ASPCA’s toxicologists: Acetaminophen fears ‘unfounded’
By Gina Spadafori
June 27, 2007
We’ve taken a fair amount of heat here because the accounts of acetaminophen contamination in pet food did not pass our own “sniff test” as journalists. These things are always a judgement call, aren’t they? In the beginning of the Menu Foods recall we were scorched by the pet-food industry for reporting thousands of pet deaths from the recalled foods when the FDA was insisting on only a handful.
Well, we know how that turned out. We created concern, with good reason.
But what about the acetaminophen?
Now the ASPCA’s toxicologists, who as we did originally acknowledged the concerns and dove into their own investigation, now say the reports are unfounded:
The ASPCA® (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals®) today announced that it has been in close touch with veterinary toxicologists at the University of California (Davis), who have conducted independent tests on cat food to analyze for this contaminant—and whose findings corroborate those of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as cited in the press. As such, the ASPCA believes that fears of widespread contamination of pet food with acetaminophen are unfounded.
“Ever since the news broke that some pet food had been found to have been contaminated with acetaminophen, we were justifiably concerned for the continuing safety of pets,” said Dr. Steven Hansen, a board-certified veterinary toxicologist and senior vice president with the ASPCA, who manages the ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center (APCC), located in its Midwest Office in Urbana, Ill. “As we mentioned in our last advisory, acetaminophen poisoning can be deadly in pets, especially cats.”
Dr. Robert H. Poppenga, a board-certified veterinary toxicologist and who runs the Toxicology Section of the California Animal Health and Food Safety System at UC Davis’ School of Veterinary Medicine, explained further. “A few weeks ago, CAHFS received three cans of cat food supplied to it for testing by an individual pet owner. We were told that this was the same food that had tested positive for acetaminophen and cyanuric acid at a private laboratory in Texas. Further, the cat in question had been diagnosed with acute renal failure, but there was no evidence of liver failure, which is what we see with acetaminophen poisoning.”
“We immediately began conducting our own rigorous tests on these foods, which are in line with nationally-accepted guidelines for such testing. All the samples came back negative for this type of contamination.”
Continued Dr. Hansen, “The bottom line is that neither did the FDA’s tests confirm the presence of acetaminophen, nor those conducted by UC-Davis—nor has the APCC managed any clinical cases to date.”
“As a result, we want to reassure the public that, based on this information, we believe any fear of acetaminophen contamination in pet food is unfounded, and pet parents should rest easy on that account.”
Here’s the rest. Of course, this will not end the debate. But it pretty much does for us, in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Thats all right Doc we Pet Owners-Parents are going to keep testing Pet Foods independently at random from here on out through eternity.
Rest on that a bit. And get used to it. The Pet Food Industry can not regulate itself. The concept is laughable.
Comment by Steve — June 27, 2007 @ 8:31 am
aND UC Davis is extremely grateful for the half a mil dropped in their pockets from Hill’s..
round & round we go.
Comment by Ann H — June 27, 2007 @ 8:36 am
I wondered at the time if there might have been some product tampering going on - that can and does happen.
I’m glad it isn’t true - we have enough to worry about.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 8:41 am
Why has not one pet food company CEO publicly came forward to discuss the matter and try to rebuild consumer trust? That is the question many people are asking. Why?
Unfortunately, major companies in any field are now facing what is a key shift in how consumers will treat marketing information from consumer product companies in the future. No longer is the public going to rely or trust ad campaign propaganda or mea culpa pubic relations schemes.
http://tinyurl.com/2aagco
Comment by Steve — June 27, 2007 @ 8:49 am
Their tests did not find acetaminophen, what about the cyanuric acid?
Comment by elliott — June 27, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Did they even get a slap on the wrist?
http://tinyurl.com/2fzwx7
Comment by Steve — June 27, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Comment by Steve — June 27, 2007 @ 9:19 am
steve, you should ALWAYS post a blood pressure warning with that link!
Comment by straybaby — June 27, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Let’s don’t buy anything from those Fortune 500 companies - it all sounds pretty terrible to me. I may learn how to weave and spin wool!
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 9:46 am
PS: and eat only from my garden or Local/local/local. These companies can go broke!
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 9:50 am
I got in the mail yesterday 3 coupons for pet foods and one from a national pet food store.
There are always a few coupons in the Sunday papers where I live for pet foods
I throw them away and go to the store that sells California Natural and Felidae. Cats diets get supplemented with human fish and poultry.
My trust in the regular PFI has gone out the window and up in smoke. Once burnt badly is enough for me!
Comment by Evelyn — June 27, 2007 @ 10:36 am
And speaking of blood pressure…..never had a problem with high blood pressure. May I say thank you to all the PF companies & their suppliers for my high blood pressure & costly meds to stabilize it. I wonder how many others have new medical problems thanks to all the stress & worry associated with this huge fiasco.
I hope all the CEOs of the large PF companies are eating & sleeping well…..I said it once & I’ll say it again…..you’ll get yours. Someday you’ll pay for what you’ve done.
Comment by JanC — June 27, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Comment by Evelyn — June 27, 2007 @ 10:36 am
“I got in the mail yesterday 3 coupons for pet foods and one from a national pet food store.”
I got 3 coupons from a national pet food store in the last 2 days. None of them are anything I would even consider feeding my cats. I too throw them away and go and buy California Natural.
One of my boys was just diagnosed with struvite crystals in his urnine. Luckily the vet’s first suggestion was to try to break up the crystals without changing his diet. After a followup urine analysis this Friday, she may be suggesting a Hills Science Diet prescription food for him. Sorry, but there better be another alternative. I hate the thought of feeding that stuff to my boy.
Comment by Brandi — June 27, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Until there are standardized tests for contaminants, and we are shown the data which would include the quality control done, etc. I still do not embrace the word of the ASPCA, FDA or U Calif Davis. If unmarked samples known only to an independent tester were handed to the ASPCA, FDA, U Calif Davis, Accutrace, Midwest, and two specialized federal labs like the one in NY - tested and all turned out the same results - only than would I feel comfortable.
Pets died. Pets are still sick and some recovering with a road of life long illness. I still don’t think we have the truth. Some pets had abnormal liver tests.
The pet food companies have never said they were sorry, have never addressed the problem and offered solutions. For them it is business as usual. For those who loss pets, for those who have sick pets - it is not business as usual.
Katie
Comment by Katie — June 27, 2007 @ 11:50 am
i’d be a lot more comfortable if this were done at a truly independent lab. sorry, but uc davis doesn’t qualify in that area.
