Comments on: USA Today: Sharp-eyed researchers noticed link between 2007 and 2004 pet deaths

By: Katie

Katie — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:07:17 +0000

I think Nature’s Variety issue is connected. After what happened in March, the pet food companies told us how they were going to do more testing of product and have better quality assurance programs in place through out the supply chain.

In this case customers called, finally the company acknowledged the problem. A facility change? from the low end of spec. to the high end? with QC they should have caught immeadiately.

Tom, while it maybe bad food for a dog prone to pancreatitis - very lose stool and vomit can dehydrate an animal. What if an animals immune system is not quite right and now the food is causing a problem too.
With the first few calls, why didn’t the manuf immeadiately alert it’s dealers to put a hold on those particular lots?

Re: 2004/2007
Thank you Gina,Chrisie and Carol(at Itchmo) for getting attention for this. How many lives could have been saved if the FDA and PFI were alert.. Hopefully some answers will come for those of us who have survivors.

Katie

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:33:56 +0000

It is very related … both point to continuing concerns over the problems with food manufacturing.

However … I made the Nature’s Variety information a separate post, to be as fair as possible.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:30:33 +0000

I’m not sure how the Nature’s Variety issue is connected. Yes, it deals with animal food. Yes, there are manufacturing issues. However, this is not an issue of adulterated ingredients, but of specifications. Anyone who’s ever done any baking at all knows that variations in ingredient ratios results in *very* different products. If you read the further information linked from the Nature’s Variety page, you’ll see that it was a problem with adding a manufacturing facility. The previous facility ran at the low end of spec, the new was at the high end. Animals won’t die from this. At the extreme outside, it *might* trigger a pancreatic reaction in an animal prone to that sort of thing, but if you have a dog like that, they shouldn’t be eating Instinct (high protein, high fat) in the first place.

So, that’s the long version of saying, “I don’t get it.” It’s like saying someone dying from eating a rat poison-spiked cookie is related to someone getting diarrhea from eating too many cookies. Sure, they both have to do with eating cookies, but…

By: slt

slt — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:21:52 +0000

I would posit that, had the FDA and/or Mars made public whatever info they had regarding the link between the massive pet deaths in Asia and the 2007 recall deaths in the US, some individual (or company or *whoever*) could have delved deeper into that link. It’s plausible to my mind that had this link been exposed in March 2007, the whole recall might have been taken more seriously by the pet owning community at large. I know if I would have heard at the outset something like “Hey, this has similarities to that food toxicity issue in 2004 where *thousands of dogs died* in Asia”, I would have been more aggressive in trying to spread the word far and wide to the best of my ability. MSM might have picked up on the story more, a cause/treatment protocol might have been established faster, etc. I can’t see how it could have caused any harm. I do see how withholding the link could have helped pet food sales though, which troubles me.

By: emily

emily — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:47:41 +0000

This does cause me to wonder, we know 100s of people have died from E coli O157:H7 over the years since is arose in 1990. Has anyone even counted pet deaths? They must exist? No one seems to demand the suppliers do more than inspect more—whereas other countries raise and process meat in a way that stops faeces getting in the meat and juice or stops E coli O157:H7 from being in the faeces.

Other than understanding what went wrong with melamine and preventing that specific event recurring, perhaps it could be applied to other adulterants that continue to kill here in the US?

By: Carol V

Carol V — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:47:12 +0000

It would be great now to learn something about the “long term effects” by the pets that survived the 2004 disaster. For those of us “lucky enough” to still have a survivor from 2007 poisonings, it would be a great help for our vets and to us.

By: emily

emily — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:37:01 +0000

I don’t think the FDA had ‘the info’. I don;t think the presence of melamine alone was enough to expect massive action because the level of risk it was understood to be wouldn;t even put it in the top 50 problems they have with adulterants. i.e. it was not believed capable of causing animal death.

By: slt

slt — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:35:00 +0000

“The melaine poisonging was an atrocity but it happened for the very reason that information si not shared and dots are not connected.”

But the information *could have* been shared and the dots *could have* been connected. At minimum, Mars and the FDA had the info. Did they handle this info responsibly?

By: emily

emily — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:28:39 +0000

My direct experience suggests you should believe the article. It might pay to be specific about what was shared and between whom. I doubt it was that both ingrediants were in the food and the combination was deadly.

Yes, some people did know all about melamine in isolation in pet and stock feeds, it was considered didhonest but not dangerous in the doses getting through. It was considered a problem but nit a high priority problem compared, for example, with the e coli in the American food chain—something other countries manage to keep at far, far lower levels—IMHO each country has hazards the don’t handle well in food they export. One of these days US e coli will kill children in a foreign nation and the shit (literally) will really hit the fan.

The melaine poisonging was an atrocity but it happened for the very reason that information si not shared and dots are not connected.

By: C.L.H.

C.L.H. — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:22:37 +0000

That end press release by Nature’s Variety really says it all. What’s in the bag this month is not necessarily what was in the bag the last time you bought it, nor does it have to be.