I think IBP has slaughter facilities in both Canada and the U.S., so your butcher could read the country on the box—just ask him.

But even if the boxed beef comes from a U.S. source, that would not mean that the beef on hoof wouldn’t have come in from Canada or Mexico and fed here before slaughter.

A custom slaughter plant may combine your beef with other beef carcasses in the interest of efficiency, so as not to clean the grinder between critters? I am not sure about this, but I would ask them.

]]>