Comment by explodinghed — June 27, 2007 @ 11:51 am
OK but Im confused. So they are saying that the findings of acetaminophen from the Epertox lab is false? Epertox doesnt think so. This is reminding me of the early findings of aminopterin in the pet food from one lab and then it getting nixed also…..isnt there a possibility that the findings of both aminopterin and acetaminophen are true but perhaps it isnt being found in every can of food from the same lot? To me, thats what it says, that these things were found but just not in every batch of food…..
Comment by Sandi K — June 27, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
To add to my comment above, I think (IMO) that it just further reveals the amount of toxins, garbage, etc that is and has been going in to our pets food for a long long long time.
Comment by Sandi K — June 27, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Comment by explodinghed — June 27, 2007 @ 11:51 am
explodinghed, but wasnt it UC Davis that found the melamine, cyanuric acid in the Nutro wet food when it was tested at the request of that pet owner and vet in California (after Nutro had said all their food affected was recalled)? Their testing was done on 4-10 long after the initial recalls and I could have sworn it was done by UC Davis.
I still think the acetaminophen was found in the food tested by Epertox, it just wasnt found in the food tested by the other labs…..
Comment by Sandi K — June 27, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
There’s much toxic garbage in the pet food and fillers that add nothing to our pet’s health that are causing many many allergies.
Homecooking: I’m having some fun of it - and at one time thought it too burdensome but I’m getting better at it - and the dogs seem to like it too! And someone here on the blog, and I can’t remember the woman’s name (thank you) told me of a book to get for my dog that has cancer - and I ordered it and it’s quite good and not just for dogs that are ill - it’s very very helpful too in general - my recipes are improving and adding sardines - never would have thought of that one!
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Contaminants are just that - materials that are *NOT* supposed to be there. So I would of course also *NOT* expect them to be mixed uniformly evenly throughout any given batch. Which is why I am *NOT* surprised that some analyses pick them up and others don’t.
If someone ever tested representative samples collected throughout the “life” of a given manufacturing run, that would be far more telling. But of course, such a set of testing is *NOT* likely to ever be done.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 27, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
I think UC Davis is a reputable lab - at least they have a good reputation around here and I’ve heard only the “best” reports of their efforts to cure, help, and otherwise promote good pet vet. care. A true science - minded and professional outfit is not going to fudge results to satisfy a certain pet food company - that seems a bit off the wall, doesn’t it?
I still think that product tampering could have been a factor in the “acetaminophen” findings - but that’s one can or worms no one wishes to address.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Sorry for all the posts, but this has me a little perplexed. And what also appears to be happening is if one lab doesnt find the same results as the other lab, there is an unspoken message put out that the one lab that found the “ingredient” is a bad lab. I dont buy that. Epertox, to me, seems as good of a lab as others including UC Davis or FDA’s lab so for people to imply that Epertox findings are faulty isnt fair. Didnt the same kind of thing happen to the lab that found aminopterin and then when it couldnt be duplicated, the lab that found it gets nullified?
Comment by Sandi K — June 27, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Linda, when you say product tampering, what do you mean? You mean someone from the pet food company or the person who bought the pet food? How does product tampering occur when its an unopened can of pet food?
Comment by Sandi K — June 27, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
I was thinking that it might have been tampered with anytime after it left the manufacturing plant - at the store or afterwards or even in the lab (perish that thought.)
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Or even worse, what if someone, not the pet owner, may have wanted to add a little poison to the food? There’s many possibilities and it’s difficult to place blame when the lab results cannot be duplicated - sigh!
But I’m not sure the labs are at fault - and there’s error factors with testing equipment - and different equipment have varying error factors that are in the equation - and that too can account for varying results.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
As to the unopened can of pet food - it has to be opened at some point - and there’s needles that can be inserted into tin (on the bottom or side or under a label) that can administer solutions or poisons - these containers can be compromised.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Linda, thanks for the info, Im real ignorant when it comes to testing products, I had no idea of all the scenarios that could occur. Wow!
Comment by Sandi K — June 27, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Comment by Sandi:
That is why I think there should be standardized testing, and if the FDA or ASPCA or USDA, etc. are going to take samples in to be tested; a few of them should go to multiple labs. If one finds something, they all should find it. As far as PFI testing, they shouldn’t chose the sample, someone should show up one day and take a sample off mid-line. The same should be done for human food sampling.
I agree, I’m sure what is in the food is dependent upon what got dumped on any given day from a rendering plant, cereal by-product plant, rail car.. or what was on the line previous to a run of pet food.
I still think they want the matter to die and go away. I don’t think the FDA liked being called on the carpet. They may need more inspectors and money - but they need their mindset changed first.
Katie
Comment by Katie — June 27, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
You’re joking right Sandi? This is not CSI here but we do know such things can and do occur.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Well, I can believe almost anything. I never would have thought that these pet food companies were puroposively adding glutens and protein concentrates to up the protein count without letting us know what’s going on - and I would have never thought that they were knowingly adding melamine - it’s is one long horror story.
But after my cat was poisoned by a neighbor several years ago, and one reason I don’t get another cat least it tresspass in his yard and meet the same fate, I do know people can be very mean spirited when motivated properly.
And someone out there might just want to draw attention to the pet food scandal when it was cooling down and not wanting to hurt the pets may have spiked a few cans - and that’s a big maybe - but in the realm of possibilities - just one of the many.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
By all means, let’s end the debate on the basis of an opinion piece published by the ASPCA. Wouldn’t anyone who claimes the title of journalist at least make a pretense of doing a little bit of research on the topic first?
First off, the samples I sent to UCD turned out not to be the lot and style ExperTox found to be positive for acetaminophen. As I’m paying for these tests out of my own pocket, there is an obvious incentive to manage the costs of lab work. The first tests I ordered from ExperTox were conducted on a mixture of the two styles of Pet Pride I had been feeding my cat before she died. That combination tested positive for cyanuric acid and acetaminophen. I then ordered follow up tests on the two styles to determine quantities present and to find out if one or both were contaminated. While waiting for the results of those tests, I sent three unopened cans of the style I most strongly suspected to UCD. At $200 a pop, I thought that made sense.
The ExperTox results showed that style to be positive for cyanuric acid and the other to be positive for acetaminophen.
To be fair, both labs are using a budget methodology in testing the food directly, rather than using the more sophisticated technique of first extracting the target substances with solvents to remove them from the food. As both acetaminophen and cyanuric acid are nearly insoluable in water, the method used by both labs increases the likelihood of false negatives because the substances in question are not evenly distributed throughout the food. In other words, a positive result is reliable, where negative and quantative results are not. To make matters worse, acetaminophen in and of itself is not toxic. Acetaminophen is converted to a toxic metabolite, NAPQI, when it comes in contact with catalysts in animal protein. You know? Animal proteins such as those contained in pet food.
