Thanks!

Comment by David — May 12, 2009 @ 6:53 am

Thanks for that info David, however I guess my question still stands. Are clerks in pet food specialty stores and vet clinics going to be better able to safely and correctly dole these treats out? To be honest, in alot of cases I have found Im more educated on pet food than many of the people I come in contact in both vet clinics and pet food specialty stores, Im just being honest not bragging. Im know even I have alot still left to learn even to this day. I guess I have to say, if the treats require such close monitoring and scrutinizing, perhaps they should be under prescription order thru vets only? There are many dental products that vets give RX’s for including chlorohexidine, so perhaps these treats should be treated the same? Just saying…..

The Senate Public Safety Committee passed SB 135 (Dean Florez, D-Shafter) out of committee on a party line vote. This bill would ban the practice of docking the tails of cattle. The Humane Society of the United States is the sponsor of the bill. Farm Bureau has not taken a position on SB 135, but is working to obtain amendments that would allow cattle owners to dock tails in emergency situations. Despite Chairman Leno’s agreement with the proposed amendments, Senator Florez was unwilling to accept them.
http://www.klamathbasincrisis......050109.htm

So the Farm Bureau does NOT oppose a ban on routine cattle tail docking, but would like to see SB 135 amended to cover emergency situations. As written, SB 135 requires that the emergency docking be done by a licensed veterinarian. That is often not realistic in farm country. Farmers who are in remote areas often have to provide care to their animals themselves.

Apparently NO organization outright opposes SB 135, according to the Bill Analysis (scroll to the bottom)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/....._comm.html

Since there doesn’t appear to be any organized opposition, the basic concept in SB 135 is not worth arguing over.

In 60 years, the environmental devastation of intensive farming has been horrific, and the quality of food has gone down along with the quality of the American diet while obesity rates have gone up with health care costs.

This has got to change. It’s not all about the farmerwhat corporate agribiz wants. Farmfood policy affects us all, and we all need to have a say.

Besides … if what you’re referring to is docking dairy cattle tails, there’s NO scientific support for it. Ask UC Davis.

But I do agree we’d all be better off growing as much of our own food as possible, better to wean ourselves of the teat of corporate agribiz.

Now go troll your anonymous self somewhere else.

In the spirit of full disclosure I am a marketing consultant to The Greenies Company. I appreciate the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding about the company’s move to market Greenies at veterinary clinics and pet specialty stores.

It is in no way related to safety issues. The product was reformulated in 2006 to be highly soluble and digestible, confirmed by independent studies conducted by Dr. George Fahey at the Univ of Illinois.
There have been no reports of blockages or obstructions since that time.

Greenies are a functional treat with a clinically proven health benefit to the pet. The company made this move in recognition that
— Its products are not pacifiers like most other treats sold at grocery stores and mass merchandisers
— Each size of canine Greenies is specifically designed with a texture to accomodate the chewing ability in that weight range, and to deliver the maximum dental benefit. It’s truly a situation of “one size does NOT fit all,” as is the case with many treats.

Thanks!

So we’ve made progress, since by putting SB 250 into Suspense the committee acknowledges that forced spay/neuter laws actually cost government money.

Now the trick is to make sure SB 250 stays in Suspense until it dies there after passing the May 29 deadline to get bills out of Approps. Dying in Suspense is the most politically convenient way for the majority party to kill a bill sponsored by one of their own. So keep up the pressure on the committee.

http://saveourdogs.net/2009/05.....ee-update/

It seems to me that there are plenty of PFC’s that are easily identifiable but appear to have an invisible shield when it comes to liability and responsibility. They did say in 2007, they reformulated the chews to make them more highly soluble so maybe its as simple as they should be liable for a product that could have been safer. I agree we, as pet owners, have responsibility to monitor what they eat and other dangers they can get into, but just the same, pet food companies should also be held responsible or pull it from the market especially if they have to go to such measures to “police” the sale of the product.

As one of those “pet professionals” I don’t think there is one right chew for all dogs in all situations. After pulling a rawhide out of a choking dog’s throat with a pair of BBQ tongs, I took rawhides, pig ears and greenies off the approved list for my dogs. Chicken wings, raw meaty bones and nylabones seem to keep them well enough occupied that we don’t need them.

On the chew side: Blue Chews is another alternative to Greenies and I also like the Brite Bites.