http://itchmoforums.com/your-p.....1#msg86851

But what little I know about this is the same old story of knowing more than they release. It’s not just the Friday pm thing - the investigation has been going on for weeks.

And their press release was worthless. Did they test the bags eaten by the cats of the 2 victims? How can you leave that out of the story?

The Atlanta thing is interesting but it might be something else. For one thing, it’s not manufactured at the same plant. They could have two totally separate problems.

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/17184047/index.html

Also, are there “allowable tolerance levels” of salmonella in pet foods like there are in certain human foods? If so, I wonder what the levels are and what - if anything - we know about how safe or unsafe those levels are to pets or to the people handling the pet food.

As I recall, there was a lot of stock dumped by insiders prior to the last round of pet food recalls.

Absolutely!!! Shouldn’t be this hard to achieve.

Comment by Kelly Quinn — September 13, 2008 @ 8:52 am

We try not to tell readers where to go with the debate.

But let me make this point, AGAIN:

Throughout the pet-food recall, we asserted again and again that this wasn’t about home-prepared vs. commercial. We resisted calls from raw feeders to make that part of what we wrote about.

We have asserted all along that the VERY MINIMUM people should be able to expect from a food — sold for people or for pets, doesn’t matter, no matter where it’s sold or the price it’s sold for — is that IT SHOULD NOT CAUSE ILLNESS OR DEATH.

That’s the bottom line here. The safety of the food-supply system, not the home prepared vs. commercial debate.

Furthermore, why not announce if they’ve tested any of the recalled bags? It’s not rocket science.

I do know if 2 unrelated humans get salmonella and they investigated enough to figure out that both fed their pets Mars foods, this has been ongoing for weeks. So don’t give me that crap that this was “precautionary”.

The only good news for pet lovers in all this is that salmonella can pose serious threats to certain young, old, immune compromised animals, but otherwise healthy adults generally shake it off.

The bad news for these corporate sh*theads is that this time there’s a huge risk for human tansmission. They don’t care if pets die, because there’s not much money to be made in liability. But humans?

I would encourage everyone to NOT return what you have right away. You can always do it in a couple weeks. But I want to see how this shakes out before I return my only proof that I had some of this stuff.

Also, sorry to sound crabby, but the raw feeding debate doesn’t belong here.

On the raw feeding…invectives flung at clients on the raw deal usually come from a good place…too bad it’s largely a misinformed one. I consider it a great teaching opportunity—not a reason to client bash.

Comment by Lis — September 13, 2008 @ 4:43 am

Oh ha! You got that right!

Gina