So, on top of everything else, there is no research available on what happens to acetaminophen when it is mixed with food, because acetaminophen is not supposed to be mixed with food in the first place.
The bottom line is that to date, not a single person or organization attempting to rebut the ExperTox findings has tested the samples ExperTox found to be acetaminophen positive.
I would also add that one of those who allowed me to post their lab results on my site claims a pathology analysis done by their vet showed their cat was poisoned with acetaminophen. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but I happen to find that particular chain of evidence to be convincing.
I would also add that UCD is in the pockets of Hill’s pet food company to the tune of half a million dollars, and the department of homeland security to the tune of $14 million. I don’t know whose pocket the ASPCA is in, but they are certainly devoting a lot of energy to discredit scientific research conducted by others, without doing any scientific research of their own.
If any responsible person is going to question anything in this matter, it should be why a serious, credible and transparent investigation of the ExperTox findings has yet to be conducted, nearly a month after the findings became public, and why so much effort is being expended to avoid such an investigation.
Comment by Don Earl — June 27, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Linda, no unfortunately, Im not joking. I didnt stop to think about someone tampering with pet food as far as testing goes. Im still trying to process contaminated wheat gluten. Perhaps our cat dying set my brain cells back a few centuries as far as logic processing goes….(-:
Comment by Sandi K — June 27, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
So, Gina, if acetaminophen did not pass your “sniff test as a journalist”, do you also dismiss the cyanuric acid findings that accompanied the acetaminophen?
Comment by Leigh Ann — June 27, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Oh, sorry SandiK - didn’t mean to take what you said out of context - and maybe it’s far reaching for me to think that someone has compromised the cans - and I don’t believe the owner of the cats did - but I wondered if something else could have happened to the food.
This is all so horrible that my brain too has taken a vacation and I just don’t trust any of it anymore - and I’m glad right now I own dogs because it is even more of a worry with cats.
I even bought some of the “bad” cat food and gave it to my son to feed this three cats - and he’s in his twenties - and I had to nag him to throw it away - and he thought I was over-reacting - I get that a lot.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
No apologies necessary Linda. I appreciate the info about some of the possibilities, helps me not be so gullible. We still have cases of poison food, not sure what to do with it, we are keeping it in case its needed for testing (maybe for aminopterin and acetaminophen or god only knows what else (-;) at some point down the road. Afterwards, I think I will see if the new pet cremation place in town can take it to totally burn the heck out of it.
Comment by Sandi K — June 27, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
SandiK - thanks for understanding. Like the idea of burning the heck out of the cases of poisoned food.
I’ve had lots of problems with my dogs over the last six months until I switched to homecooked and I didn’t think the pet food was poisoned - and thousands of dollars of vet bills later, but I felt uneasy about it and as soon as my dogs started have runny stools and one even leaked urine and had liver problems, I began homecooking - and it’s with dog food that has not been recalled and I’m assured by the company that all is fine - even my vet said that the food I was feeding was fine (how does he know? - but God bless him) and I threw the food out and now wish I hadn’t.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Well after reading Don’s post above - that gives pause doesn’t it. UCD did not do the right test? They did a sloppy test????
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Will ExperTox test additional cat pet food cans?
What lab does the ASPCA use to test these pet foods? Surely one would use the best test possibly wouldn’t one?
We do want the truth right - we do need the truth - lies and coverups aren’t helpful.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Comment by Don Earl — June 27, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Thanks for walking us through all the steps of the testing procedures you went through, including those who also posted their own lab test results on your website.
I hear Gina’s discomfort in her introduction to this thread. This weblog has indeed been in the crosshairs and she and Christie have no doubt been seriously criticized. Gina has expressed her own opinion here and fortunately has let Don and others of us express ours.
I’m in Don’s camp and appreciate his taking the time to tell us the intricacies of the testing procedures done on his samples. Most important, no one has tried to validate the testing done on the samples he submitted to Exper-tox. This lab knew they would be under close scrutiny; why wouldn’t they be extremely careful about their protocol and results?
And, as others have mentioned, we haven’t heard a peep about aminopterin — and that was tested by the state of the art NY State lab who gets some of their funding through homeland security. I posted a response from their director weeks ago who said that he believed that the original samples that tested positive degraded due to exposure to light. He said they had refined their testing protocol and were just beginning to test new samples. But who does that information go to? And why haven’t we heard anything?
Like many here, I believe two things: first, various toxins probably have or would show up using state of the art testing, but not the same toxins show up across the board; and second, the FDA is trying to put a lid on this and let “melamine” take the fall for this — melamine which they have determined to be harmless to people — especially as this fiasco has bled into animal feed and the human food supply.
The FDA is not credible. Period. Just take a look at the recent news about the FDA and aspartame: “U.S. FDA says unmoved by aspartame/cancer report and it’s potential link to cancer”
From Reuters 6/25/07:
“A U.S. consumer group called for an urgent Food and Drug Administration review of the safety of aspartame Monday, but the FDA said there was no immediate need to do so despite a new study showing the sweetener may cause cancer.”
“Italian researchers published a new study last week that showed aspartame – widely used in soft drinks – might cause leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats.(…)”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....rtame.html
And the beat goes on…
Comment by Maureen — June 27, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
RE: What lab does the ASPCA use to test these pet foods?
You didn’t pay attention to the article. No where does it state the ASPCA conducted any tests.
Comment by Don Earl — June 27, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Don makes a number of very relevant and specific salient points.
Here are some thoughts:
Who is doing the testing? What is there funding structure? I’m not saying that getting a million dollar grant from a pet food company would cause a lab to throw the results in favor of getting 600 bucks from a consumer, but maybe they should be up front about funding sources or recuse themselves. (FYI ASPCA lists IAMS as a major donor)
Who decides what tests are valid? This is really important. If you design a test that sets the low end to detect say 20 percent of a contaminant and the food has ONLY 15 percent of the contaminate, is that okay? It IS a standard after all. The question is, what is the level that sickens and kills? 5%? 10%? What if it varies by size?
Are the methods of the test consistent? This is BORING to the media. Nobody wants to talk about LG or SG or testing protocols. What’s the diff? Well I can see stuff on my HD TV that I can’t on my tiny portable. Does that mean that the information doesn’t exist? No, only that I can’t detect it with my tools.
What is specifically being testing?
This is also critical. Exact sample to sample, lot to lot should be compared.
Do the samples act like water where the contaminates are uniform through out, or are they like a poorly stirred stew? Am I testing the the scoop that has the poison potato? If I test the scoop that doesn’t have the poison potato in it, can I then say, “The whole stew is safe.”
ExperTox’s reputation is being questioned.
What we need is an outside third party group that is NOT beholden to the pet food industry OR the FDA to examine the sample and lab testing at ExperTox.
I’m actually actively looking for such a group. They could then say, “We evaluated both ExperTox and UCDavis (and FDA’s) methodology and found …”
Who could do that? Any suggestions?
Comment by spocko — June 27, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Spocko”s comment,
“Do the samples act like water where the contaminates are uniform through out, or are they like a poorly stirred stew? Am I testing the the scoop that has the poison potato? If I test the scoop that doesn’t have the poison potato in it, can I then say, “The whole stew is safe.”
If you are the FDA, even IF you tested the poisoned potato, you can claim the whole stew is safe due to the “dilution factor”
Comment by Elaine — June 27, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
This is off subject, but a good website.
http://www.tradereform.org/
Comment by Elaine — June 27, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Bill O’Reilly, the O’Reilly Factor - Fox Channel, is on right now talking about a dog situation - a freedom issue… not related to our pet food recall matter, but maybe we could get him to help us on the recall and spay/neuter matter clean-ups. If you this segment, it will be repeated several more times this evening…
Comment by Bee — June 27, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
I don’t know if any of you remember a post from several weeks ago either here or at Itchmo but I feel it answers a ton of questions, at least in my mind, how one lot of food can vary wildly. I can’t remember what she said exactly but I’ll give you the general idea.
A friend of hers worked at a food manufacturing facility & told her this. If they were running Hellmans mayo & say a generic right after it, this is how it would go. The first 25 or so jars of the second run would still be Hellmans, the next 25 or so would be half Hellmans & half generic & then eventually it would be all the generic mayo.
I have little doubt that pet food is run in the same way. This would definitely account for why some cans/bags are contaminated big time & others are not. It probably depends on when these cans/bags were packaged behind a product that was really contaminated.
I don’t care what anyone says, I believe that ExperTox was right in their findings. We still don’t know for sure what sickened & killed all these animals & I believe that melamine is a handy cop-out…..blame the Chinese for their contaminated glutens. Not that they didn’t put their fair share of chemicals into flour & call it gluten, which is certainly a horrible thing to do…..but what about the other contaminants that showed up without melamine? How do our friends, who are good at manipulating the truth, explain that one? Rather than trying to explain it, it’s better to try to make the lab look like they were wrong in their results.
That’s my take on the whole thing.
Comment by JanC — June 27, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Well, I do trust Don, and i’m not sure about the ASPCA. I have My own personal reason for this. And I would love to look at their books. How much money, where does it go? Etc, Etc.
And what does ExperTox think about all this?
Comment by Trudy Jackson — June 27, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
I would think for an organization that carries so much weight, as does the ASPCA, that conducting their own tests seems rather important.
So being in touch, close touch - and I don’t know what that means - catching a plane to UCDavis and reviewing the results in person and asking the important questions or just chatting with the department heads???? Well who knows what “Close Touch is” but in any event, so the ASPCA is relying solely on the UC Davis results, which there is no reason to question since they carry so much clout - but it seems to me that the ASPCA should at least be in touch with you Don and your lab and conduct more thorough test and then give their announcement.
Surely UCD would be aware of the difference in testing methods and so should the “Experts” at the ASPCA - what about the renal failure but no liver failure - that seems an important point doesn’t it?
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Just to prove the point…..a friend called me & said she had a bag of dry dog food that contained small nuggets but on the bottom of the bag were much larger nuggets, different shape & different color. She said it looked like a totally different dog food. I honestly can’t ever remember that happening to me but I bet it does happen. With canned food, you would probably never notice the difference.
Comment by JanC — June 27, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Just a layman’s opinion:
I thought the tests the ASPCA did was on a very small sampling of the product—5 or 10 bags and maybe from the same batch.
Don Earl went through so much trouble to test and pay for that test—more than most of us. That shows me the sincerity of his actions in wanting an objective finding of poison or no.
Don Earl, you have put a lot of energy into finding out the truth, and I give you my honest, deep sympathy for the great loss of your pet.
The Pet Food Industry so far is hiding under a huge blanket and will not apologize or acknowlege what they did to our pets. Another coupon arrived today after 4 yesterday—5 in 2 days. That is the approach the PFI plans to take. Sweep it all under the blanket and maybe we will forget. Don Earl and I will not forget, and so many of you will not, either.
Comment by Evelyn — June 27, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
“We immediately began conducting our own rigorous tests on these foods, which are in line with nationally-accepted guidelines for such testing. All the samples came back negative for this type of contamination.”
Nationally-accepted quidelines???? Well I hope this means that the tests they performed would find the acetaminophen of such quantities that would harm a cat….otherwise the tests are faulty and one might as well not test at all.
It’s difficult to believe that UCD and ASPCA, who both accept large donations from pet food companies, could be so easily “bought” as to render their opinions virtually useless - being tainted with blood money.
There simply must be some good dedicated people around who are not corrupt that would conduct good tests and on which we could rely and I would hope that UCD is one.
But the jury has announced it’s verdict and even cries of foul play will not change that.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
I will Never forget. and I think it was Hills Z/D that killed My cats. they haven’t even tested that one yet. and i have read more cats died eating that product. why don’t they dare to test it? They really don’t care.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — June 27, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
I think that Hills SD gave my Mercy Liver problems and she also began to profusely leak urine. My Snoopy had diarrhea (very very loose stools) and I was feeding him Innova green bag. Before that I was giving all IAMS Green Bag and everyone started drinking tons of water so I switched off and went to the SD. But my Snoopy has been on Innova for years and I switched him to homecooked - now all are homecooked.
So my take on this - it’s all bad - all of it - every last ounce.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
But proving it - now proving it is something else again. Maybe it’s a blessing I didn’t keep any of the bags otherwise I’d be driving myself crazy about now with tests that can’t be confirmed and listening to announcements that deny what I know to be true.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Someone mentioned here that they put lots of salt in the dog food so the animals will drink lots of water to keep their kidneys functioning because their food is so very foul…….wonder if there’s truth to that?
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Linda,
I would like to talk with you, please contact me direct at deedeebrock (at) gmail.com
Thanks!
Comment by Dee — June 27, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Linda,
I can’t say about salt in dog food at present, but they used to put a ton of salt in it. I’d say it would be to try and enhance the flavor of what little meat is actually in it.
The high amount of salt was enough to throw both of my dogs into heart failure. They were 4 years apart in age. The first one died within hours after I got home from work, saw something was wrong, and rushed her to the vet. I was left scratching my head, as to why, without any sign of trouble, she would suddenly go into severe heart failure.
The second one was a different story. I was home when she started acting “not quite right”. I rushed her to the vet and her sodium levels were so high they were off the chart. The vet told me commercial dog food had way too much sodium in it, and wasn’t good for dogs. He had a prescription cardiac dog food that was low sodium and also told me that it must taste awfully bad as dogs didn’t like it, and wouldn’t eat it unless they were starving. That she’d be far better off if I home cooked for her. (Hear that Dr. Sundlof?) He handed me a photocopy of a recipe (rice, ground chicken, etc.), and that was the end of her eating dog food. She had a fair amount of damage to her heart and was on meds until the end of her days, though she had another 3 years of quality life on the home cooked.
Comment by Aunt Granny — June 27, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Oh Aunt Granny - what a frightful story. I’m so sorry for your loss - salt was the culprit! It figures uh?
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Yes it does, so it’s not just what we’ve recently come to think of as poison. There are other things in commercial dog food that will kill them too!
Comment by Aunt Granny — June 27, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Sad - and I think that’s why our pets get so much cancer. Just a guess on my part - that and all the vaccines.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Trudy at 6:41
Menu didn’t care - and they weren’t going public - dead pets be dammmmed - and wasn’t it IAMS that forced their hand. Can’t remember exactly but I think it was. Sad if Menu didn’t announce then they would.
Some care. Not sure to what extent but I think some do care.
Comment by Linda — June 27, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
I know mine loved the home cooked, and it was so easy, it was no big deal! I’d uaually make a double batch, put 3 days worth in containers and freeze it. I don’t think I’d ever trust the PFI to make anything that was actually good for a dog. I know home cooking for cats is more difficult though…
Comment by Aunt Granny — June 27, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
From Brandi: “One of my boys was just diagnosed with struvite crystals in his urine. Luckily the vet’s first suggestion was to try to break up the crystals without changing his diet. After a followup urine analysis this Friday, she may be suggesting a Hills Science Diet prescription food for him. Sorry, but there better be another alternative. I hate the thought of feeding that stuff to my boy.”
I’m not up on the Hills diets these days (Rx or otherwise) but quite some time ago, one of my boy kitties was put on a special diet for UTIs (he didn’t have any crystals in his urine but had reduced flow that seemed to clear up with antibiotics). Unfortunately, the diet was specific to reduce the development of oxalate stones/crystals, which at least at that point (about 5 years ago) were far more common than styruvate crystals/stones. Well, that diet *worsened* the growth of styruvate crystals/stones, and my cat ended up developing a relatively large styruvate bladder stone that had to be surgically removed. He was fine afterward but the whole experience got me very upset (needless to say!).
So, if diet is the way you need to go, make sure it’s for styruvate crystals/stones, which I’m sure you already know but I just wanted to post that extra cautionary note. Others probably have some good suggestions, and I used to get some food here: http://www.rxpetfood.com/ Maybe there’s another brand you could try.
Take care :-)
Comment by Sandy — June 27, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
“Absence of evidence” versus “evidence that demands a verdict”
Beginning in January both of my dogs got sick.
Symptoms – gastric upset, refusal to eat dog food, vomiting, increased water intake, eating grass like crazy after meals, female developed severe incontinence suddenly. Gastric episodes were sporadic; once or twice a week for 3 months.
Purchased two large bags of dog food in early May. After a few meals from the bag, we discovered black chunks of “something” in the kibble. It was very hard and actually embedded.
I had these chunks tested at Expertox and the results were acetaminophen and cyanuric acid. Unlike the canned samples mentioned earlier, the lab actually took the chunks from the kibble and tested the chunks separately.
When I received the analysis results from the lab, I immediately stopped feeding any product from this manufacturer. I started home cooking for both dogs.
Evidence that demands a verdict – the gastric distress disappeared. The incontinence was totally gone within 2 days and has not returned. Home cooked meals are never refused and eaten down to the last crumb.
“Sniff Test” versus “dollars from my own wallet”
I paid a laboratory to test the black chunks of foreign material in the dog food.
The analyses yielded acetaminophen and cyanuric acid.
I have no idea what is in my dog food, but I can assure you that while my dogs ate this food (a brand not on the current recall list) they were sick and when they stopped eating it they were no longer sick. That’s the evidence; make your own conclusions, but I will state that I am tired of the haughty innuendo made by some about their judgment regarding my analysis.
It’s disturbing that people involved with research (whether scientists, pet food industry, FDA, ASPCA or journalists) are not more compelled to find out what is actually making our pets sick. It seems we are only concerned with manipulating information in frivolous packaging to distort the truth and negate public concerns.
Comment by Dee — June 27, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
I stand on Don’s side in this debate. Reason: I trust what he has said. He makes valid points. FDA should be testing his samples in several labs. Have we seen the paper report of test results from U Calif Davis. I’m not sold on the pet food being squeaky clean. I understand that Pet Connection is being extremely careful and trying to walk the line. I would be interested in Gina and Christie’s take on cyanuric acid being in the food - do they still believe it was there? and if so, isn’t it possible that a whole load of other contaminants are there too??
Aunt Granny and Linda:
It’s interesting about the salt. When my vet first saw my sick dog who was drinking copious amounts of water on unrecalled food - her first thought was excess salt in the food.
But, than the kidney function tests became abnormal.
Katie
Comment by Katie — June 27, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
My little brain came to this conclusion:
The PFI must have figured out it was cheaper to give these wonderful coupons to people instead of owning up to killing and sickening our pets.
It is much cheaper to give coupons. Paying out claims for vet bills, reimbursing owners for losses, and (the biggest expense) getting involved with all those lawyers on both sides of the case would cost so much more and hurt them on the stock market. We must not forget their thinking of their “bottom line”.
Comment by Evelyn — June 27, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
So Dee and Don came up with the acetaminophen and cyanuric acid -
Well so much for UC Davis lab results - or maybe the batch numbers didn’t match or something - but whatever it is, I think the message is clear - we can’t feed our pets purchased pet food that buy from these contaminated sources nor can we believe their hype or what they tell us on the phone.
I trusted UC Davis - only heard the best about their work. I don’t know what to believe anymore. The truth must be out there!
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 8:59 am
Linda:
I believe the truth is out there but the public will never hear it. We’re being lied to & manipulated, all in the best interest of big business & their best buddies in our gov’t. You know, the ones paid with our tax dollars to protect US.
I will never believe anything from the forked tongues of the FDA, USDA, PFI, the big PF companies or these labs, especially those who depend on money from the PF companies. I hate to even think that they’d be dishonest about results but sometimes you really have to wonder.
I think it’s up to us to protect our pets & also our very own bodies…..nobody is helping us to find out what caused the sickness & death of all these pets & we certainly can’t rely on them to be honest about the contaminants in our own food. It’s all pretty scary.
Comment by JanC — June 28, 2007 @ 10:29 am
And Don Earl, if Im not mistaken, you and Epertox also offered FDA to test the food if it was done at Epertox lab under supervision (understandably not wanting any of it to be taken off their premises) and so far they have not responded.
Comment by Sandi K — June 28, 2007 @ 10:36 am
You are so right JanC. And maybe this is much worse than we ever thought.
I just trusted UCDavis. But if other pet owners are discovering the acetaminophen and cyanuric acid - then it is not product tampering and not something isolated and it points to a much worse scenerio. I will never trust any of them again. They all lie!
And what in the world are they adding and where is it from that now has infected most major brands of ped food?
My Mercy with her incontinence was on Dry Lamb and Rice Science Diet - and her liver panal was off and too high so much so that the vet did many blood tests and an ultrasound and a bile acid test - and still couldn’t figure out why it was happening and he told me no it wasn’t the food. Right! I started homecooking her right away.
My Snoopy was on Innova green bag - and with a new bag in March his stools became like water and nothing I did could make them even semi-solid. I switched him to homecooked and he immediately improved.
Finally, I just had to only homecook and that’s where it stands today. It is something that all or most of the pet food companies are doing that is causing these problems aside from the melamine in the glutens and protein concentrate - there’s something else too!
And this realization comes right when I think it may be safe to use some store bought dry again. Well, that’s a joke uh?
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 10:40 am
P.S. I also called SD and called Innova and they assured me that they were addning nothing to their foods that would cause such a problem - and so did IAMS.
But they thing is, maybe it’s a vitamin or something else and so much of it is tainted, like the toothpaste - so inside the vitamin is not healthy ingredients but rat poison and other nonesense. What are we to do? Are they puposively lying to us - thinking we won’t find out - trying to not go down the tubes like MENU?????
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Did you see on another thread that the Canadian Food inspection agency found cyanuric acid in amino acid? That is put in many foods, both pet and human.
I think Bill posted the CFIA website with that info, and someone else caught the AMINO acid contamination.
Comment by Elaine — June 28, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Oh……Elaine - that’s terrible.
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 11:09 am
The thing that is the most scary is reading that a lot of vitamins/minerals that go into pet food (& probably our own) are only made in China. That means that our vitamin tabs could possibly have Lord knows what in them & the same goes for pet food.
I’m checking labels no matter where I go & I am just amazed at how much comes from China, Mexico & Canada. It always says “distributed in the USA” but to that I say BFD…..distributed after it’s been contaminated with crap from other countries.
Don’t know what the answer is…..we all have to eat & so do our pets. I’m using people food to home cook for my dog but now I don’t even know if that’s safe for me OR my dog.
Comment by JanC — June 28, 2007 @ 11:13 am
The link Bill posted doesn’t work now! Darn, couldn’t find the amino acid from the maze of links.
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 11:15 am
JanC - I wish I knew the answer - I buy a lot of digestive enzymes for my dogs and especially to help my dog that is going through Chemo.
The trouble is that our food is so “Global” now we don’t know where anything is coming from - not really.
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/2zrv8c
Latest Information (as of June 19, 2007)
Melamine and Cyanuric Acid Contamination in Animal Feed
Several animal feed products have recently been detained after testing positive for melamine and/or cyanuric acid contamination.
In mid-May, one shipment of corn gluten imported from China tested positive for melamine and cyanuric acid contamination. The contaminated corn gluten was stopped at the Canadian border and did not enter Canada’s food or feed system.
On May 30, the CFIA determined that imported livestock feed additives produced in the United States were contaminated with melamine and cyanuric acid. The products have been recalled by the manufacturer and the Canadian distributor.
On June 5, an amino acid product imported from China and destined for use in animal feed tested positive for cyanuric acid. The CFIA has detained the product and an investigation is underway. The importer is voluntarily recalling all of the affected product.
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Has our FDA picked up on this? I doubt it!
I order vitamins, food supplements from a company as a distributor. When I called to order more, I asked if any of the ingredients came from China, and the answer was “Yes”
Needless to say, I said I want to know all the products with China ingredients, and she will find out and get back to me.
She did tell me they tested every batch, but that does NOT reassure me!
The human rights violations and the terrible instances of animal cruelty should be enough to prevent ANY reputable company from importing from China.
Comment by Elaine — June 28, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Comment by Sandy — June 27, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Thank you for the heads up on diets for struvite crystals and oxalate crystals. Luckily I had been told by another person whose cat has struvite crystals that the diets for oxalate crystals and struvite crystals are totally different.
There aren’t very many brands of cat food I trust anymore, and SD certainly isn’t one of them. Luckily I know my vet understands my concerns.
Comment by Brandi — June 28, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Our noon news just announced the FDA has put a hold on farm raised fish from China! I thought that was old news? And they are just now becoming concerned?
Oh, I forgot! We have the “dilution factor”!
Comment by Elaine — June 28, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Linda- My neighbors dog was eating sd dry lamb & rice & was also having incontinence, diarhea,refusing to eat & lethargy. Her cat kept trying to cover the dog food. Now she gets mostly homecooked w/a little Cal Natural lamb & rice kibble. Health problems are gone & she is eating again.When she gets back from vacation we are sending it along w/3 others for testing. Now the 1st thing we do with any food or treat is put it on the floor to see what her cat does with it.
As for the labs; Expertox & the NY lab checked their test protocals to make sure they would catch small amounts of contaminants.The U of Gueph lab also found aminopterin. I don’t know if they do testing for pet owners. I know the NY lab doesn’t. Seems to me that just leaves Expertox for those of us privately testing.I can’t think of any reason to suspect them of tampering with results. After all it only leaves them open to bad publicity & lost business.
Comment by Leslie k — June 28, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
During targeted sampling from October 2006 through May 2007, FDA repeatedly found that farm-raised seafood imported from China were contaminated with antimicrobial agents that are not approved for this use in the United States
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/.....01660.html
They found this out during sampling in OCTOBER, and are just now acting to protect US from this poison?
Comment by Elaine — June 28, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
I continue to read posts where people mention their pets having problems while eating foods NOT on the recall list. When my dogs started having problems in January (refusal to eat, vomiting, eating grass, increased water intake, incontinence with the female) I called the pet company about 7 times asking about changes in formula, ingredient levels, even supplier changes. I was told absolutely no changes. Then why did they get sick?
In a recent conversation with a pet food company executive I was told he knew of no other problems like mine; none had been reported to their company. However, I continue to read posts from others who are experiencing similar issues.
I believe a lot of the non-critical illnesses and symptoms are being overlooked. A journalist’s judgment doesn’t concern me nearly as much as my dogs being sick and someone taking responsibility to get answers.
Comment by Donna — June 28, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Here’s more on the new ban on seafood from China, this from the Washington Post online. Note that Dr. Acheson doesn’t fall back on the “dilution” theory here:
FDA Bans Select Chinese Seafood Imports
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 28, 2007; 3:24 PM
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned the import of five species of fish and shrimp from China because they have been found to contain unsafe additives and drugs, some of which can cause cancer, the agency said today.
The banned species include catfish, shrimp, eel, basa — a kind of catfish — and the carp-like dace. The FDA is not ordering the seafood out of restaurants or to be pulled from supermarket shelves, but said all incoming products would be banned immediately. The chemicals found in the food “could cause health problems if consumed over a long period of time,” said David Acheson, the FDA’s assistant commissioner for food protection.
—-more—-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....amp;sub=AR
Comment by Maureen — June 28, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
sorry but it is difficult to keep abreast of all the posts - and I no longer think it could have been a case of product tampering.
LeslieK - oh, your neighbor too with the SD - it’s a wonder our pets didn’t die also - just by the grace of God I suppose.
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Quote from article Maureen posted “The FDA is not ordering the seafood out of restaurants or to be pulled from supermarket shelves, but said all incoming products would be banned immediately. The chemicals found in the food “could cause health problems if consumed over a long period of time,” said David Acheson, the FDA’s assistant commissioner for food protection.”
I am wondering——how long a period of time would one have to consume this seafood in order to have health problems, Mr Acheson?
It appears you have sat on this knowledge of seafood contamination since October of 2006, just now detaining the seafood, and we have been CONSUMING this contaminated seafood for 8 LONG MONTHS! Is that long enough for a cancer to start in our bodies, or our liver and kidney’s to become compromised?!
Comment by Elaine — June 28, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Re: salt/water drinking and foods
(I’m just catching up here with something from further up the thread.) Would like to share an experience I had:
In December 2005 I began feeding my cats a particular brand of dry food that I had not used before, since nutritionally it looked better than the brand I had been using for years, and the cats seemed to like it better.
Within days I noticed that all four of my cats were drinking lots more water. I did not think this was a good thing. (I know even more now!) I went looking for a different dry food. I talked with the manager of a local small pet supply store, a person I trust as knowledgeable based on my past experience with her. She said she thought maybe that brand had more salt, although there was no real way to tell from the labels (we both looked).
I began mixing half and half with this new brand and my old brand, wanting to get the better nutrition but not so much salt. The cats’ drinking went back to normal.
About one year later in December 2006, one of the cats had a routine physical. The cat was found to have one struvite crystal in her urine sample. The vet’s recommendation was to try to get the cat to drink more water; if crystals got worse, she would need to be put on a prescription food. I happened to mention my experience of the year before with the new food and the increased water drinking and how I wasn’t comfortable with what the food did. The vet looked at me oddly and said, “But that is how the prescription foods work—they have more salt to get the cat to drink more water.” I think she was suggesting that I go back to the saltier food!
Now, what this vet did not know is that I am very knowledgeable about kidney problems, based on personal experience. I know that people with any kind of kidney issues—stones, impaired function, whatever—should avoid excessive salt. I can’t believe that cats would be that much different.
My point is that if my cat had had more than one crystal, this well-meaning vet would have recommended a prescription food that was probably just the opposite of what my cat needed! And the pet food company markets it, convinces the vets that this is what is needed, when anyone who reads a little knows that the extra salt will cause more harm than good. As has been said many times before, most vets are ill-informed about nutrition, and the pet food companies are only out to make money.
I hate to think that the pet food companies would knowingly harm our pets so that they can then make more money on expensive prescription foods, but I am getting awfully cynical these days…
By the way, when the canned food of this brand was recalled, I dropped the dry too like a hot potato and went to a small holistic brand. My cats seem much more energetic, coats are better, skin less dry. Hmmm.
Comment by Debra — June 28, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Salt in Pet Food….many dogs and cats live their lives in a dehydrated state. Many get crystals and have urinary problems because they do not drink enough water to process the dry (kibble) product. Every animal on earth and in a zoo eats wet/moist foods. Why have pet owners been convinced it is natural for dogs and cats to eat dry products….with salt?? and called “Balanced & Complete”, healthy etc.
Comment by Dave — June 28, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Dave,
I don’t think pet parents knowingly want to feed their pets food with salt. I fed dry kibble, soaked and made sure my dogs always drank water throughout the day and night. I believe the vets pushed dry food and breeders. It was easier, cleaner and healthier. Yes, I remember when canned dog food was said to be unhealthy and the lowest of low on the food scale. We were told dry was so much better and more healthy.
When my dog started drinking copious amounts of water - the vet thought an excess mineral (salt or salt like) had contaminated the food. Than the recalls came -
If you ask a general population of pet owners (not the bloggers who are very knowledgeable)about salt and/or sugar in pet foods - they would probably have no idea. You sure don’t hear the PFI adv. salt and sugars in the food.
Katie
Comment by Katie — June 28, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Dr. Robert H. Poppenga,
Maybe you should take a look at this before you make the statement that acetaminophen only causes liver damage.
Over-the-counter and prescription medications can contribute to CRF. Several drugs cause damage to the kidneys, including ibuprofen(Motrin,, Nuprin, Advil), acetaminophen (Tylenol), indomethacin (Indocin), and the antibiotics Gentamycin (Ed-Mycin, G-Myticin, Garamycin, Gentamar) and sulpha drugs, which are typically used to treat infections. If taken regularly over long periods, these medications act like poisons to the kidneys.
http://www.pdrhealth.com/patie.....NP02.shtml
I am not aware that UC Davis has found anything wrong with ANY pet food period! I personally would like to see if they could find anything in a spiked sample????
More BS and cover up as far as I’m concerned!
Comment by chris — June 28, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
I thought that UCD did find something wrong - I just can’t remember what it was now - they found the melamine didn’t they in some unrecalled food???
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Re: dry food and dehydration
Yes, the vets used to tell us that dry food was better for our animals. The vet philosophy has changed, but some cats don’t agree!
Comment by Debra — June 29, 2007 @ 7:35 am
One of the many reasons dry kibble is hard on cats’ kidneys is they need to drink so much water to digest the dry food. But felines evolved in a semi-arid part of world. Cats don’t have to drink much additional water when eating prey; they get most of fluid needed from eating juicy prey (typically rodents). Drinking lots of extra liquid made necessary by ingesting dry food is hard on their kidneys. Cats’ kidneys aren’t “designed” to process lots of liquid.
Comment by CherCat — June 29, 2007 @ 8:10 am
I thought that UCD did find something wrong – I just can’t remember what it was now – they found the melamine didn’t they in some unrecalled food???
Comment by Linda — June 28, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Linda, its my understanding that UC Davis was the lab that tested Nutro food at the request of the vet and pet owner in California. This wet canned food had not been recalled, Nutro kept saying that food was fine and then her cat fell ill. The vet sent the food to UC Davis and they found melamine in it. One day later, I think on 4-10, the food was recalled, almost a month after the first recalls of 3-16.
Comment by Sandi K — June 29, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
If this has already been put up, i’m sorry. But if not, check this out-
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu......fm/id=1357
Comment by Trudy Jackson — June 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Well, it was about all the money Hills is giving to UC Davis. So, you do have to wonder?
Comment by Trudy Jackson — June 29, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
from Trudy:If this has already been put up, i’m sorry. But if not, check this out-
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu&.....fm/id=1357
Trudy, I get a “website can’t be found” message when I click on this. Could you copy and paste?
Comment by Maureen — June 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Well, now why would Hills give such a large grant to U.C.Davis????
My Mercy started leaking urine and with high liver enzymes until I was told she had liver disease - she’s three years old and was otherwise healthy - I was feeding her Hills SD Lamb and Rice…..go figure.
Comment by Linda — June 29, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Maureen, I don’t know how but write to Me and i’ll send you the article. then maybe you can put it up? Thanks,
magesticats@net-change.com
Comment by Trudy Jackson — June 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
I noticed the dry Lamb & Rice dog food comes up as causing poisoning sypmtoms across the spectrum of dog food companies. I was feeding a dry Lamb & Rice kibble as well - Nature’s Recipe - symptoms hit w/new bag in January, just like Dee, Donna and Linda experienced. My girl actually seemed to become afraid of her food. The bouts of pain, blood in stools, refusal to eat or drink, bowel incontenence were awful to suffer through. I don’t want to ever go through a January and February like that again. I’m feeding homemade with Orijen kibble.
Comment by Kristi — June 29, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
All of us blogs regulars and comment writers and readers agree FDA has been less than honest and open over the entire history of this event. On numerous times FDA has declined to identify companies and/or suppliers. We all remember during one of the phone tele-conferences when Christie Keith asked about a particular recall which was just then breaking during the conference. They talked about it after she asked, in the Q & A phase, but not up front, and they HAD to have known beforehand because companies are required by law to inform FDA when they’re doing a recall. That’s just one instance.
The media largely feel the investigative phase of the story is over.
There is ONE place where this is still ‘not over’ — its Congress. The SECOND “Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA Protect the Food Supply” hearing of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is scheduled to come up soon. Some in Congress are already as disgusted with FDA officials as we are: Remember Dingell and Stupak had to threaten subpoenas to get info, DeLauro threatened to zero out FDA top dogs salaries, Durbin and Cantwell wrote a letter and tried to embarrass FDA by sharing with the media, asking FDA to identify the unnamed second importer of RPC. If there’s one thing Sens and Reps don’t take well it’s Fedl agency people dis-ing their authority. This is where we all have to go with this folks, BEFORE the second hearing takes place, we need to demand of the House subcom that they take a more complete look at the FDA’s dragging their feet and lack of openness throughout all this. The media feels this is over, the House is still open for business.
I’m asking everyone here to join me and write House Committee Chair Rep John Dingell, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and demand that they conduct a more in depth review of FDA actions in this. Rep Rosa DeLauro also because she’s already on record with discontent. And also you own Rep if he or she is on either Dingell’s committee or Stupak’s subcom, Dem or Repub doesn’t matter. The more of them we can enlist the better. Point out for them correctly every instance where FDA has withheld info…. go back through the ‘live-blogs’ and transcripts. Remind them that Dingell and Stupak had to make theats to get questions answered. (I have concerns about Corn-Gluten and Cyanuric Acid still, and I notice one common ingredient among the foods that have tested positive for C/A is C-G, and I believe FDA may woke up to this too late, so now just doesn’t want to persue it any further).
Mail you concerns to all of the above. It’s not over in the House. This hearing is supposed to take place soon, and regular mail with security concerns may not make it in time, so its better in addition to regular mail to FAX it also. Thanks all, mike
Comment by 'reader Mike' — June 30, 2007 @ 9:56 am
This is an important story, I think everyone will agree. Many who read and post here have paid a heavy price along with their beloved cats and dogs. This article signals the beginning of small positive changes, at least in the marketplace. From Sunday’s New York Times (free registration):
Companies in U.S. Increase Testing of Chinese Goods
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: July 1, 2007
General Mills, Kellogg, Toys “R” Us and other big American companies are increasing their scrutiny of thousands of everyday products they receive from Chinese suppliers, as widening recalls of items like toys and toothpaste force them to focus on potential hazards that were overlooked in the past.
These corporations are stepping up their analysis of imported goods that they sell, making more unannounced visits to Chinese factories for inspections and, in one case, pulling merchandise from American shelves at the first hint of a problem.
General Mills, which makes food products like Pillsbury dough and Chex cereals, is testing for potential contaminants that it did not look for previously, although it would not name the substances. Kellogg has increased its use of outside services that scrutinize Chinese suppliers and has identified alternative suppliers if vital ingredients become unavailable.(…)
“We’re thinking in new ways about this,” said Tom Forsythe, a spokesman for General Mills. “We’re looking for things we didn’t look for in the past.”
A Kellogg spokeswoman, Kris Charles, confirmed that retailers had asked whether the company used ingredients from China that were banned by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, including wheat gluten and soy protein.
The company had not, Ms. Charles said, but Kellogg took the extra step of scrutinizing the ingredients that it does import from China, like vitamins, honey, cinnamon, water chestnuts and freeze-dried strawberries. It also screened its Chinese suppliers for links to the recent pet food recall.(…)
Fusing fear of China’s growing economic power with worries about food safety, politicians like Mr. Brown and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, have made it clear that food safety is an issue that resonates with voters.
“We’re saying to business, ‘You better protect yourself because right now neither the Chinese government nor the American government is doing a very good job of protecting you,’ ” Mr. Schumer said.(…)
—more—
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07.....ts.html?hp
Comment by Maureen — June 30, 2007 @ 3:27 pm